<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_166254</id>
	<title>Why Firefox's Future Lies In Google's Hands</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263921840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Firefox has just turned five, and it now accounts for 25\% of the global market, according to figures from Net Applications. Its success has forced rivals to raise their game, and the past two years have seen Microsoft, Apple, and Opera close the features gap significantly. Google is the default homepage when Firefox first opens, and the default search engine when users type something into the 'awesome bar.' The deal, which runs until 2011, was worth $66 million to Mozilla in 2007, accounting for 88\% of the foundation's revenues that year (the last year for which it had published accounts). But now that Google is a competitor as well as a partner, <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/354913/why-firefoxs-future-lies-in-googles-hands">is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google</a>?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Firefox has just turned five , and it now accounts for 25 \ % of the global market , according to figures from Net Applications .
Its success has forced rivals to raise their game , and the past two years have seen Microsoft , Apple , and Opera close the features gap significantly .
Google is the default homepage when Firefox first opens , and the default search engine when users type something into the 'awesome bar .
' The deal , which runs until 2011 , was worth $ 66 million to Mozilla in 2007 , accounting for 88 \ % of the foundation 's revenues that year ( the last year for which it had published accounts ) .
But now that Google is a competitor as well as a partner , is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Firefox has just turned five, and it now accounts for 25\% of the global market, according to figures from Net Applications.
Its success has forced rivals to raise their game, and the past two years have seen Microsoft, Apple, and Opera close the features gap significantly.
Google is the default homepage when Firefox first opens, and the default search engine when users type something into the 'awesome bar.
' The deal, which runs until 2011, was worth $66 million to Mozilla in 2007, accounting for 88\% of the foundation's revenues that year (the last year for which it had published accounts).
But now that Google is a competitor as well as a partner, is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342</id>
	<title>What ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263925920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera "closing" the feature gap? Except for the Firebug extension Opera was/is (way) ahead of FF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera " closing " the feature gap ?
Except for the Firebug extension Opera was/is ( way ) ahead of FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera "closing" the feature gap?
Except for the Firebug extension Opera was/is (way) ahead of FF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823702</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263891780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to lock down the color settings, here are the steps:</p><p>1) Before deploying, go to the configuration file.<br>2) Find a hot curling iron<br>3) Shove it up your ass</p><p>There's no fucking reason you need to lock down the color settings.</p></div><p>Well other might call it flamebait but I think its fucking hilarious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to lock down the color settings , here are the steps : 1 ) Before deploying , go to the configuration file.2 ) Find a hot curling iron3 ) Shove it up your assThere 's no fucking reason you need to lock down the color settings.Well other might call it flamebait but I think its fucking hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to lock down the color settings, here are the steps:1) Before deploying, go to the configuration file.2) Find a hot curling iron3) Shove it up your assThere's no fucking reason you need to lock down the color settings.Well other might call it flamebait but I think its fucking hilarious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828664</id>
	<title>Re:chrome is werid</title>
	<author>largepox</author>
	<datestamp>1263925200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So am I wrong or does Chrome have no way to open a local file without dragging the thing onto one of the tabs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So am I wrong or does Chrome have no way to open a local file without dragging the thing onto one of the tabs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So am I wrong or does Chrome have no way to open a local file without dragging the thing onto one of the tabs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823408</id>
	<title>Chrome and Firefox have different purposes</title>
	<author>Zigurd</author>
	<datestamp>1263933660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sponsoring Firefox was a good deal when it was negotiated. However, Google can't easily "own" Firefox as an open source project.</p><p>Google does own Chrome, and can be shaped to fit Google's product requirements.</p><p>Unless Firefox falls far behind Chrome, there is no reason Firefox can't justify continued support from Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sponsoring Firefox was a good deal when it was negotiated .
However , Google ca n't easily " own " Firefox as an open source project.Google does own Chrome , and can be shaped to fit Google 's product requirements.Unless Firefox falls far behind Chrome , there is no reason Firefox ca n't justify continued support from Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sponsoring Firefox was a good deal when it was negotiated.
However, Google can't easily "own" Firefox as an open source project.Google does own Chrome, and can be shaped to fit Google's product requirements.Unless Firefox falls far behind Chrome, there is no reason Firefox can't justify continued support from Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823726</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>whoisisis</author>
	<datestamp>1263891960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>.... So, what options does Mozilla have? Well, they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing. But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google. And Yahoo isn't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now. Sure, you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions, but $66 million worth? Not many companies, or even groups of companies, have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement.</p> </div><p>Solution: Mozilla corp. should to make their own billion dollar search engine to sponsor themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.... So , what options does Mozilla have ?
Well , they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing .
But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google .
And Yahoo is n't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now .
Sure , you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions , but $ 66 million worth ?
Not many companies , or even groups of companies , have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement .
Solution : Mozilla corp. should to make their own billion dollar search engine to sponsor themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .... So, what options does Mozilla have?
Well, they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing.
But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google.
And Yahoo isn't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now.
Sure, you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions, but $66 million worth?
Not many companies, or even groups of companies, have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement.
Solution: Mozilla corp. should to make their own billion dollar search engine to sponsor themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590</id>
	<title>Bias Posting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[Firefox] the past two years have seen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Opera close the features gap significantly." Are we re-writing documented history? Opera is the longest running GUI Web browser, first to use tabs, sessions, customizable skins, ACID 2 &amp; 3 compliant, download management panel, widget support, and a whole host of other features Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and Google have taken and continue to take from Opera ASA. I suppose when your non-Opera Web browser lacks the security track record Opera possesses, delusive jealousy becomes a factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ Firefox ] the past two years have seen ... Opera close the features gap significantly .
" Are we re-writing documented history ?
Opera is the longest running GUI Web browser , first to use tabs , sessions , customizable skins , ACID 2 &amp; 3 compliant , download management panel , widget support , and a whole host of other features Mozilla , Apple , Microsoft , and Google have taken and continue to take from Opera ASA .
I suppose when your non-Opera Web browser lacks the security track record Opera possesses , delusive jealousy becomes a factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[Firefox] the past two years have seen ... Opera close the features gap significantly.
" Are we re-writing documented history?
Opera is the longest running GUI Web browser, first to use tabs, sessions, customizable skins, ACID 2 &amp; 3 compliant, download management panel, widget support, and a whole host of other features Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and Google have taken and continue to take from Opera ASA.
I suppose when your non-Opera Web browser lacks the security track record Opera possesses, delusive jealousy becomes a factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828290</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>kingturkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263921360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if anything, firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera, which had absolute majority of the features first.</p></div><p>Exactlly. I was going to say the same thing. The article is trolling a bit there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if anything , firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera , which had absolute majority of the features first.Exactlly .
I was going to say the same thing .
The article is trolling a bit there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if anything, firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera, which had absolute majority of the features first.Exactlly.
I was going to say the same thing.
The article is trolling a bit there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822016</id>
	<title>Yahoo is the only logical choice.</title>
	<author>keepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263928740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of their possible viable partners, Yahoo is the only one that is not a direct competitor.</p><p>Google, with its all gooey-dooey not do evil mantra, has become a bigger competitor, and likely a conflct of interest, to the Mozilla foundation. Kinda like they did to Apple..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of their possible viable partners , Yahoo is the only one that is not a direct competitor.Google , with its all gooey-dooey not do evil mantra , has become a bigger competitor , and likely a conflct of interest , to the Mozilla foundation .
Kinda like they did to Apple. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of their possible viable partners, Yahoo is the only one that is not a direct competitor.Google, with its all gooey-dooey not do evil mantra, has become a bigger competitor, and likely a conflct of interest, to the Mozilla foundation.
Kinda like they did to Apple..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822392</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>businessnerd</author>
	<datestamp>1263929940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, SHOULD they break away from Google? Probably. CAN they break away from them (and maintain their quality)? Probably not. So, like a bad marriage of convenience, Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day (possibly) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.</p></div></blockquote><p>Seriously?  Mozilla gets $66M from Google every year and you think they should break away from them?  I think you let the article irrationally scare you.  The issue is not that they have a deal with Google, it's that they may have all of their eggs in one basket.  Google is Mozilla's cash cow, and yes, if Google were to decide to change their deal or pull the plug all together, then Mozilla is out $66M in opportunity costs.  But until that day comes, Mozilla should milk that cash cow for all its worth, yet be prepared for that day by diversifying their revenue now.  It's not about being partners or not being partners with Google, it's about being partners with JUST Google or having multiple partners.  The response from Mozilla was that, yes, they do have other partners and other deals, so Google is not their only source of revenue.  Partners listed included eBay, Amazon and Canonical.  They even stated that they are currently working on more deals.  But the concern is still relevent because Google still makes up a vast majority of the revenue.  </p><p>The article is a little dumb because it is asking a question that has already been asked and answered by Mozilla.  No company's business model should rely solely on one single partner and Mozilla already knows that.  Mozilla is still dependant on Google, but they are working on changing that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , SHOULD they break away from Google ?
Probably. CAN they break away from them ( and maintain their quality ) ?
Probably not .
So , like a bad marriage of convenience , Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day ( possibly ) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.Seriously ?
Mozilla gets $ 66M from Google every year and you think they should break away from them ?
I think you let the article irrationally scare you .
The issue is not that they have a deal with Google , it 's that they may have all of their eggs in one basket .
Google is Mozilla 's cash cow , and yes , if Google were to decide to change their deal or pull the plug all together , then Mozilla is out $ 66M in opportunity costs .
But until that day comes , Mozilla should milk that cash cow for all its worth , yet be prepared for that day by diversifying their revenue now .
It 's not about being partners or not being partners with Google , it 's about being partners with JUST Google or having multiple partners .
The response from Mozilla was that , yes , they do have other partners and other deals , so Google is not their only source of revenue .
Partners listed included eBay , Amazon and Canonical .
They even stated that they are currently working on more deals .
But the concern is still relevent because Google still makes up a vast majority of the revenue .
The article is a little dumb because it is asking a question that has already been asked and answered by Mozilla .
No company 's business model should rely solely on one single partner and Mozilla already knows that .
Mozilla is still dependant on Google , but they are working on changing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, SHOULD they break away from Google?
Probably. CAN they break away from them (and maintain their quality)?
Probably not.
So, like a bad marriage of convenience, Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day (possibly) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.Seriously?
Mozilla gets $66M from Google every year and you think they should break away from them?
I think you let the article irrationally scare you.
The issue is not that they have a deal with Google, it's that they may have all of their eggs in one basket.
Google is Mozilla's cash cow, and yes, if Google were to decide to change their deal or pull the plug all together, then Mozilla is out $66M in opportunity costs.
But until that day comes, Mozilla should milk that cash cow for all its worth, yet be prepared for that day by diversifying their revenue now.
It's not about being partners or not being partners with Google, it's about being partners with JUST Google or having multiple partners.
The response from Mozilla was that, yes, they do have other partners and other deals, so Google is not their only source of revenue.
Partners listed included eBay, Amazon and Canonical.
They even stated that they are currently working on more deals.
But the concern is still relevent because Google still makes up a vast majority of the revenue.
The article is a little dumb because it is asking a question that has already been asked and answered by Mozilla.
No company's business model should rely solely on one single partner and Mozilla already knows that.
Mozilla is still dependant on Google, but they are working on changing that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825960</id>
	<title>Re:Bias Posting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera wasn't first to use tabs. That was NetCaptor. Opera had an MDI interface, but did not have tabs. NetCaptor, written by Adam Stiles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera was n't first to use tabs .
That was NetCaptor .
Opera had an MDI interface , but did not have tabs .
NetCaptor , written by Adam Stiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera wasn't first to use tabs.
That was NetCaptor.
Opera had an MDI interface, but did not have tabs.
NetCaptor, written by Adam Stiles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822934</id>
	<title>Re:Competitors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263931680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome is an attempt to spur the others into faster javascript and other features that improve user experience on Google sites.  If FF and the others catch up there, Google is unlikely to be upset about it.  Competition for better performance/stability, even at the expense of their own browser is in Google's interest.  Think of it as a brokerage house funding development of multiple financial models so that they can make use of the best one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is an attempt to spur the others into faster javascript and other features that improve user experience on Google sites .
If FF and the others catch up there , Google is unlikely to be upset about it .
Competition for better performance/stability , even at the expense of their own browser is in Google 's interest .
Think of it as a brokerage house funding development of multiple financial models so that they can make use of the best one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome is an attempt to spur the others into faster javascript and other features that improve user experience on Google sites.
If FF and the others catch up there, Google is unlikely to be upset about it.
Competition for better performance/stability, even at the expense of their own browser is in Google's interest.
Think of it as a brokerage house funding development of multiple financial models so that they can make use of the best one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823414</id>
	<title>Re:chrome is werid</title>
	<author>elcid73</author>
	<datestamp>1263933720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do usability for a living, and know that consistency and 'expected" behavior/locations are very important.  I'm at odds though on things like this- the reason I use Opera is because I like that the UI is a little different.  I like that Chrome and Opera are willing to try something different in their UIs- frankly, that's one of the things I really like about Chrome is the absent menu bar.  I've turned it off of my Opera installs for as long as I've been able to, (and I have a FF plugin as well doing the same)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do usability for a living , and know that consistency and 'expected " behavior/locations are very important .
I 'm at odds though on things like this- the reason I use Opera is because I like that the UI is a little different .
I like that Chrome and Opera are willing to try something different in their UIs- frankly , that 's one of the things I really like about Chrome is the absent menu bar .
I 've turned it off of my Opera installs for as long as I 've been able to , ( and I have a FF plugin as well doing the same )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do usability for a living, and know that consistency and 'expected" behavior/locations are very important.
I'm at odds though on things like this- the reason I use Opera is because I like that the UI is a little different.
I like that Chrome and Opera are willing to try something different in their UIs- frankly, that's one of the things I really like about Chrome is the absent menu bar.
I've turned it off of my Opera installs for as long as I've been able to, (and I have a FF plugin as well doing the same)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823984</id>
	<title>Re:Are FF and Chrome really "competing?"</title>
	<author>grumpyman</author>
	<datestamp>1263893160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>May be a sinister way to look at this:<p>
1. Build a product<br>
1. Fund a competing company/product to make them feel content<br>
2. ????<br>
3. Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May be a sinister way to look at this : 1 .
Build a product 1 .
Fund a competing company/product to make them feel content 2 .
? ? ? ? 3 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May be a sinister way to look at this:
1.
Build a product
1.
Fund a competing company/product to make them feel content
2.
????
3.
Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821648</id>
	<title>come on,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$66 million isn't THAT much. Nothing a good fundraiser couldn't do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 66 million is n't THAT much .
Nothing a good fundraiser could n't do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$66 million isn't THAT much.
Nothing a good fundraiser couldn't do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260</id>
	<title>Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1263925440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla is actually alone in this. Even Opera (while also getting revenue from Google) does lots of its business with other devices like Wii, Mobile Phones, and other non-pc devices. Hell, I was visiting a hotel which had one of those tv's with hotel interfaces. One day it suddenly booted itself for update and when booting up, there was Opera logo on the start.</p><p>So only Mozilla is dependent on others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla is actually alone in this .
Even Opera ( while also getting revenue from Google ) does lots of its business with other devices like Wii , Mobile Phones , and other non-pc devices .
Hell , I was visiting a hotel which had one of those tv 's with hotel interfaces .
One day it suddenly booted itself for update and when booting up , there was Opera logo on the start.So only Mozilla is dependent on others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla is actually alone in this.
Even Opera (while also getting revenue from Google) does lots of its business with other devices like Wii, Mobile Phones, and other non-pc devices.
Hell, I was visiting a hotel which had one of those tv's with hotel interfaces.
One day it suddenly booted itself for update and when booting up, there was Opera logo on the start.So only Mozilla is dependent on others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821634</id>
	<title>Whatever pays the bills, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, if they were making Firefox to merely be "the jewel of Open Source technology" - they wouldn't have accepted money for it being sponsored, right?</p><p>Strictly speaking, in business terms, Mozilla has a bunch of applications, and I'll be generous enough to guess that they are competitors in the sectors that they target, (Bug tracking, email, web development). But they aren't making any money off of those, that I'm aware of.</p><p>Because of this, they HAVE to be dependant on someone, and given the size of everything, its kind of a large bill. So unless the entire Open Source community is going to pitch in a buck here or there, to cover the costs of producing, hosting, and dealing with these products, I don't see them lasting forever.</p><p>If something as simple as "Setting Google as the homepage" covers your bills and then some, thats a smart deal to make. I would renew that contract, most people set Google to their home page anyways. Call it "dependant" if you want, its just good business practice.</p><p>And if Google decides they don't want to shell it out because they've started up Chrome, that will be the moment that truly defines whether their Standards can actually stand firm. Either everyone will contribute to keep it alive, or someone will claim ownership of it all and license it with the most expensive lawyers they can find, or the project will slowly but surely fall off of the map.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , if they were making Firefox to merely be " the jewel of Open Source technology " - they would n't have accepted money for it being sponsored , right ? Strictly speaking , in business terms , Mozilla has a bunch of applications , and I 'll be generous enough to guess that they are competitors in the sectors that they target , ( Bug tracking , email , web development ) .
But they are n't making any money off of those , that I 'm aware of.Because of this , they HAVE to be dependant on someone , and given the size of everything , its kind of a large bill .
So unless the entire Open Source community is going to pitch in a buck here or there , to cover the costs of producing , hosting , and dealing with these products , I do n't see them lasting forever.If something as simple as " Setting Google as the homepage " covers your bills and then some , thats a smart deal to make .
I would renew that contract , most people set Google to their home page anyways .
Call it " dependant " if you want , its just good business practice.And if Google decides they do n't want to shell it out because they 've started up Chrome , that will be the moment that truly defines whether their Standards can actually stand firm .
Either everyone will contribute to keep it alive , or someone will claim ownership of it all and license it with the most expensive lawyers they can find , or the project will slowly but surely fall off of the map .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, if they were making Firefox to merely be "the jewel of Open Source technology" - they wouldn't have accepted money for it being sponsored, right?Strictly speaking, in business terms, Mozilla has a bunch of applications, and I'll be generous enough to guess that they are competitors in the sectors that they target, (Bug tracking, email, web development).
But they aren't making any money off of those, that I'm aware of.Because of this, they HAVE to be dependant on someone, and given the size of everything, its kind of a large bill.
So unless the entire Open Source community is going to pitch in a buck here or there, to cover the costs of producing, hosting, and dealing with these products, I don't see them lasting forever.If something as simple as "Setting Google as the homepage" covers your bills and then some, thats a smart deal to make.
I would renew that contract, most people set Google to their home page anyways.
Call it "dependant" if you want, its just good business practice.And if Google decides they don't want to shell it out because they've started up Chrome, that will be the moment that truly defines whether their Standards can actually stand firm.
Either everyone will contribute to keep it alive, or someone will claim ownership of it all and license it with the most expensive lawyers they can find, or the project will slowly but surely fall off of the map.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software. Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented, poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge.</p></div><p>No! It's F/OSS - all the Mozilla developers can go and offer paid support, write books, do some TV reality shows, and they'll make plenty of money! That's the whole business model of F/OSS, isn't it? </p><p>Or is that Mozilla is a perfect example of how the F/OSS business model isn't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros?</p><p>I think we're starting to see the F/OSS model isn't sustainable. </p><p>Time will tell. </p><p>My captcha is 'discord' - irony?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software .
Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented , poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge.No !
It 's F/OSS - all the Mozilla developers can go and offer paid support , write books , do some TV reality shows , and they 'll make plenty of money !
That 's the whole business model of F/OSS , is n't it ?
Or is that Mozilla is a perfect example of how the F/OSS business model is n't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros ? I think we 're starting to see the F/OSS model is n't sustainable .
Time will tell .
My captcha is 'discord ' - irony ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software.
Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented, poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge.No!
It's F/OSS - all the Mozilla developers can go and offer paid support, write books, do some TV reality shows, and they'll make plenty of money!
That's the whole business model of F/OSS, isn't it?
Or is that Mozilla is a perfect example of how the F/OSS business model isn't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros?I think we're starting to see the F/OSS model isn't sustainable.
Time will tell.
My captcha is 'discord' - irony?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821908</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263928320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct, but Opera wasn't causing anyone that matters to worry about any kind of feature parity because it has just over 0\% marketshare.  Firefox, while not my favorite browser, spurs competition.  This is a big part of the project's utility, even if you don't personally use the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct , but Opera was n't causing anyone that matters to worry about any kind of feature parity because it has just over 0 \ % marketshare .
Firefox , while not my favorite browser , spurs competition .
This is a big part of the project 's utility , even if you do n't personally use the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct, but Opera wasn't causing anyone that matters to worry about any kind of feature parity because it has just over 0\% marketshare.
Firefox, while not my favorite browser, spurs competition.
This is a big part of the project's utility, even if you don't personally use the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821658</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>FUD.</b> </p><blockquote><div><p>That's the whole business model of F/OSS, isn't it?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, that is only one of many possible F/OSS business models.  Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support.  Examples include Redhat, formerly Trolltech (aquired by Nokia), and many others.</p><blockquote><div><p>isn't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros?</p></div></blockquote><p>Of the big linux distrobutions, only one (ubuntu) comes to mind as relying on a so called "sugar daddy".  Debian is entirely community run, and Fedora is community run, with support from Redhat (an extremely sucessful and profitable F/OSS company).</p><blockquote><div><p>Time will tell.</p></div></blockquote><p>Time has already shown the concept to be quite workable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FUD .
That 's the whole business model of F/OSS , is n't it ? No , that is only one of many possible F/OSS business models .
Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support .
Examples include Redhat , formerly Trolltech ( aquired by Nokia ) , and many others.is n't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros ? Of the big linux distrobutions , only one ( ubuntu ) comes to mind as relying on a so called " sugar daddy " .
Debian is entirely community run , and Fedora is community run , with support from Redhat ( an extremely sucessful and profitable F/OSS company ) .Time will tell.Time has already shown the concept to be quite workable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUD.
That's the whole business model of F/OSS, isn't it?No, that is only one of many possible F/OSS business models.
Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support.
Examples include Redhat, formerly Trolltech (aquired by Nokia), and many others.isn't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros?Of the big linux distrobutions, only one (ubuntu) comes to mind as relying on a so called "sugar daddy".
Debian is entirely community run, and Fedora is community run, with support from Redhat (an extremely sucessful and profitable F/OSS company).Time will tell.Time has already shown the concept to be quite workable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</id>
	<title>Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1263925560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This issue has <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/12/1556217" title="slashdot.org">been discussed</a> [slashdot.org] on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. many times before. Mozilla needs a sponsor. Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software. Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented, poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge. So, what options does Mozilla have? Well, they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing. But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google. And Yahoo isn't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now. Sure, you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions, but $66 million worth? Not many companies, or even groups of companies, have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement. There just aren't a lot of alternatives.
</p><p>So, SHOULD they break away from Google? Probably. CAN they break away from them (and maintain their quality)? Probably not. So, like a bad marriage of convenience, Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day (possibly) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This issue has been discussed [ slashdot.org ] on / .
many times before .
Mozilla needs a sponsor .
Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software .
Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented , poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge .
So , what options does Mozilla have ?
Well , they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing .
But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google .
And Yahoo is n't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now .
Sure , you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions , but $ 66 million worth ?
Not many companies , or even groups of companies , have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement .
There just are n't a lot of alternatives .
So , SHOULD they break away from Google ?
Probably. CAN they break away from them ( and maintain their quality ) ?
Probably not .
So , like a bad marriage of convenience , Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day ( possibly ) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This issue has been discussed [slashdot.org] on /.
many times before.
Mozilla needs a sponsor.
Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software.
Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented, poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge.
So, what options does Mozilla have?
Well, they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing.
But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google.
And Yahoo isn't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now.
Sure, you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions, but $66 million worth?
Not many companies, or even groups of companies, have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement.
There just aren't a lot of alternatives.
So, SHOULD they break away from Google?
Probably. CAN they break away from them (and maintain their quality)?
Probably not.
So, like a bad marriage of convenience, Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day (possibly) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822796</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox Going Away Soon</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263931260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Give me a break.  I only ever use it for Firebug anymore and even that's becoming more rare as the tools for Safari and Chrome improve.  Firefox will be irrelevant within 3 years, and still wondering where they went wrong.</p></div><p>Opera's Dragonfly is definitely on par with FF Firebug, if you're still looking for an alternative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me a break .
I only ever use it for Firebug anymore and even that 's becoming more rare as the tools for Safari and Chrome improve .
Firefox will be irrelevant within 3 years , and still wondering where they went wrong.Opera 's Dragonfly is definitely on par with FF Firebug , if you 're still looking for an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me a break.
I only ever use it for Firebug anymore and even that's becoming more rare as the tools for Safari and Chrome improve.
Firefox will be irrelevant within 3 years, and still wondering where they went wrong.Opera's Dragonfly is definitely on par with FF Firebug, if you're still looking for an alternative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821712</id>
	<title>So the interesting part is...</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1263927540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should Mozilla do anything about it?
<br> <br>
I doubt Google will forsake FF yet. Their market share plus competition with MS makes them an attractive ally. Until chrome gains substantial share(and I think it will) supporting FF is in Google's best interest.
<br> <br>
At that point though, FF will probably need a kick in the butt. Some new forks moving away from the relatively stable and comfortable, but slower to change browser it's become seems to me be a natural part of the life cycle of a project like FF. It has provided a solid foundation for other open source browsers, and has opened up the market in general. On some level, what's left for it to do other than compete like any other browser? If it maintains good market share, Google will want to keep funding it. If it doesn't, then a large change will be needed to make it relevant again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should Mozilla do anything about it ?
I doubt Google will forsake FF yet .
Their market share plus competition with MS makes them an attractive ally .
Until chrome gains substantial share ( and I think it will ) supporting FF is in Google 's best interest .
At that point though , FF will probably need a kick in the butt .
Some new forks moving away from the relatively stable and comfortable , but slower to change browser it 's become seems to me be a natural part of the life cycle of a project like FF .
It has provided a solid foundation for other open source browsers , and has opened up the market in general .
On some level , what 's left for it to do other than compete like any other browser ?
If it maintains good market share , Google will want to keep funding it .
If it does n't , then a large change will be needed to make it relevant again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should Mozilla do anything about it?
I doubt Google will forsake FF yet.
Their market share plus competition with MS makes them an attractive ally.
Until chrome gains substantial share(and I think it will) supporting FF is in Google's best interest.
At that point though, FF will probably need a kick in the butt.
Some new forks moving away from the relatively stable and comfortable, but slower to change browser it's become seems to me be a natural part of the life cycle of a project like FF.
It has provided a solid foundation for other open source browsers, and has opened up the market in general.
On some level, what's left for it to do other than compete like any other browser?
If it maintains good market share, Google will want to keep funding it.
If it doesn't, then a large change will be needed to make it relevant again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822206</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/11/0541259/Mozilla-Exec-Urges-Switch-From-Google-To-Bing?art\_pos=2" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">"Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing"</a> [slashdot.org], why not just switch the defaults to Bing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a " Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing " [ slashdot.org ] , why not just switch the defaults to Bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a "Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing" [slashdot.org], why not just switch the defaults to Bing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821486</id>
	<title>Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla is very dependant on others, just like Linux. There are no islands in the software industry, unless you are Microsoft, in which case you are more like a shitty continent, like Asia. But that is beside the point. I've been in hotels with those interfacse too, and saw the Opera logo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla is very dependant on others , just like Linux .
There are no islands in the software industry , unless you are Microsoft , in which case you are more like a shitty continent , like Asia .
But that is beside the point .
I 've been in hotels with those interfacse too , and saw the Opera logo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla is very dependant on others, just like Linux.
There are no islands in the software industry, unless you are Microsoft, in which case you are more like a shitty continent, like Asia.
But that is beside the point.
I've been in hotels with those interfacse too, and saw the Opera logo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822696</id>
	<title>Re:Defaults</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1263930900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing. Firefox has a large marketshare, if we add IE to the mix (which already has Bing as the default choice), something like 90\% of the browser market will be using Bing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>A large chunk of those machines are sold by OEMs, and Google has an agreement with a lot of them to have Google as the search engine(even in IE I think) and Chrome as the default browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that if Google does n't sponsor Mozilla , they 'll probably switch to Bing .
Firefox has a large marketshare , if we add IE to the mix ( which already has Bing as the default choice ) , something like 90 \ % of the browser market will be using Bing .
.A large chunk of those machines are sold by OEMs , and Google has an agreement with a lot of them to have Google as the search engine ( even in IE I think ) and Chrome as the default browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing.
Firefox has a large marketshare, if we add IE to the mix (which already has Bing as the default choice), something like 90\% of the browser market will be using Bing.
.A large chunk of those machines are sold by OEMs, and Google has an agreement with a lot of them to have Google as the search engine(even in IE I think) and Chrome as the default browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821814</id>
	<title>Donationware?</title>
	<author>jackchance</author>
	<datestamp>1263928020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a browser slut.  I currently use firefox, safari and chrome.  I constantly shift around my browser of choice.</p><p>That said, I would pay $1 per year to Mozilla to help support their dev team.  According to most estimates there are well over 100 million users of firefox.</p><p>If each of us gave a dollar, that would be plenty!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a browser slut .
I currently use firefox , safari and chrome .
I constantly shift around my browser of choice.That said , I would pay $ 1 per year to Mozilla to help support their dev team .
According to most estimates there are well over 100 million users of firefox.If each of us gave a dollar , that would be plenty !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a browser slut.
I currently use firefox, safari and chrome.
I constantly shift around my browser of choice.That said, I would pay $1 per year to Mozilla to help support their dev team.
According to most estimates there are well over 100 million users of firefox.If each of us gave a dollar, that would be plenty!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821722</id>
	<title>Defaults</title>
	<author>zlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1263927660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing. Firefox has a large marketshare, if we add IE to the mix (which already has Bing as the default choice), something like 90\% of the browser market will be using Bing. Of couse, some people will revert to Google. But Bing is good enough for most search queries, and a lot of users won't care.</p><p>Some versions of Firefox already stopped using Google - for example the official Russian version uses Yandex because in CIS countries it's more popular than Google. The Chinese version could migrate to Baidu etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that if Google does n't sponsor Mozilla , they 'll probably switch to Bing .
Firefox has a large marketshare , if we add IE to the mix ( which already has Bing as the default choice ) , something like 90 \ % of the browser market will be using Bing .
Of couse , some people will revert to Google .
But Bing is good enough for most search queries , and a lot of users wo n't care.Some versions of Firefox already stopped using Google - for example the official Russian version uses Yandex because in CIS countries it 's more popular than Google .
The Chinese version could migrate to Baidu etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing.
Firefox has a large marketshare, if we add IE to the mix (which already has Bing as the default choice), something like 90\% of the browser market will be using Bing.
Of couse, some people will revert to Google.
But Bing is good enough for most search queries, and a lot of users won't care.Some versions of Firefox already stopped using Google - for example the official Russian version uses Yandex because in CIS countries it's more popular than Google.
The Chinese version could migrate to Baidu etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821998</id>
	<title>Re:What ?</title>
	<author>Menchi</author>
	<datestamp>1263928620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget user javascript. While it's not a mainstream feature and technically wasn't invented by Firefox but the guy who wrote the Greasemonkey plugin, it's definitely one of the features I don't want to miss with Opera and Firefox had it first.

But yeah, "closing the feature gap" is kinda delusional.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget user javascript .
While it 's not a mainstream feature and technically was n't invented by Firefox but the guy who wrote the Greasemonkey plugin , it 's definitely one of the features I do n't want to miss with Opera and Firefox had it first .
But yeah , " closing the feature gap " is kinda delusional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget user javascript.
While it's not a mainstream feature and technically wasn't invented by Firefox but the guy who wrote the Greasemonkey plugin, it's definitely one of the features I don't want to miss with Opera and Firefox had it first.
But yeah, "closing the feature gap" is kinda delusional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823006</id>
	<title>Re:someone</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1263931980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera has built-in "NoScript". Disable javascript globally and enable it in site preferences you want to have it. Really easy. (and not just javascript - you can do the same per-site configuration with a range of things)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has built-in " NoScript " .
Disable javascript globally and enable it in site preferences you want to have it .
Really easy .
( and not just javascript - you can do the same per-site configuration with a range of things )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has built-in "NoScript".
Disable javascript globally and enable it in site preferences you want to have it.
Really easy.
(and not just javascript - you can do the same per-site configuration with a range of things)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824008</id>
	<title>Re:Or..</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263893280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I checked, there is an AdBlock extension for Chrome. In face, there appear to be more and more extensions popping up for Chrome each day. You might want to do some searching about customizing and extending Chrome before you resign yourself to just doing without.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , there is an AdBlock extension for Chrome .
In face , there appear to be more and more extensions popping up for Chrome each day .
You might want to do some searching about customizing and extending Chrome before you resign yourself to just doing without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, there is an AdBlock extension for Chrome.
In face, there appear to be more and more extensions popping up for Chrome each day.
You might want to do some searching about customizing and extending Chrome before you resign yourself to just doing without.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822466</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what are the expenses for the Mozilla foundation?  If they're getting $66 million over 5 years ($13 million/year), that would be a fully paid staff of 130 people, right?  (Well, according to the Mozilla Corporation page, about 150.)  That's a pretty good-sized company.  I would ask, is a corporate organization of that magnitude the right choice for Mozilla as a F/OSS project?</p><p>I'm not saying that it's the wrong answer.  It seems like there's always going to be one or more companies out there that gains enough from the existence of an independent browser that it can find support.  If Google goes away, maybe IBM would be interested.  Or, maybe it's not the right model.  Maybe the goal should be to move back towards a community model, with a small core staff to direct development and/or to generate some extra revenue from support contracts.  Suppose they put half of what they get into an endowment, and try to live off the income.  5\% of $33 million would be a budget of $1.65 million/year, say 16 full time staff, or 32 part-time.  That's still a pretty respectable company.  And (if you're the sort of person who liked The Mythical Man-Month) a smaller staff may not be much less productive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what are the expenses for the Mozilla foundation ?
If they 're getting $ 66 million over 5 years ( $ 13 million/year ) , that would be a fully paid staff of 130 people , right ?
( Well , according to the Mozilla Corporation page , about 150 .
) That 's a pretty good-sized company .
I would ask , is a corporate organization of that magnitude the right choice for Mozilla as a F/OSS project ? I 'm not saying that it 's the wrong answer .
It seems like there 's always going to be one or more companies out there that gains enough from the existence of an independent browser that it can find support .
If Google goes away , maybe IBM would be interested .
Or , maybe it 's not the right model .
Maybe the goal should be to move back towards a community model , with a small core staff to direct development and/or to generate some extra revenue from support contracts .
Suppose they put half of what they get into an endowment , and try to live off the income .
5 \ % of $ 33 million would be a budget of $ 1.65 million/year , say 16 full time staff , or 32 part-time .
That 's still a pretty respectable company .
And ( if you 're the sort of person who liked The Mythical Man-Month ) a smaller staff may not be much less productive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what are the expenses for the Mozilla foundation?
If they're getting $66 million over 5 years ($13 million/year), that would be a fully paid staff of 130 people, right?
(Well, according to the Mozilla Corporation page, about 150.
)  That's a pretty good-sized company.
I would ask, is a corporate organization of that magnitude the right choice for Mozilla as a F/OSS project?I'm not saying that it's the wrong answer.
It seems like there's always going to be one or more companies out there that gains enough from the existence of an independent browser that it can find support.
If Google goes away, maybe IBM would be interested.
Or, maybe it's not the right model.
Maybe the goal should be to move back towards a community model, with a small core staff to direct development and/or to generate some extra revenue from support contracts.
Suppose they put half of what they get into an endowment, and try to live off the income.
5\% of $33 million would be a budget of $1.65 million/year, say 16 full time staff, or 32 part-time.
That's still a pretty respectable company.
And (if you're the sort of person who liked The Mythical Man-Month) a smaller staff may not be much less productive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30843394</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox Going Away Soon</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1264064640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Firefox used to be the lightweight alternative.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Really? I thought it always had XUL and Gecko...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox used to be the lightweight alternative .
Really ? I thought it always had XUL and Gecko.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox used to be the lightweight alternative.
Really? I thought it always had XUL and Gecko...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30829934</id>
	<title>Firefox does not need Google</title>
	<author>randomsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1263986220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft would love to pay Mozilla to replace Google with Bing. That's why Google were wise to extend their deal with Mozilla - I'm sure they considered MS stepping up if they didn't.</p><p>Firefox is not solely dependent on Google, as it has at least one other alternative sponsor.</p><p>RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft would love to pay Mozilla to replace Google with Bing .
That 's why Google were wise to extend their deal with Mozilla - I 'm sure they considered MS stepping up if they did n't.Firefox is not solely dependent on Google , as it has at least one other alternative sponsor.RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft would love to pay Mozilla to replace Google with Bing.
That's why Google were wise to extend their deal with Mozilla - I'm sure they considered MS stepping up if they didn't.Firefox is not solely dependent on Google, as it has at least one other alternative sponsor.RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822634</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263930720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In summary, for 2008 and based on <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audited-financial-statement.pdf" title="mozilla.org">http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audited-financial-statement.pdf</a> [mozilla.org] , something like $17 million taxes, $12 million set aside for future (e.g. if the Google contract doesn't get renewed, say).  About $50 million spent, from a total revenue of $80 million or so.  That would presumably include salaries+benefits for those 200-ish people, whatever hardware is needed for the developers, the testing infrastructure (see <a href="http://atlee.ca/blog/2009/11/02/what-happens-when-you-push/" title="atlee.ca">http://atlee.ca/blog/2009/11/02/what-happens-when-you-push/</a> [atlee.ca] for example), infrastructure for the various Mozilla web sites (addons.mozilla.org, www.mozilla.org, update servers, etc).  Oh, and office space lease, presumably.</p><p>How much do you figure it should take to run an organization with about 200 competent (so not necessarily cheap) staff and a fair amount of necessary infrastructure for a year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In summary , for 2008 and based on http : //www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audited-financial-statement.pdf [ mozilla.org ] , something like $ 17 million taxes , $ 12 million set aside for future ( e.g .
if the Google contract does n't get renewed , say ) .
About $ 50 million spent , from a total revenue of $ 80 million or so .
That would presumably include salaries + benefits for those 200-ish people , whatever hardware is needed for the developers , the testing infrastructure ( see http : //atlee.ca/blog/2009/11/02/what-happens-when-you-push/ [ atlee.ca ] for example ) , infrastructure for the various Mozilla web sites ( addons.mozilla.org , www.mozilla.org , update servers , etc ) .
Oh , and office space lease , presumably.How much do you figure it should take to run an organization with about 200 competent ( so not necessarily cheap ) staff and a fair amount of necessary infrastructure for a year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In summary, for 2008 and based on http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audited-financial-statement.pdf [mozilla.org] , something like $17 million taxes, $12 million set aside for future (e.g.
if the Google contract doesn't get renewed, say).
About $50 million spent, from a total revenue of $80 million or so.
That would presumably include salaries+benefits for those 200-ish people, whatever hardware is needed for the developers, the testing infrastructure (see http://atlee.ca/blog/2009/11/02/what-happens-when-you-push/ [atlee.ca] for example), infrastructure for the various Mozilla web sites (addons.mozilla.org, www.mozilla.org, update servers, etc).
Oh, and office space lease, presumably.How much do you figure it should take to run an organization with about 200 competent (so not necessarily cheap) staff and a fair amount of necessary infrastructure for a year?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822280</id>
	<title>Dependency...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1263929520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Mozilla does depend on Google for revenue, and Google are technically a competitor, they are not MS...</p><p>Google, like MS are not terribly interested in the browser market and don't make any money from it... The difference is that while MS want to control the browser, stifle the move to web based platform independent applications and lock people in to their platform...<br>Google want to promote their web based applications, and couldn't really care less what you use to access them. The reason Chrome exists is largely as a competitive push for faster javascript handling and better standards support, with the primary goal being to push every browser maker forwards and thus making Google's webapps more attractive. Prior to Chrome, browser makers weren't really interested in javascript performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Mozilla does depend on Google for revenue , and Google are technically a competitor , they are not MS...Google , like MS are not terribly interested in the browser market and do n't make any money from it... The difference is that while MS want to control the browser , stifle the move to web based platform independent applications and lock people in to their platform...Google want to promote their web based applications , and could n't really care less what you use to access them .
The reason Chrome exists is largely as a competitive push for faster javascript handling and better standards support , with the primary goal being to push every browser maker forwards and thus making Google 's webapps more attractive .
Prior to Chrome , browser makers were n't really interested in javascript performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Mozilla does depend on Google for revenue, and Google are technically a competitor, they are not MS...Google, like MS are not terribly interested in the browser market and don't make any money from it... The difference is that while MS want to control the browser, stifle the move to web based platform independent applications and lock people in to their platform...Google want to promote their web based applications, and couldn't really care less what you use to access them.
The reason Chrome exists is largely as a competitive push for faster javascript handling and better standards support, with the primary goal being to push every browser maker forwards and thus making Google's webapps more attractive.
Prior to Chrome, browser makers weren't really interested in javascript performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822088</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Synn</author>
	<datestamp>1263929040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or is that Mozilla is a perfect example of how the F/OSS business model isn't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros?</p><p>I think we're starting to see the F/OSS model isn't sustainable. </p></div><p>Isn't sustainable? Debian was founded in 1993 and has been running strong ever since. It's the core base for a lot of other distributions out there, including the most popular one around, Ubuntu.</p><p>KDE, GNOME, Xorg, the Linux kernel, PostgreSQL, Postfix, BIND, Samba, do I really need to list 500 or so open source projects that makes up a significant part of the modern world's IT industry?</p><p>Also, the Mozilla project is hardly floundering. 66 million a year isn't peanuts and if they can't run the project on less than that then there's some serious bloat problems over there, and not just in the browser code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is that Mozilla is a perfect example of how the F/OSS business model is n't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros ? I think we 're starting to see the F/OSS model is n't sustainable .
Is n't sustainable ?
Debian was founded in 1993 and has been running strong ever since .
It 's the core base for a lot of other distributions out there , including the most popular one around , Ubuntu.KDE , GNOME , Xorg , the Linux kernel , PostgreSQL , Postfix , BIND , Samba , do I really need to list 500 or so open source projects that makes up a significant part of the modern world 's IT industry ? Also , the Mozilla project is hardly floundering .
66 million a year is n't peanuts and if they ca n't run the project on less than that then there 's some serious bloat problems over there , and not just in the browser code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is that Mozilla is a perfect example of how the F/OSS business model isn't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros?I think we're starting to see the F/OSS model isn't sustainable.
Isn't sustainable?
Debian was founded in 1993 and has been running strong ever since.
It's the core base for a lot of other distributions out there, including the most popular one around, Ubuntu.KDE, GNOME, Xorg, the Linux kernel, PostgreSQL, Postfix, BIND, Samba, do I really need to list 500 or so open source projects that makes up a significant part of the modern world's IT industry?Also, the Mozilla project is hardly floundering.
66 million a year isn't peanuts and if they can't run the project on less than that then there's some serious bloat problems over there, and not just in the browser code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823206</id>
	<title>Re:chrome is werid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Chrome has a menu bar... it looks pretty much like FF or Safari menu bar.  Hmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Chrome has a menu bar... it looks pretty much like FF or Safari menu bar .
Hmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Chrome has a menu bar... it looks pretty much like FF or Safari menu bar.
Hmmm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823792</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263892260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>opera has a surprisingly large market share on various embedded devices (as you mentioned) and in included on very large share of mobile devices.</p></div><p>
<i>Surprisingly large</i> is an understatement. Opera is #1 on embedded devices by a very large margin (as in over 50\% market share.) The rest of the alternatives combined would still be a minority, and this is the case because the competition doesn't have a clue about the importance of memory footprint on these devices. Opera is cheaper for the manufacturers than the alternatives.<br>
<br>
For the most part, only the trendy high priced gadgets use something other than Opera.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>opera has a surprisingly large market share on various embedded devices ( as you mentioned ) and in included on very large share of mobile devices .
Surprisingly large is an understatement .
Opera is # 1 on embedded devices by a very large margin ( as in over 50 \ % market share .
) The rest of the alternatives combined would still be a minority , and this is the case because the competition does n't have a clue about the importance of memory footprint on these devices .
Opera is cheaper for the manufacturers than the alternatives .
For the most part , only the trendy high priced gadgets use something other than Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opera has a surprisingly large market share on various embedded devices (as you mentioned) and in included on very large share of mobile devices.
Surprisingly large is an understatement.
Opera is #1 on embedded devices by a very large margin (as in over 50\% market share.
) The rest of the alternatives combined would still be a minority, and this is the case because the competition doesn't have a clue about the importance of memory footprint on these devices.
Opera is cheaper for the manufacturers than the alternatives.
For the most part, only the trendy high priced gadgets use something other than Opera.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821454</id>
	<title>Firefox can fuck off and die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fine example of software dumbed down for dummies.</p><p>I might just as well browse the web with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/libexec/webkitgtk/GtkLauncher. It probably has slightly more features than Firefox 5.0 will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fine example of software dumbed down for dummies.I might just as well browse the web with /usr/libexec/webkitgtk/GtkLauncher .
It probably has slightly more features than Firefox 5.0 will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fine example of software dumbed down for dummies.I might just as well browse the web with /usr/libexec/webkitgtk/GtkLauncher.
It probably has slightly more features than Firefox 5.0 will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824914</id>
	<title>Mozilla foundation achieved its objective</title>
	<author>aurelianito</author>
	<datestamp>1263897660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The objective is to have better browsers and more choices than Internet Explorer 5. Right now there are several browsers gaining mark-share: Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome, Konqueror. If the problem with Firefox funding is a consequence of having a lot of browser choices, I would like to just say:<blockquote><div><p>Congratulations Mozilla Foundation, you made it</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The objective is to have better browsers and more choices than Internet Explorer 5 .
Right now there are several browsers gaining mark-share : Firefox , Opera , Safari , Chrome , Konqueror .
If the problem with Firefox funding is a consequence of having a lot of browser choices , I would like to just say : Congratulations Mozilla Foundation , you made it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The objective is to have better browsers and more choices than Internet Explorer 5.
Right now there are several browsers gaining mark-share: Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome, Konqueror.
If the problem with Firefox funding is a consequence of having a lot of browser choices, I would like to just say:Congratulations Mozilla Foundation, you made it
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824252</id>
	<title>It's like this..</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1263894360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google just wants to be the default search engine. So long as Firefox has significant marketshare, Google will sponsor them. If Google drops their sponsorship, Microsoft or Yahoo or any number or regional search engines will step in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google just wants to be the default search engine .
So long as Firefox has significant marketshare , Google will sponsor them .
If Google drops their sponsorship , Microsoft or Yahoo or any number or regional search engines will step in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google just wants to be the default search engine.
So long as Firefox has significant marketshare, Google will sponsor them.
If Google drops their sponsorship, Microsoft or Yahoo or any number or regional search engines will step in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825572</id>
	<title>Re:Choices? Really?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263900300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It would be annoying if they switched to a different default, because that would be one more customization step every time I install Firefox.</p></div></blockquote><p>WTF is with you people?  How damn often are you installing Firefox?  Do you destroy machines that often or do you do it as part of an IT job, in which case you should have customized your own installer by now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be annoying if they switched to a different default , because that would be one more customization step every time I install Firefox.WTF is with you people ?
How damn often are you installing Firefox ?
Do you destroy machines that often or do you do it as part of an IT job , in which case you should have customized your own installer by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be annoying if they switched to a different default, because that would be one more customization step every time I install Firefox.WTF is with you people?
How damn often are you installing Firefox?
Do you destroy machines that often or do you do it as part of an IT job, in which case you should have customized your own installer by now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822606</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is in Denial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent speaks the truth. Mod him up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent speaks the truth .
Mod him up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent speaks the truth.
Mod him up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826304</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1263903900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, SHOULD they break away from Google? Probably. CAN they break away from them (and maintain their quality)? Probably not. So, like a bad marriage of convenience, Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day (possibly) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.</p></div><p>Why do they need to? Unlike some companies, which buy out the competition and stop innovating, ( *cough* Microsoft *cough* ) some companies like to push innovation by encouraging competition.</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1484058&amp;cid=30500264" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1484058&amp;cid=30500264</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>I suspect Google is quite happy to have Mozilla working on Firefox and their internal teams working on Chrome.</p><p>Plus, it's a good deal for Google. Firefox doesn't have as much value to Google as a browser - but as an advertising market its value is increasing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , SHOULD they break away from Google ?
Probably. CAN they break away from them ( and maintain their quality ) ?
Probably not .
So , like a bad marriage of convenience , Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day ( possibly ) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.Why do they need to ?
Unlike some companies , which buy out the competition and stop innovating , ( * cough * Microsoft * cough * ) some companies like to push innovation by encouraging competition.http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1484058&amp;cid = 30500264 [ slashdot.org ] I suspect Google is quite happy to have Mozilla working on Firefox and their internal teams working on Chrome.Plus , it 's a good deal for Google .
Firefox does n't have as much value to Google as a browser - but as an advertising market its value is increasing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, SHOULD they break away from Google?
Probably. CAN they break away from them (and maintain their quality)?
Probably not.
So, like a bad marriage of convenience, Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day (possibly) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.Why do they need to?
Unlike some companies, which buy out the competition and stop innovating, ( *cough* Microsoft *cough* ) some companies like to push innovation by encouraging competition.http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1484058&amp;cid=30500264 [slashdot.org]I suspect Google is quite happy to have Mozilla working on Firefox and their internal teams working on Chrome.Plus, it's a good deal for Google.
Firefox doesn't have as much value to Google as a browser - but as an advertising market its value is increasing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822424</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>RemoWilliams84</author>
	<datestamp>1263930060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I didn't rtfa, the summary, or the comment I am replying to. But I really don't feel good about whatever all of this is referring to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I did n't rtfa , the summary , or the comment I am replying to .
But I really do n't feel good about whatever all of this is referring to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I didn't rtfa, the summary, or the comment I am replying to.
But I really don't feel good about whatever all of this is referring to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821952</id>
	<title>Firefox = not for profit</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1263928500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In ten years, Google will be as despised as Microsoft. In twenty years, it will be just another mainstream company. IBM-&gt;Microsoft-&gt;Google-&gt; ?. There's always a new gorilla waiting to toss the heavyweight off his perch. As a non-profit, Mozilla has a different set of fears and challenges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In ten years , Google will be as despised as Microsoft .
In twenty years , it will be just another mainstream company .
IBM- &gt; Microsoft- &gt; Google- &gt; ? .
There 's always a new gorilla waiting to toss the heavyweight off his perch .
As a non-profit , Mozilla has a different set of fears and challenges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In ten years, Google will be as despised as Microsoft.
In twenty years, it will be just another mainstream company.
IBM-&gt;Microsoft-&gt;Google-&gt; ?.
There's always a new gorilla waiting to toss the heavyweight off his perch.
As a non-profit, Mozilla has a different set of fears and challenges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821620</id>
	<title>Competitors?</title>
	<author>Goalie\_Ca</author>
	<datestamp>1263927120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, google now has a browser but why do they have a browser. Are they trying to sell the browser? No, they needed a browser for its utility and not for its direct profitability. I think they would be damned happy to continue funding mozilla since mozilla is moving forward and doing a pretty good job. They are also redirecting a lot of traffic google's way!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , google now has a browser but why do they have a browser .
Are they trying to sell the browser ?
No , they needed a browser for its utility and not for its direct profitability .
I think they would be damned happy to continue funding mozilla since mozilla is moving forward and doing a pretty good job .
They are also redirecting a lot of traffic google 's way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, google now has a browser but why do they have a browser.
Are they trying to sell the browser?
No, they needed a browser for its utility and not for its direct profitability.
I think they would be damned happy to continue funding mozilla since mozilla is moving forward and doing a pretty good job.
They are also redirecting a lot of traffic google's way!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822954</id>
	<title>Re:Choices? Really?</title>
	<author>waitwonder</author>
	<datestamp>1263931740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I need both IE and Firefox for my work. I set bing as default for firefox and google for IE for every machine I work on. With chrome I think Opera would be a good choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I need both IE and Firefox for my work .
I set bing as default for firefox and google for IE for every machine I work on .
With chrome I think Opera would be a good choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need both IE and Firefox for my work.
I set bing as default for firefox and google for IE for every machine I work on.
With chrome I think Opera would be a good choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824216</id>
	<title>Who's really worse?</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1263894120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google?</p><p>Probably not but how else would Mozilla/Firefox get such big funding than to promote a search provider?</p><p>IE continues to be total crap so Firefox is still a big threat to Microsoft. They are also pushing Bing hard now, so it probably makes even more business sense now for Microsoft to try and 'embrace and extend' Mozilla or at least Firefox.</p><p>They might just offer more money than Google paid/will pay just to make Firefox default to Bing instead, or they could just try to buy Mozilla. Watch for stupid patent suits from MS against Firefox/Mozilla as a precursor.</p><p>I for one would be pretty disappointed if Mozilla accepted any Microsoft deal, so I guess that still leaves me liking Firefox default to Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google ? Probably not but how else would Mozilla/Firefox get such big funding than to promote a search provider ? IE continues to be total crap so Firefox is still a big threat to Microsoft .
They are also pushing Bing hard now , so it probably makes even more business sense now for Microsoft to try and 'embrace and extend ' Mozilla or at least Firefox.They might just offer more money than Google paid/will pay just to make Firefox default to Bing instead , or they could just try to buy Mozilla .
Watch for stupid patent suits from MS against Firefox/Mozilla as a precursor.I for one would be pretty disappointed if Mozilla accepted any Microsoft deal , so I guess that still leaves me liking Firefox default to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google?Probably not but how else would Mozilla/Firefox get such big funding than to promote a search provider?IE continues to be total crap so Firefox is still a big threat to Microsoft.
They are also pushing Bing hard now, so it probably makes even more business sense now for Microsoft to try and 'embrace and extend' Mozilla or at least Firefox.They might just offer more money than Google paid/will pay just to make Firefox default to Bing instead, or they could just try to buy Mozilla.
Watch for stupid patent suits from MS against Firefox/Mozilla as a precursor.I for one would be pretty disappointed if Mozilla accepted any Microsoft deal, so I guess that still leaves me liking Firefox default to Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822978</id>
	<title>Pocket Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263931860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pocket change for Google, and they get much more in return from ad revenues.  In case you forgot, that's what this is all about, ad revenue from their search engine and services.  Google's enemy is Microsoft, not Mozilla, and right now Mozilla is Microsoft's biggest enemy in the browser space.  So as they say, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pocket change for Google , and they get much more in return from ad revenues .
In case you forgot , that 's what this is all about , ad revenue from their search engine and services .
Google 's enemy is Microsoft , not Mozilla , and right now Mozilla is Microsoft 's biggest enemy in the browser space .
So as they say , the enemy of your enemy is your friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pocket change for Google, and they get much more in return from ad revenues.
In case you forgot, that's what this is all about, ad revenue from their search engine and services.
Google's enemy is Microsoft, not Mozilla, and right now Mozilla is Microsoft's biggest enemy in the browser space.
So as they say, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822510</id>
	<title>Who needs choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insert obligatory K-Fed search engine joke <a href="http://searchwithkevin.swagbucks.com/" title="swagbucks.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [swagbucks.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insert obligatory K-Fed search engine joke here [ swagbucks.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insert obligatory K-Fed search engine joke here [swagbucks.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822626</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263930720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because Linux always survives doesn't mean that everything is sustainable. Clearly Google not renewing their agreement would be a huge setback for Firefox, likewise if Nokia decided to lay off everyone developing Qt which is the basis of KDE, Sun pulling out of OpenOffice and so on. For all of you remembering the dotcom days, lots of money was poured into open source then as well and went bust just like the rest of the economy. Personally I felt quality went considerably down when Red Hat stopped supporting Red Hat Linux and went enterprise only, for example. I also remember why I switched away from Debian and over to a "suger daddy" funded distro.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I think it's going in the right direction. But I do see that without profitable companies it'll be getting there much slower, and profits can disappear as the market wills it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because Linux always survives does n't mean that everything is sustainable .
Clearly Google not renewing their agreement would be a huge setback for Firefox , likewise if Nokia decided to lay off everyone developing Qt which is the basis of KDE , Sun pulling out of OpenOffice and so on .
For all of you remembering the dotcom days , lots of money was poured into open source then as well and went bust just like the rest of the economy .
Personally I felt quality went considerably down when Red Hat stopped supporting Red Hat Linux and went enterprise only , for example .
I also remember why I switched away from Debian and over to a " suger daddy " funded distro.Do n't get me wrong , I think it 's going in the right direction .
But I do see that without profitable companies it 'll be getting there much slower , and profits can disappear as the market wills it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because Linux always survives doesn't mean that everything is sustainable.
Clearly Google not renewing their agreement would be a huge setback for Firefox, likewise if Nokia decided to lay off everyone developing Qt which is the basis of KDE, Sun pulling out of OpenOffice and so on.
For all of you remembering the dotcom days, lots of money was poured into open source then as well and went bust just like the rest of the economy.
Personally I felt quality went considerably down when Red Hat stopped supporting Red Hat Linux and went enterprise only, for example.
I also remember why I switched away from Debian and over to a "suger daddy" funded distro.Don't get me wrong, I think it's going in the right direction.
But I do see that without profitable companies it'll be getting there much slower, and profits can disappear as the market wills it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821870</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1263928200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This issue has been discussed [slashdot.org] on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. many times before. Mozilla needs a sponsor. Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software. Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented, poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge.</i> <br> <br>Like Apache? Like the Linux kernel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This issue has been discussed [ slashdot.org ] on / .
many times before .
Mozilla needs a sponsor .
Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software .
Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented , poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge .
Like Apache ?
Like the Linux kernel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This issue has been discussed [slashdot.org] on /.
many times before.
Mozilla needs a sponsor.
Their revenues are the only thing that lets them stand out from most of the rest of the OSS crowd as a truly professional piece of software.
Lose those revenues and it will eventually deteriorate into yet another lame piece of poorly-documented, poorly-maintained piece of abandonware on SourceForge.
Like Apache?
Like the Linux kernel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>opera has a surprisingly large market share on various embedded devices (as you mentioned) and in included on very large share of mobile devices.</p><p>what i found funny in the summary - "past two years have seen Microsoft, Apple, and Opera close the features gap significantly".</p><p>if anything, firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera, which had absolute majority of the features first.</p><p>disclaimer - opera user for many years here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>opera has a surprisingly large market share on various embedded devices ( as you mentioned ) and in included on very large share of mobile devices.what i found funny in the summary - " past two years have seen Microsoft , Apple , and Opera close the features gap significantly " .if anything , firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera , which had absolute majority of the features first.disclaimer - opera user for many years here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opera has a surprisingly large market share on various embedded devices (as you mentioned) and in included on very large share of mobile devices.what i found funny in the summary - "past two years have seen Microsoft, Apple, and Opera close the features gap significantly".if anything, firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera, which had absolute majority of the features first.disclaimer - opera user for many years here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822384</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263929940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Where does the money go?</p><p>See <a href="http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/11/19/state-of-mozilla-and-2008/" title="lizardwrangler.com">http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/11/19/state-of-mozilla-and-2008/</a> [lizardwrangler.com] and the documents linked from it for the 2008 data.</p><p>&gt; Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmers</p><p>As of end of 2008, there were about 200 people being paid out of the $66 million, according to the link above.  That would include programmers, QA, UI designers, marketing, administration, IT staff.</p><p>That's somewhat smaller than the number of people Opera, say, employs, at least last time I checked.</p><p>For comparison, by the way, FY 2008 revenues for Opera were about $87 million according to <a href="http://www.opera.com/media/finance/2009/2Q09.pdf" title="opera.com">http://www.opera.com/media/finance/2009/2Q09.pdf</a> [opera.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Where does the money go ? See http : //blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/11/19/state-of-mozilla-and-2008/ [ lizardwrangler.com ] and the documents linked from it for the 2008 data. &gt; Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmersAs of end of 2008 , there were about 200 people being paid out of the $ 66 million , according to the link above .
That would include programmers , QA , UI designers , marketing , administration , IT staff.That 's somewhat smaller than the number of people Opera , say , employs , at least last time I checked.For comparison , by the way , FY 2008 revenues for Opera were about $ 87 million according to http : //www.opera.com/media/finance/2009/2Q09.pdf [ opera.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Where does the money go?See http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/11/19/state-of-mozilla-and-2008/ [lizardwrangler.com] and the documents linked from it for the 2008 data.&gt; Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmersAs of end of 2008, there were about 200 people being paid out of the $66 million, according to the link above.
That would include programmers, QA, UI designers, marketing, administration, IT staff.That's somewhat smaller than the number of people Opera, say, employs, at least last time I checked.For comparison, by the way, FY 2008 revenues for Opera were about $87 million according to http://www.opera.com/media/finance/2009/2Q09.pdf [opera.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821510</id>
	<title>Better question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it really wise for Slashdot to be so dependent on rehashing the same story <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/12/1556217" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">over</a> [slashdot.org] and <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/11/2036218" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">over</a> [slashdot.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really wise for Slashdot to be so dependent on rehashing the same story over [ slashdot.org ] and over [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really wise for Slashdot to be so dependent on rehashing the same story over [slashdot.org] and over [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823976</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy, and conflicts of interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263893100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does Firefox do to send your personal information to Google, the only Google interactions I can think of are the 'Phishing and Malware Protection features' (only downloads a list, doesn't send all sites to Google as it did in the past) and default homepage (not a real problem)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does Firefox do to send your personal information to Google , the only Google interactions I can think of are the 'Phishing and Malware Protection features ' ( only downloads a list , does n't send all sites to Google as it did in the past ) and default homepage ( not a real problem ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does Firefox do to send your personal information to Google, the only Google interactions I can think of are the 'Phishing and Malware Protection features' (only downloads a list, doesn't send all sites to Google as it did in the past) and default homepage (not a real problem)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822074</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263928980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to lock down the color settings, here are the steps:</p><p>1) Before deploying, go to the configuration file.<br>2) Find a hot curling iron<br>3) Shove it up your ass</p><p>There's no fucking reason you need to lock down the color settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to lock down the color settings , here are the steps : 1 ) Before deploying , go to the configuration file.2 ) Find a hot curling iron3 ) Shove it up your assThere 's no fucking reason you need to lock down the color settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to lock down the color settings, here are the steps:1) Before deploying, go to the configuration file.2) Find a hot curling iron3) Shove it up your assThere's no fucking reason you need to lock down the color settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822028</id>
	<title>Chrome?</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1263928800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome is done with a ribbon, like Internet Explorer. I do not get ribbon instead of a normal toolbar. Why repair what is not broken?</p><p>I would say Chrome with its current ribbon design have no chance.</p><p>As for a browser in a smart phone, I am not convinced either. The screen is too small. Netbook maybe, a netbook with a flexible screen may work too. Or a smart phone with a flexible attachable screen in a roll. But how to work on a mobile phone screen? It is just too small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is done with a ribbon , like Internet Explorer .
I do not get ribbon instead of a normal toolbar .
Why repair what is not broken ? I would say Chrome with its current ribbon design have no chance.As for a browser in a smart phone , I am not convinced either .
The screen is too small .
Netbook maybe , a netbook with a flexible screen may work too .
Or a smart phone with a flexible attachable screen in a roll .
But how to work on a mobile phone screen ?
It is just too small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome is done with a ribbon, like Internet Explorer.
I do not get ribbon instead of a normal toolbar.
Why repair what is not broken?I would say Chrome with its current ribbon design have no chance.As for a browser in a smart phone, I am not convinced either.
The screen is too small.
Netbook maybe, a netbook with a flexible screen may work too.
Or a smart phone with a flexible attachable screen in a roll.
But how to work on a mobile phone screen?
It is just too small.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825828</id>
	<title>Nothing New</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263901440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FOSS is always dependent on a corporate master.  Whether it's Firefux and Teh Googel, or Teh Lunix and either IBM or RedHate (or the NSA), or Star Office and Sun, etc.</p><p>How can FOSS be free when it's just suckling off the teet of a corporate donor?  It may as well just be honest and whore itself out as a software advertisment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FOSS is always dependent on a corporate master .
Whether it 's Firefux and Teh Googel , or Teh Lunix and either IBM or RedHate ( or the NSA ) , or Star Office and Sun , etc.How can FOSS be free when it 's just suckling off the teet of a corporate donor ?
It may as well just be honest and whore itself out as a software advertisment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FOSS is always dependent on a corporate master.
Whether it's Firefux and Teh Googel, or Teh Lunix and either IBM or RedHate (or the NSA), or Star Office and Sun, etc.How can FOSS be free when it's just suckling off the teet of a corporate donor?
It may as well just be honest and whore itself out as a software advertisment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30884434</id>
	<title>Re:chrome is werid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264342500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's okay, the UI you hate is <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Projects/3.7\_and\_4.0\_Theme\_and\_UI\_Revamp" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">coming to Firefox</a> [mozilla.org].  Whatever is <em>hot</em> right now must be better, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's okay , the UI you hate is coming to Firefox [ mozilla.org ] .
Whatever is hot right now must be better , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's okay, the UI you hate is coming to Firefox [mozilla.org].
Whatever is hot right now must be better, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30831870</id>
	<title>Re:Bias Posting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Opera fan boy. Opera is not the longest running GUI browser. Firefox traces its roots back to Mosaic quite directly. We were using that before you were whining in your parents basement about BROWSER SUPERIORITY on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Opera fan boy .
Opera is not the longest running GUI browser .
Firefox traces its roots back to Mosaic quite directly .
We were using that before you were whining in your parents basement about BROWSER SUPERIORITY on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Opera fan boy.
Opera is not the longest running GUI browser.
Firefox traces its roots back to Mosaic quite directly.
We were using that before you were whining in your parents basement about BROWSER SUPERIORITY on the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826804</id>
	<title>Mozilla needs its own Search/Advertising Platform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263907500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla should setup its own search engine and have Firefox default to it- and then have an advertising platform based around it. Cut out the middle man. I'm just wondering how much it would cost to buy and improve a search engine company-and then get it up to the quality and scale of Google. I know it wouldn't happen overnight- but If they could somehow design it so that you got Mozilla's search results first (and advertisements) followed by Google/another search engine it may not be terribly inconvenient for users. If the results they wanted weren't in the Mozilla search results the other search results would be up and waiting. That way users wouldn't get annoyed and go to a second engine- and this would only be necessary until a time when it was really up to snuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla should setup its own search engine and have Firefox default to it- and then have an advertising platform based around it .
Cut out the middle man .
I 'm just wondering how much it would cost to buy and improve a search engine company-and then get it up to the quality and scale of Google .
I know it would n't happen overnight- but If they could somehow design it so that you got Mozilla 's search results first ( and advertisements ) followed by Google/another search engine it may not be terribly inconvenient for users .
If the results they wanted were n't in the Mozilla search results the other search results would be up and waiting .
That way users would n't get annoyed and go to a second engine- and this would only be necessary until a time when it was really up to snuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla should setup its own search engine and have Firefox default to it- and then have an advertising platform based around it.
Cut out the middle man.
I'm just wondering how much it would cost to buy and improve a search engine company-and then get it up to the quality and scale of Google.
I know it wouldn't happen overnight- but If they could somehow design it so that you got Mozilla's search results first (and advertisements) followed by Google/another search engine it may not be terribly inconvenient for users.
If the results they wanted weren't in the Mozilla search results the other search results would be up and waiting.
That way users wouldn't get annoyed and go to a second engine- and this would only be necessary until a time when it was really up to snuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821774</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1263927900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh geez, this is bad.  If Firefox becomes more Google-dependent THERE GOES ADBLOCK and there goes the whole pleasant web experience.  This may be more important than people realize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh geez , this is bad .
If Firefox becomes more Google-dependent THERE GOES ADBLOCK and there goes the whole pleasant web experience .
This may be more important than people realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh geez, this is bad.
If Firefox becomes more Google-dependent THERE GOES ADBLOCK and there goes the whole pleasant web experience.
This may be more important than people realize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822830</id>
	<title>Re:Choices? Really?</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1263931320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to see a meta-search engine which runs locally, may be as a plugin or a daemon. It should search Google, Bing, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and more,
and then combine and sort the results according to the local preferences, and display them as a local HTML page. The advantages for the Web user are huge.
Besides simply having more hits than any one engine will give you, a user can train the meta-engine to favor certain engines
(e.g. Google and Wikipedia over Bing), or disfavor certain domains (e.g. about.com). A user can also benefit from increased
privacy if the meta-engine strips the referrer information and presents direct links. The engine-served ads also go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to see a meta-search engine which runs locally , may be as a plugin or a daemon .
It should search Google , Bing , Yahoo , Wikipedia , and more , and then combine and sort the results according to the local preferences , and display them as a local HTML page .
The advantages for the Web user are huge .
Besides simply having more hits than any one engine will give you , a user can train the meta-engine to favor certain engines ( e.g .
Google and Wikipedia over Bing ) , or disfavor certain domains ( e.g .
about.com ) . A user can also benefit from increased privacy if the meta-engine strips the referrer information and presents direct links .
The engine-served ads also go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to see a meta-search engine which runs locally, may be as a plugin or a daemon.
It should search Google, Bing, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and more,
and then combine and sort the results according to the local preferences, and display them as a local HTML page.
The advantages for the Web user are huge.
Besides simply having more hits than any one engine will give you, a user can train the meta-engine to favor certain engines
(e.g.
Google and Wikipedia over Bing), or disfavor certain domains (e.g.
about.com). A user can also benefit from increased
privacy if the meta-engine strips the referrer information and presents direct links.
The engine-served ads also go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821760</id>
	<title>do me</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1263927840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please do a fundraiser for the campaign I'm working on.  Thanks.</p><p>(It's <a href="http://endsoftwarepatents.org/" title="endsoftwarepatents.org">End Software Patents</a> [endsoftwarepatents.org], bank details when the first 1\% is raised.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do a fundraiser for the campaign I 'm working on .
Thanks. ( It 's End Software Patents [ endsoftwarepatents.org ] , bank details when the first 1 \ % is raised .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do a fundraiser for the campaign I'm working on.
Thanks.(It's End Software Patents [endsoftwarepatents.org], bank details when the first 1\% is raised.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824442</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1263895320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well google seems to disagree with that. I just checked the chrome download page and still got this:<br>
<i>Not Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora/openSUSE? There may be a community-supported version for your distribution here</i> <br>
Apparently this fast moving and well funded commercial operation is waiting for volunteers to port its code?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well google seems to disagree with that .
I just checked the chrome download page and still got this : Not Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora/openSUSE ?
There may be a community-supported version for your distribution here Apparently this fast moving and well funded commercial operation is waiting for volunteers to port its code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well google seems to disagree with that.
I just checked the chrome download page and still got this:
Not Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora/openSUSE?
There may be a community-supported version for your distribution here 
Apparently this fast moving and well funded commercial operation is waiting for volunteers to port its code?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823742</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Rob\_Bryerton</author>
	<datestamp>1263892020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is what you meant to say:<br> <br>

I would argue that it is not a "truly professional piece of software". How do I manage it on my Windows network? If I wanted to lock down the color settings, how might I do that for my Windows clients? How about updating the software, and plugins? How is that achieved in a corporate Windows environment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is what you meant to say : I would argue that it is not a " truly professional piece of software " .
How do I manage it on my Windows network ?
If I wanted to lock down the color settings , how might I do that for my Windows clients ?
How about updating the software , and plugins ?
How is that achieved in a corporate Windows environment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is what you meant to say: 

I would argue that it is not a "truly professional piece of software".
How do I manage it on my Windows network?
If I wanted to lock down the color settings, how might I do that for my Windows clients?
How about updating the software, and plugins?
How is that achieved in a corporate Windows environment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822964</id>
	<title>game is not over</title>
	<author>swframe</author>
	<datestamp>1263931800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google wants browser makers to be more aggressive adding new browser features but the mozilla org was not able to agree with them on the details. So Google went with Chrome to put pressure on the browser makers. Google doesn't need (or want) firefox to die. They just want more innovation at a faster rate and they don't really care which browser is in front. The better the browser, the more time users will spend on-line and the more money Google (and others) will make. As a result of Chrome, I think the mozilla org started paying more attention to new features and are making changes to catch up with Chrome and that is all google really wants.

I think browsers (all of them) are far behind where we (web developers) would like them to be.
I would like more widgets (tree, table, charts, tab pane, split panes, etc) like what I see in adobe flex so I don't have to build this stuff from scratch.
I completely understand that making the current browser features work faster, better and more securely is a high priority. I just think new features to simplify web application development should be a higher priority than it currently seems to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wants browser makers to be more aggressive adding new browser features but the mozilla org was not able to agree with them on the details .
So Google went with Chrome to put pressure on the browser makers .
Google does n't need ( or want ) firefox to die .
They just want more innovation at a faster rate and they do n't really care which browser is in front .
The better the browser , the more time users will spend on-line and the more money Google ( and others ) will make .
As a result of Chrome , I think the mozilla org started paying more attention to new features and are making changes to catch up with Chrome and that is all google really wants .
I think browsers ( all of them ) are far behind where we ( web developers ) would like them to be .
I would like more widgets ( tree , table , charts , tab pane , split panes , etc ) like what I see in adobe flex so I do n't have to build this stuff from scratch .
I completely understand that making the current browser features work faster , better and more securely is a high priority .
I just think new features to simplify web application development should be a higher priority than it currently seems to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wants browser makers to be more aggressive adding new browser features but the mozilla org was not able to agree with them on the details.
So Google went with Chrome to put pressure on the browser makers.
Google doesn't need (or want) firefox to die.
They just want more innovation at a faster rate and they don't really care which browser is in front.
The better the browser, the more time users will spend on-line and the more money Google (and others) will make.
As a result of Chrome, I think the mozilla org started paying more attention to new features and are making changes to catch up with Chrome and that is all google really wants.
I think browsers (all of them) are far behind where we (web developers) would like them to be.
I would like more widgets (tree, table, charts, tab pane, split panes, etc) like what I see in adobe flex so I don't have to build this stuff from scratch.
I completely understand that making the current browser features work faster, better and more securely is a high priority.
I just think new features to simplify web application development should be a higher priority than it currently seems to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821640</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Tamran</author>
	<datestamp>1263927180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really boils down to one thing: Quality</p><p>When people started switching from IE (on windows anyway), they did so because of the great features.  I know a lot of people stay for the same reason, as the plugin library is extensive.  However, like the article says the others are catching up.</p><p>It's not the F/OSS model that's flawed here.  If Firefox was better and faster than what other options are out there, I'd use it now. Two years ago, I used nothing but Firefox<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and loved it.</p><p>Tamran</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really boils down to one thing : QualityWhen people started switching from IE ( on windows anyway ) , they did so because of the great features .
I know a lot of people stay for the same reason , as the plugin library is extensive .
However , like the article says the others are catching up.It 's not the F/OSS model that 's flawed here .
If Firefox was better and faster than what other options are out there , I 'd use it now .
Two years ago , I used nothing but Firefox ... and loved it.Tamran</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really boils down to one thing: QualityWhen people started switching from IE (on windows anyway), they did so because of the great features.
I know a lot of people stay for the same reason, as the plugin library is extensive.
However, like the article says the others are catching up.It's not the F/OSS model that's flawed here.
If Firefox was better and faster than what other options are out there, I'd use it now.
Two years ago, I used nothing but Firefox ... and loved it.Tamran</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821584</id>
	<title>well,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about time to fork Firefox, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about time to fork Firefox , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about time to fork Firefox, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821608</id>
	<title>Privacy, and conflicts of interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus.  Many of the privacy features I'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.</p><p>For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.</p><p>Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users, but this is a bizare case where those controls haven't worked.</p><p>(I know I can solve *my* problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers, but I'm not just looking for a quick fix for me, I'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus .
Many of the privacy features I 'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google , I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google 's money.Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users , but this is a bizare case where those controls have n't worked .
( I know I can solve * my * problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers , but I 'm not just looking for a quick fix for me , I 'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus.
Many of the privacy features I'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users, but this is a bizare case where those controls haven't worked.
(I know I can solve *my* problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers, but I'm not just looking for a quick fix for me, I'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30827754</id>
	<title>Opera closing the gap? LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can Opera close the gap on features when it has them all first?  Nub author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can Opera close the gap on features when it has them all first ?
Nub author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can Opera close the gap on features when it has them all first?
Nub author.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821650</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1263927240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't agree more. I love Firefox, I use it daily and the support around it is what makes it great. But Google is making Chrome, which is a faster browser, sandboxed, etc. IE is obviously going down a similar path, and Apple is always out of the running because they don't care about open source unless they can rename it and sell it for profit.</p><p>I see a bad future for Mozilla, and for Firefox... it's a great example of WHY open source works, but also an example of what does not work. Look at Chrome -- other than the community support, Firefox pales in comparison to almost everything Chrome does. It's slower, less secure (technically), and not as extensible (Gears and Google APIs). But the community around Firefox developed things like Adblock, Xmarks, Firebug, etc. I live on those things, and love them.</p><p>But sadly, Firefox is not necessary in order for me to use those extensions any more. While I still find great utility in the addons Firefox has, I realize more and more than open source does *not* evolve very quickly, or very well. Sure it's open source and you can do whatever you want with it. Great. But as a whole application, Firefox is slowing down while others are speeding ahead (namely Chrome). I worry for its future, but at the same time.... I've never been an O/S proponent more than if it does the job, I'll use it.</p><p>When Firefox no longer does the job, or no longer does it best -- I'll move on. Unfortunately for the O/S community, you can't justify the use of O/S just BECAUSE it's O/S. It has to be better, and it has to evolve faster. I simply am not seeing it any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more .
I love Firefox , I use it daily and the support around it is what makes it great .
But Google is making Chrome , which is a faster browser , sandboxed , etc .
IE is obviously going down a similar path , and Apple is always out of the running because they do n't care about open source unless they can rename it and sell it for profit.I see a bad future for Mozilla , and for Firefox... it 's a great example of WHY open source works , but also an example of what does not work .
Look at Chrome -- other than the community support , Firefox pales in comparison to almost everything Chrome does .
It 's slower , less secure ( technically ) , and not as extensible ( Gears and Google APIs ) .
But the community around Firefox developed things like Adblock , Xmarks , Firebug , etc .
I live on those things , and love them.But sadly , Firefox is not necessary in order for me to use those extensions any more .
While I still find great utility in the addons Firefox has , I realize more and more than open source does * not * evolve very quickly , or very well .
Sure it 's open source and you can do whatever you want with it .
Great. But as a whole application , Firefox is slowing down while others are speeding ahead ( namely Chrome ) .
I worry for its future , but at the same time.... I 've never been an O/S proponent more than if it does the job , I 'll use it.When Firefox no longer does the job , or no longer does it best -- I 'll move on .
Unfortunately for the O/S community , you ca n't justify the use of O/S just BECAUSE it 's O/S .
It has to be better , and it has to evolve faster .
I simply am not seeing it any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more.
I love Firefox, I use it daily and the support around it is what makes it great.
But Google is making Chrome, which is a faster browser, sandboxed, etc.
IE is obviously going down a similar path, and Apple is always out of the running because they don't care about open source unless they can rename it and sell it for profit.I see a bad future for Mozilla, and for Firefox... it's a great example of WHY open source works, but also an example of what does not work.
Look at Chrome -- other than the community support, Firefox pales in comparison to almost everything Chrome does.
It's slower, less secure (technically), and not as extensible (Gears and Google APIs).
But the community around Firefox developed things like Adblock, Xmarks, Firebug, etc.
I live on those things, and love them.But sadly, Firefox is not necessary in order for me to use those extensions any more.
While I still find great utility in the addons Firefox has, I realize more and more than open source does *not* evolve very quickly, or very well.
Sure it's open source and you can do whatever you want with it.
Great. But as a whole application, Firefox is slowing down while others are speeding ahead (namely Chrome).
I worry for its future, but at the same time.... I've never been an O/S proponent more than if it does the job, I'll use it.When Firefox no longer does the job, or no longer does it best -- I'll move on.
Unfortunately for the O/S community, you can't justify the use of O/S just BECAUSE it's O/S.
It has to be better, and it has to evolve faster.
I simply am not seeing it any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622</id>
	<title>Is there a reason for Google to shaft Mozilla?</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1263930720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see any reason why Google would try to harm Firefox. Granted Google has a browser called Chrome, but what Google really wants is for people to use Google as their search engine. With Firefox the most popular engine after IE (and Microsoft wouldn't do anything, but make Bing IE's default search engine), I don't see why Google wouldn't simply extend their deal with FIrefox. They certainly wouldn't want Firefox to move over to Yahoo or Bing.</p><p>The only thing I can see is Google would use their leverage over Firefox to get Firefox to switch from the Gecko to WebKit. That would give Google a unified JavaScript/Web browser engine to run their applications against.</p><p>It's not usually a good thing to have another entity control your future like this, but Firefox really doesn't have a choice now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any reason why Google would try to harm Firefox .
Granted Google has a browser called Chrome , but what Google really wants is for people to use Google as their search engine .
With Firefox the most popular engine after IE ( and Microsoft would n't do anything , but make Bing IE 's default search engine ) , I do n't see why Google would n't simply extend their deal with FIrefox .
They certainly would n't want Firefox to move over to Yahoo or Bing.The only thing I can see is Google would use their leverage over Firefox to get Firefox to switch from the Gecko to WebKit .
That would give Google a unified JavaScript/Web browser engine to run their applications against.It 's not usually a good thing to have another entity control your future like this , but Firefox really does n't have a choice now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any reason why Google would try to harm Firefox.
Granted Google has a browser called Chrome, but what Google really wants is for people to use Google as their search engine.
With Firefox the most popular engine after IE (and Microsoft wouldn't do anything, but make Bing IE's default search engine), I don't see why Google wouldn't simply extend their deal with FIrefox.
They certainly wouldn't want Firefox to move over to Yahoo or Bing.The only thing I can see is Google would use their leverage over Firefox to get Firefox to switch from the Gecko to WebKit.
That would give Google a unified JavaScript/Web browser engine to run their applications against.It's not usually a good thing to have another entity control your future like this, but Firefox really doesn't have a choice now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821526</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>linhares</author>
	<datestamp>1263926700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I HAVE AN IDEA!!!!<p>

If they sell each copy for $100, then with only (US$66 000 000,00/US$100 =) 660 000 users they could get the same amount of cash.  </p><p>Fuck; this is a perfect plan... just like Microsoft Office!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I HAVE AN IDEA ! ! ! !
If they sell each copy for $ 100 , then with only ( US $ 66 000 000,00/US $ 100 = ) 660 000 users they could get the same amount of cash .
Fuck ; this is a perfect plan... just like Microsoft Office !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I HAVE AN IDEA!!!!
If they sell each copy for $100, then with only (US$66 000 000,00/US$100 =) 660 000 users they could get the same amount of cash.
Fuck; this is a perfect plan... just like Microsoft Office!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821742</id>
	<title>What is Google paying for ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are paying for advertisement revenue caused by the default settings in Firefox. Until Chrome is a serious competitor, Google will pay Mozilla just for not including Adblock directly into the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are paying for advertisement revenue caused by the default settings in Firefox .
Until Chrome is a serious competitor , Google will pay Mozilla just for not including Adblock directly into the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are paying for advertisement revenue caused by the default settings in Firefox.
Until Chrome is a serious competitor, Google will pay Mozilla just for not including Adblock directly into the browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825372</id>
	<title>Google is not a competitor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of Chrome was to build something with faster javascript to support stuff like google docs and wave what not. One longstanding thing to cut into productivity/office programs that microsoft dominates in. Firefox assists Google in this because though chrome exists, its marketshare is small and of all other browsers, Firefox is the one giving IE a run for its money.<br>Mozilla is an asset to google, with or without Chrome and will continue being one even if Chrome surpassed Firefox's market share which it is unlikely to do any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of Chrome was to build something with faster javascript to support stuff like google docs and wave what not .
One longstanding thing to cut into productivity/office programs that microsoft dominates in .
Firefox assists Google in this because though chrome exists , its marketshare is small and of all other browsers , Firefox is the one giving IE a run for its money.Mozilla is an asset to google , with or without Chrome and will continue being one even if Chrome surpassed Firefox 's market share which it is unlikely to do any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of Chrome was to build something with faster javascript to support stuff like google docs and wave what not.
One longstanding thing to cut into productivity/office programs that microsoft dominates in.
Firefox assists Google in this because though chrome exists, its marketshare is small and of all other browsers, Firefox is the one giving IE a run for its money.Mozilla is an asset to google, with or without Chrome and will continue being one even if Chrome surpassed Firefox's market share which it is unlikely to do any time soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821674</id>
	<title>Just buy 'em out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google should dump Chrome and buy Mozilla. Make it lean more toward the use of Google applications and web services. As long as they don't try to morph it into Chrome, it'd be cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should dump Chrome and buy Mozilla .
Make it lean more toward the use of Google applications and web services .
As long as they do n't try to morph it into Chrome , it 'd be cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should dump Chrome and buy Mozilla.
Make it lean more toward the use of Google applications and web services.
As long as they don't try to morph it into Chrome, it'd be cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822646</id>
	<title>Chrome?</title>
	<author>cheatch</author>
	<datestamp>1263930780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason I would see Google to cut their funds would to get more people on Chrome. Chrome is nice and all but its no where near Firefox.

</p><p>With Bing though, it would hurt Google if Mozilla starts a bidding war over their defaults with Microsoft.

</p><p>Personally though, I still prefer google and firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason I would see Google to cut their funds would to get more people on Chrome .
Chrome is nice and all but its no where near Firefox .
With Bing though , it would hurt Google if Mozilla starts a bidding war over their defaults with Microsoft .
Personally though , I still prefer google and firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason I would see Google to cut their funds would to get more people on Chrome.
Chrome is nice and all but its no where near Firefox.
With Bing though, it would hurt Google if Mozilla starts a bidding war over their defaults with Microsoft.
Personally though, I still prefer google and firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826798</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a reason for Google to shaft Mozilla?</title>
	<author>PGGreens</author>
	<datestamp>1263907440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. Google wouldn't have much incentive to cut off Firefox, aside from the ability to control people's online experience more closely. As it stands, Firefox directs tons of traffic to Google, and I doubt that they would be too quick to disturb that flow.

That being said, if Firefox were to fall into disrepair, I suspect a large portion of its user base would end up using Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Google would n't have much incentive to cut off Firefox , aside from the ability to control people 's online experience more closely .
As it stands , Firefox directs tons of traffic to Google , and I doubt that they would be too quick to disturb that flow .
That being said , if Firefox were to fall into disrepair , I suspect a large portion of its user base would end up using Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Google wouldn't have much incentive to cut off Firefox, aside from the ability to control people's online experience more closely.
As it stands, Firefox directs tons of traffic to Google, and I doubt that they would be too quick to disturb that flow.
That being said, if Firefox were to fall into disrepair, I suspect a large portion of its user base would end up using Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822324</id>
	<title>Re:What ?</title>
	<author>rubicelli</author>
	<datestamp>1263929760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox had one critical feature a year before Opera did: It was free.  For years, Opera had been "that browser you had to pay for (or get advertising with)".  That kind of stigma stays with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox had one critical feature a year before Opera did : It was free .
For years , Opera had been " that browser you had to pay for ( or get advertising with ) " .
That kind of stigma stays with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox had one critical feature a year before Opera did: It was free.
For years, Opera had been "that browser you had to pay for (or get advertising with)".
That kind of stigma stays with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826354</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1263904320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found the claim that Opera was "catching up" in the summary spurious at best. Many of the features that Firefox has were developed first by the Opera team, including tabs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found the claim that Opera was " catching up " in the summary spurious at best .
Many of the features that Firefox has were developed first by the Opera team , including tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found the claim that Opera was "catching up" in the summary spurious at best.
Many of the features that Firefox has were developed first by the Opera team, including tabs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822380</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1263929940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>non-pc devices.</p></div><p>I've noticed that too. My mobile phone is always complaining about how black people don't know their place, asking who that 'mulatto' is whenever Obama is on CNN and saying that women should be back home cooking for the husbands.</p><p>Oh well, it's an old model I guess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>non-pc devices.I 've noticed that too .
My mobile phone is always complaining about how black people do n't know their place , asking who that 'mulatto ' is whenever Obama is on CNN and saying that women should be back home cooking for the husbands.Oh well , it 's an old model I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>non-pc devices.I've noticed that too.
My mobile phone is always complaining about how black people don't know their place, asking who that 'mulatto' is whenever Obama is on CNN and saying that women should be back home cooking for the husbands.Oh well, it's an old model I guess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823588</id>
	<title>Google won't leave Mozilla</title>
	<author>thermal\_7</author>
	<datestamp>1263934500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Google is very happy about the existence of Mozilla and its plethora of open source projects.</p><p>Google is focusing on breaking up the traditional desktop application way of doing things and moving it all to the web. They also want to loosen Microsoft's stranglehold on the computer industry.</p><p>Supporting Mozilla helps to achieve both of these goals. The fact that it also helps decrease the number of users using Chrome is of lesser importance IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google is very happy about the existence of Mozilla and its plethora of open source projects.Google is focusing on breaking up the traditional desktop application way of doing things and moving it all to the web .
They also want to loosen Microsoft 's stranglehold on the computer industry.Supporting Mozilla helps to achieve both of these goals .
The fact that it also helps decrease the number of users using Chrome is of lesser importance IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google is very happy about the existence of Mozilla and its plethora of open source projects.Google is focusing on breaking up the traditional desktop application way of doing things and moving it all to the web.
They also want to loosen Microsoft's stranglehold on the computer industry.Supporting Mozilla helps to achieve both of these goals.
The fact that it also helps decrease the number of users using Chrome is of lesser importance IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821706</id>
	<title>Or..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can use that to help push them to be better.  They need the money more than they can worry about Google being a competitor.  I will say that I used Firefox for many years, but when Chrome came out for OS X I switched.  It's faster, and cleaner (cleaner being my relative term for how it 'feels').  I still use Firefox for web development and testing because of the addons, but Firefox has grown sluggish lately.  As many have said before, they need to strip it back down, and let a lot of their extras be added in by the users if they really want it.  I'm doing without several of my preferred plugins (AdBlock especially) just because Chrome is that much snappier feeling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can use that to help push them to be better .
They need the money more than they can worry about Google being a competitor .
I will say that I used Firefox for many years , but when Chrome came out for OS X I switched .
It 's faster , and cleaner ( cleaner being my relative term for how it 'feels ' ) .
I still use Firefox for web development and testing because of the addons , but Firefox has grown sluggish lately .
As many have said before , they need to strip it back down , and let a lot of their extras be added in by the users if they really want it .
I 'm doing without several of my preferred plugins ( AdBlock especially ) just because Chrome is that much snappier feeling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can use that to help push them to be better.
They need the money more than they can worry about Google being a competitor.
I will say that I used Firefox for many years, but when Chrome came out for OS X I switched.
It's faster, and cleaner (cleaner being my relative term for how it 'feels').
I still use Firefox for web development and testing because of the addons, but Firefox has grown sluggish lately.
As many have said before, they need to strip it back down, and let a lot of their extras be added in by the users if they really want it.
I'm doing without several of my preferred plugins (AdBlock especially) just because Chrome is that much snappier feeling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826192</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy, and conflicts of interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263903300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.</p></div><p>Why do you think that Mozilla deriving revenue from search (from Google and other search providers) would have any impact on Mozilla's privacy concerns for users? Where have you seen Mozilla doing something that's adverse to user privacy because they earn revenue from Search? Please cite examples where this has happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google , I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google 's money.Why do you think that Mozilla deriving revenue from search ( from Google and other search providers ) would have any impact on Mozilla 's privacy concerns for users ?
Where have you seen Mozilla doing something that 's adverse to user privacy because they earn revenue from Search ?
Please cite examples where this has happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.Why do you think that Mozilla deriving revenue from search (from Google and other search providers) would have any impact on Mozilla's privacy concerns for users?
Where have you seen Mozilla doing something that's adverse to user privacy because they earn revenue from Search?
Please cite examples where this has happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822098</id>
	<title>Firefox's future is in its own hands</title>
	<author>NaCh0</author>
	<datestamp>1263929040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And those hands are questionable.  The browser doesn't really lead in any area.  They are not pushing the standards compliance front (see the ACID tests).  They are not leading the speed or javascript fronts.  They have been resting on their plugin laurels.  The bureaucracy is heavy (see firefox vs debian).  The code itself is heavy. (the reason why webkit is chosen over gecko)  And Asa, mozilla chief fanboi, thinks microsoft is a more trustworthy partner moving forward than google is. (see the bing recommendation)</p><p>If Chrome gets a good plugin API and continues down the multiplatform path, firefox is toast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And those hands are questionable .
The browser does n't really lead in any area .
They are not pushing the standards compliance front ( see the ACID tests ) .
They are not leading the speed or javascript fronts .
They have been resting on their plugin laurels .
The bureaucracy is heavy ( see firefox vs debian ) .
The code itself is heavy .
( the reason why webkit is chosen over gecko ) And Asa , mozilla chief fanboi , thinks microsoft is a more trustworthy partner moving forward than google is .
( see the bing recommendation ) If Chrome gets a good plugin API and continues down the multiplatform path , firefox is toast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And those hands are questionable.
The browser doesn't really lead in any area.
They are not pushing the standards compliance front (see the ACID tests).
They are not leading the speed or javascript fronts.
They have been resting on their plugin laurels.
The bureaucracy is heavy (see firefox vs debian).
The code itself is heavy.
(the reason why webkit is chosen over gecko)  And Asa, mozilla chief fanboi, thinks microsoft is a more trustworthy partner moving forward than google is.
(see the bing recommendation)If Chrome gets a good plugin API and continues down the multiplatform path, firefox is toast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826430</id>
	<title>More then meets the eye</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263904620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is so much more to the Google/Mozilla relationship then spoken about here.  Google won't abandon Firefox because FF is going about doing the Lord's work by grabbing market share from IE.  And that to Google is worth more then $66 million easy.  Why?  Microsoft sees its manifest destiny (or maybe its more subconscious to just the way it operates) is to be #1 in every enterprise level software market.  Does the worlds largest maker of OS and office productivity software also need to dominate internet search (Bing) and electronic conferencing tools (LiveMeeting) and so on and so forth.  They think so.  What I am really trying to say is that Google's relationship with Mozilla is an investment in protecting the "Commons".  Microsoft is definitely the lord of the land but there are the commons where Google thrives and challenges them their dominance in other areas.   Want more evidence of this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Silverlight.  Think Silverlight is there to challenge Adobe Flash<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe a little<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but its going to serve more as a platform for Microsoft to challenge Google Apps.  Microsoft doesn't want the challenge of making a Word and Excel work over the Web using Web standards.  Silverlight is nothing more then a bypass of the web platform for a company that doesn't like play by any rules they don't make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is so much more to the Google/Mozilla relationship then spoken about here .
Google wo n't abandon Firefox because FF is going about doing the Lord 's work by grabbing market share from IE .
And that to Google is worth more then $ 66 million easy .
Why ? Microsoft sees its manifest destiny ( or maybe its more subconscious to just the way it operates ) is to be # 1 in every enterprise level software market .
Does the worlds largest maker of OS and office productivity software also need to dominate internet search ( Bing ) and electronic conferencing tools ( LiveMeeting ) and so on and so forth .
They think so .
What I am really trying to say is that Google 's relationship with Mozilla is an investment in protecting the " Commons " .
Microsoft is definitely the lord of the land but there are the commons where Google thrives and challenges them their dominance in other areas .
Want more evidence of this ... Silverlight. Think Silverlight is there to challenge Adobe Flash ... maybe a little ... but its going to serve more as a platform for Microsoft to challenge Google Apps .
Microsoft does n't want the challenge of making a Word and Excel work over the Web using Web standards .
Silverlight is nothing more then a bypass of the web platform for a company that does n't like play by any rules they do n't make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is so much more to the Google/Mozilla relationship then spoken about here.
Google won't abandon Firefox because FF is going about doing the Lord's work by grabbing market share from IE.
And that to Google is worth more then $66 million easy.
Why?  Microsoft sees its manifest destiny (or maybe its more subconscious to just the way it operates) is to be #1 in every enterprise level software market.
Does the worlds largest maker of OS and office productivity software also need to dominate internet search (Bing) and electronic conferencing tools (LiveMeeting) and so on and so forth.
They think so.
What I am really trying to say is that Google's relationship with Mozilla is an investment in protecting the "Commons".
Microsoft is definitely the lord of the land but there are the commons where Google thrives and challenges them their dominance in other areas.
Want more evidence of this ... Silverlight.  Think Silverlight is there to challenge Adobe Flash ... maybe a little ... but its going to serve more as a platform for Microsoft to challenge Google Apps.
Microsoft doesn't want the challenge of making a Word and Excel work over the Web using Web standards.
Silverlight is nothing more then a bypass of the web platform for a company that doesn't like play by any rules they don't make.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825630</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1263900600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's hoping that's exactly what they are doing.  If they can keep it going for just 5 more years they  should build able to build up ~$200M in the bank and  fund a $5 - $7M development effort (say, 20 developers) into perpetuity.   I'd much rather that than blowing $50M a year just because it's raining from the sky right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's hoping that 's exactly what they are doing .
If they can keep it going for just 5 more years they should build able to build up ~ $ 200M in the bank and fund a $ 5 - $ 7M development effort ( say , 20 developers ) into perpetuity .
I 'd much rather that than blowing $ 50M a year just because it 's raining from the sky right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's hoping that's exactly what they are doing.
If they can keep it going for just 5 more years they  should build able to build up ~$200M in the bank and  fund a $5 - $7M development effort (say, 20 developers) into perpetuity.
I'd much rather that than blowing $50M a year just because it's raining from the sky right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822014</id>
	<title>Speaking of Google</title>
	<author>s122604</author>
	<datestamp>1263928740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can somebody tell me why chrome has started to display slashdot so messed up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody tell me why chrome has started to display slashdot so messed up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody tell me why chrome has started to display slashdot so messed up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822070</id>
	<title>Are FF and Chrome really "competing?"</title>
	<author>ZPWeeks</author>
	<datestamp>1263928920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I don't understand this fully, but I don't see how this works out to be competition from a "dollars and cents" perspective. Google keeps talking about Chrome being a way to "improve the web," and I see them doing that by promoting a browser that's leaps and bounds above the status quo (being IE). Having an officially "Google" product, instead of just a Google-sponsored one like Firefox, allows them to leverage their reputation in a way that hopefully gets people using modern browsers. There are good technical reasons to use both, and aren't crowding the market.</p><p>Until Google starts tightly coupling their web services with Chrome-exclusive features (and I don't mean just bookmark sync), Firefox and Chrome will <em>both</em> benefit Google economically by giving them a broader base of browsers capable of running their monetized products - rich web applications.</p><p>Firefox will not be an economic competitor to Google until (1) Firefox changes its search defaults or (2) Google elects to make Chrome-exclusive products or features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I do n't understand this fully , but I do n't see how this works out to be competition from a " dollars and cents " perspective .
Google keeps talking about Chrome being a way to " improve the web , " and I see them doing that by promoting a browser that 's leaps and bounds above the status quo ( being IE ) .
Having an officially " Google " product , instead of just a Google-sponsored one like Firefox , allows them to leverage their reputation in a way that hopefully gets people using modern browsers .
There are good technical reasons to use both , and are n't crowding the market.Until Google starts tightly coupling their web services with Chrome-exclusive features ( and I do n't mean just bookmark sync ) , Firefox and Chrome will both benefit Google economically by giving them a broader base of browsers capable of running their monetized products - rich web applications.Firefox will not be an economic competitor to Google until ( 1 ) Firefox changes its search defaults or ( 2 ) Google elects to make Chrome-exclusive products or features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I don't understand this fully, but I don't see how this works out to be competition from a "dollars and cents" perspective.
Google keeps talking about Chrome being a way to "improve the web," and I see them doing that by promoting a browser that's leaps and bounds above the status quo (being IE).
Having an officially "Google" product, instead of just a Google-sponsored one like Firefox, allows them to leverage their reputation in a way that hopefully gets people using modern browsers.
There are good technical reasons to use both, and aren't crowding the market.Until Google starts tightly coupling their web services with Chrome-exclusive features (and I don't mean just bookmark sync), Firefox and Chrome will both benefit Google economically by giving them a broader base of browsers capable of running their monetized products - rich web applications.Firefox will not be an economic competitor to Google until (1) Firefox changes its search defaults or (2) Google elects to make Chrome-exclusive products or features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821690</id>
	<title>Firefox still winning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter if it's competing with Google as long as it's stays on top, Google can't afford to lose Firefox until Chrome has picked up more market share, currently despite it's speed Firefox is 5x as popular, until that is reversed Google have to at least match what their competitors would pay and currently I bet MS would pay a fair bit for just 25\% of mistyped URLs to go through BING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if it 's competing with Google as long as it 's stays on top , Google ca n't afford to lose Firefox until Chrome has picked up more market share , currently despite it 's speed Firefox is 5x as popular , until that is reversed Google have to at least match what their competitors would pay and currently I bet MS would pay a fair bit for just 25 \ % of mistyped URLs to go through BING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if it's competing with Google as long as it's stays on top, Google can't afford to lose Firefox until Chrome has picked up more market share, currently despite it's speed Firefox is 5x as popular, until that is reversed Google have to at least match what their competitors would pay and currently I bet MS would pay a fair bit for just 25\% of mistyped URLs to go through BING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822582</id>
	<title>Re:Bias Posting</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263930540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"[Firefox] the past two years have seen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Opera close the features gap significantly." Are we re-writing documented history? Opera is the longest running GUI Web browser, first to use tabs, sessions, customizable skins, ACID 2 &amp; 3 compliant, download management panel, widget support, and a whole host of other features Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and Google have taken and continue to take from Opera ASA. I suppose when your non-Opera Web browser lacks the security track record Opera possesses, delusive jealousy becomes a factor.</p></div><p>I wouldn't write it off as delusive jealousy, maybe it's just plain ignorance: I'm starting to think that Opera should do a better job at advertising its constant being one (when not several) step(s) ahead of the competition. Firefox, after all, has always had much more aggressive campaigning, which combined with its starting off from the vast Mozilla suite fanbase, and the fact that it's open source, put it in a much more favorable position, so that if and when people actually get to try Opera, they've already seen all the features in FF 'already', even though Opera implemented them first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ Firefox ] the past two years have seen ... Opera close the features gap significantly .
" Are we re-writing documented history ?
Opera is the longest running GUI Web browser , first to use tabs , sessions , customizable skins , ACID 2 &amp; 3 compliant , download management panel , widget support , and a whole host of other features Mozilla , Apple , Microsoft , and Google have taken and continue to take from Opera ASA .
I suppose when your non-Opera Web browser lacks the security track record Opera possesses , delusive jealousy becomes a factor.I would n't write it off as delusive jealousy , maybe it 's just plain ignorance : I 'm starting to think that Opera should do a better job at advertising its constant being one ( when not several ) step ( s ) ahead of the competition .
Firefox , after all , has always had much more aggressive campaigning , which combined with its starting off from the vast Mozilla suite fanbase , and the fact that it 's open source , put it in a much more favorable position , so that if and when people actually get to try Opera , they 've already seen all the features in FF 'already ' , even though Opera implemented them first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[Firefox] the past two years have seen ... Opera close the features gap significantly.
" Are we re-writing documented history?
Opera is the longest running GUI Web browser, first to use tabs, sessions, customizable skins, ACID 2 &amp; 3 compliant, download management panel, widget support, and a whole host of other features Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and Google have taken and continue to take from Opera ASA.
I suppose when your non-Opera Web browser lacks the security track record Opera possesses, delusive jealousy becomes a factor.I wouldn't write it off as delusive jealousy, maybe it's just plain ignorance: I'm starting to think that Opera should do a better job at advertising its constant being one (when not several) step(s) ahead of the competition.
Firefox, after all, has always had much more aggressive campaigning, which combined with its starting off from the vast Mozilla suite fanbase, and the fact that it's open source, put it in a much more favorable position, so that if and when people actually get to try Opera, they've already seen all the features in FF 'already', even though Opera implemented them first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824628</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263896280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why repair what is not broken?</p></div><p>And if it's not broken, it obviously cannot ever be improved, either.</p><p>I actually like Chrome's UI better.  I like the extra page real-estate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why repair what is not broken ? And if it 's not broken , it obviously can not ever be improved , either.I actually like Chrome 's UI better .
I like the extra page real-estate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why repair what is not broken?And if it's not broken, it obviously cannot ever be improved, either.I actually like Chrome's UI better.
I like the extra page real-estate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821964</id>
	<title>google will continue the deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263928560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google's biggest income is your time. the more people that use their search(and consequently their other tools and programs) the more money they get. i don't think that google cares that firefox are competing because it gets them eyes, which is what they depend on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google 's biggest income is your time .
the more people that use their search ( and consequently their other tools and programs ) the more money they get .
i do n't think that google cares that firefox are competing because it gets them eyes , which is what they depend on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google's biggest income is your time.
the more people that use their search(and consequently their other tools and programs) the more money they get.
i don't think that google cares that firefox are competing because it gets them eyes, which is what they depend on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823240</id>
	<title>Re:Donationware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad 98\% of that income would go straight to the few higher-ups, and maybe a handful of spare change would make it down to the developers, programmers, and other related staff that actually DO work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad 98 \ % of that income would go straight to the few higher-ups , and maybe a handful of spare change would make it down to the developers , programmers , and other related staff that actually DO work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad 98\% of that income would go straight to the few higher-ups, and maybe a handful of spare change would make it down to the developers, programmers, and other related staff that actually DO work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821738</id>
	<title>Google wont upset mozilla.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1263927660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for, if they do, they will have upset us. we are the small developers, webmasters, publishers, contributors. we are adsense, we are pagerank, analytics, this that, whatever google has devised in regard to content syndication on the web.</p><p>if they do, we will upset google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for , if they do , they will have upset us .
we are the small developers , webmasters , publishers , contributors .
we are adsense , we are pagerank , analytics , this that , whatever google has devised in regard to content syndication on the web.if they do , we will upset google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for, if they do, they will have upset us.
we are the small developers, webmasters, publishers, contributors.
we are adsense, we are pagerank, analytics, this that, whatever google has devised in regard to content syndication on the web.if they do, we will upset google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825740</id>
	<title>Re:Donationware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263901020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox has ~350 million users worldwide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has ~ 350 million users worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has ~350 million users worldwide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821988</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1263928620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a really interesting argument which brings the thought to mind that is Microsoft were to become involved with Mozilla, it would clear up all sorts of issues that Microsoft has and would be a stroke of genius for them (Microsoft).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a really interesting argument which brings the thought to mind that is Microsoft were to become involved with Mozilla , it would clear up all sorts of issues that Microsoft has and would be a stroke of genius for them ( Microsoft ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a really interesting argument which brings the thought to mind that is Microsoft were to become involved with Mozilla, it would clear up all sorts of issues that Microsoft has and would be a stroke of genius for them (Microsoft).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824228</id>
	<title>Google will not ditch Mozilla</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263894180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are only 3 reasons why Google would ditch Mozilla in the future:

1. Nobody uses Firefox anymore (i.e. less than 1\% share)
2. Mozilla is charging ridiculously high fees
3. There is a big scandal

Google has lots of incentives to keep this deal. Users are by default, lazy. Most do not change any options. That is of course why IE is the dominant browser (pre-installed on Windows). Because Google is the default search engine on FF, many users will use Google instead of a competitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are only 3 reasons why Google would ditch Mozilla in the future : 1 .
Nobody uses Firefox anymore ( i.e .
less than 1 \ % share ) 2 .
Mozilla is charging ridiculously high fees 3 .
There is a big scandal Google has lots of incentives to keep this deal .
Users are by default , lazy .
Most do not change any options .
That is of course why IE is the dominant browser ( pre-installed on Windows ) .
Because Google is the default search engine on FF , many users will use Google instead of a competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are only 3 reasons why Google would ditch Mozilla in the future:

1.
Nobody uses Firefox anymore (i.e.
less than 1\% share)
2.
Mozilla is charging ridiculously high fees
3.
There is a big scandal

Google has lots of incentives to keep this deal.
Users are by default, lazy.
Most do not change any options.
That is of course why IE is the dominant browser (pre-installed on Windows).
Because Google is the default search engine on FF, many users will use Google instead of a competitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822288</id>
	<title>Well that sucks</title>
	<author>hkdm</author>
	<datestamp>1263929580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using Firefox since 1.5 so it's been an integral part of my browsing experience. Let's just hope it isn't assimilated into the Chrome project.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Firefox since 1.5 so it 's been an integral part of my browsing experience .
Let 's just hope it is n't assimilated into the Chrome project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Firefox since 1.5 so it's been an integral part of my browsing experience.
Let's just hope it isn't assimilated into the Chrome project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825188</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a reason for Google to shaft Mozilla?</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1263898680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see any reason why Google would try to harm Firefox... what Google really wants is for people to use Google as their search engine.</p></div><p>What Google wants is to show you ads, and to collect your personal data to show you more profitable ads. Firefox's Adblock strikes directly at their ONLY real revenue source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any reason why Google would try to harm Firefox... what Google really wants is for people to use Google as their search engine.What Google wants is to show you ads , and to collect your personal data to show you more profitable ads .
Firefox 's Adblock strikes directly at their ONLY real revenue source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any reason why Google would try to harm Firefox... what Google really wants is for people to use Google as their search engine.What Google wants is to show you ads, and to collect your personal data to show you more profitable ads.
Firefox's Adblock strikes directly at their ONLY real revenue source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30830748</id>
	<title>Re:Bias Posting</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1263996360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Opera is the longest running GUI Web browser</i></p><p>If by that you mean that of the browsers currently available, it came out first, then you're wrong; IE was released in late 1995, while Opera was released in December 1996 (from the Wikipedia pages on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_Explorer#Internet\_Explorer" title="wikipedia.org">Internet Explorer</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera\_(web\_browser)" title="wikipedia.org">Opera</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera is the longest running GUI Web browserIf by that you mean that of the browsers currently available , it came out first , then you 're wrong ; IE was released in late 1995 , while Opera was released in December 1996 ( from the Wikipedia pages on Internet Explorer [ wikipedia.org ] and Opera [ wikipedia.org ] .If that 's not what you mean , then what do you mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera is the longest running GUI Web browserIf by that you mean that of the browsers currently available, it came out first, then you're wrong; IE was released in late 1995, while Opera was released in December 1996 (from the Wikipedia pages on Internet Explorer [wikipedia.org] and Opera [wikipedia.org].If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821826</id>
	<title>FireFox is in Denial</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1263928080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The developers of FireFox are in a state of denial; that rarely lends itself to dealing with reality-based threats very well.</p><p>Take the memory management issue -- the developers routinely say "There's no such thing."  Or "you're using too many plug-ins and extensions."  Or any number of excuses.  I can hit the same pages with Opera as with FireFox, with less memory usage.  And I'm not using plug-ins.  The reflex nerd answer is "well, stop browsing that way!"  That is a foolish thing to say, as it will cause me to switch to a browser where I do not have to alter my habits.</p><p>You can see that Internet Explorer's market share continues to drop, but as of late, it is not through growth in FireFox.  It's from the adoption of other competing browsers.  As long as the Mozilla Foundation is operating with the THERE ARE NO BAD PROBLEMS, JUST BAD USERS mindset, they'll continue to make more and more strategic blunders.  Reliance on Google is one of them.  Google has no friends, only temporary allies which may be either dispatched or eaten when it is convenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The developers of FireFox are in a state of denial ; that rarely lends itself to dealing with reality-based threats very well.Take the memory management issue -- the developers routinely say " There 's no such thing .
" Or " you 're using too many plug-ins and extensions .
" Or any number of excuses .
I can hit the same pages with Opera as with FireFox , with less memory usage .
And I 'm not using plug-ins .
The reflex nerd answer is " well , stop browsing that way !
" That is a foolish thing to say , as it will cause me to switch to a browser where I do not have to alter my habits.You can see that Internet Explorer 's market share continues to drop , but as of late , it is not through growth in FireFox .
It 's from the adoption of other competing browsers .
As long as the Mozilla Foundation is operating with the THERE ARE NO BAD PROBLEMS , JUST BAD USERS mindset , they 'll continue to make more and more strategic blunders .
Reliance on Google is one of them .
Google has no friends , only temporary allies which may be either dispatched or eaten when it is convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The developers of FireFox are in a state of denial; that rarely lends itself to dealing with reality-based threats very well.Take the memory management issue -- the developers routinely say "There's no such thing.
"  Or "you're using too many plug-ins and extensions.
"  Or any number of excuses.
I can hit the same pages with Opera as with FireFox, with less memory usage.
And I'm not using plug-ins.
The reflex nerd answer is "well, stop browsing that way!
"  That is a foolish thing to say, as it will cause me to switch to a browser where I do not have to alter my habits.You can see that Internet Explorer's market share continues to drop, but as of late, it is not through growth in FireFox.
It's from the adoption of other competing browsers.
As long as the Mozilla Foundation is operating with the THERE ARE NO BAD PROBLEMS, JUST BAD USERS mindset, they'll continue to make more and more strategic blunders.
Reliance on Google is one of them.
Google has no friends, only temporary allies which may be either dispatched or eaten when it is convenient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823350</id>
	<title>Re:What ?</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263933480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera had it first. Really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera had it first .
Really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera had it first.
Really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821720</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why wouldn't yahoo give money to mozzila? it's not really sponsoring, you know... they would get access, clicks and ad revenue in exchange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why would n't yahoo give money to mozzila ?
it 's not really sponsoring , you know... they would get access , clicks and ad revenue in exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why wouldn't yahoo give money to mozzila?
it's not really sponsoring, you know... they would get access, clicks and ad revenue in exchange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826948</id>
	<title>Re:Choices need to be made.</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1263908520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think it's bad that FireFox, lies in Googles hands</i></p><p>It's <b>Firefox.</b> There is only one capital letter. It's in the front.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's bad that FireFox , lies in Googles handsIt 's Firefox .
There is only one capital letter .
It 's in the front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's bad that FireFox, lies in Googles handsIt's Firefox.
There is only one capital letter.
It's in the front.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822960</id>
	<title>Re:Are FF and Chrome really "competing?"</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1263931800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I considered this from another angle in the shower this morning.</p><p>Google has to index page data, some of which is in script format.  Remember when Google's cached pages showed un-obfuscated e-mail addresses instead of the obfuscated versions from the plain-text HTML?  Well, Google had to build a tool to parse HTML in order to index the web, so there's the HTML parser.  They had to add a script engine, so there's JavaScript.  It has to be distributed, so possible to run in a separate process.  CSS-based layout gives context to the page, and they have to detect link farming or other dirty SEO techniques, so parsing and applying CSS (looking for white-on-white text for example) makes sense, there's your rudimentary layout engine.</p><p>My conclusion was, Chrome is a byproduct of the optimization of the search engine indexing process.  Turning it into a product was probably just a marketing idea to get Google's name always in press releases, and a logical outcome of the "ChromeOS" idea where the web is the platform.  If you're going to deprecate hardware and OS by making the browser where everything happens, as they did with GMail, Google Docs, and piles of other offerings, you come to the conclusion of taking your web bot and turning it into a branding opportunity.</p><p>No competition with Firefox, yet.  Firefox won't switch defaults from the most popular search provider.  Also, Google won't be able to keep FireFox from implementing whatever Chrome-specific stuff you are imagining without heavy-handed tactics like wielding patents.  ChromeOS is what Google wants, not browser market share.  Use Chrome, get used to it, then why not switch to our OS since everything is available through the browser?  Competition happens because the platform changes, not because Chrome wins.</p><p>Look what happened to Netscape - Microsoft changed the game by making users expect a free, built-in browser with an OS, and the platform changed from a free-for-all open web to IE-only with ActiveX controls seemingly overnight (even in technological time scales).  It wasn't really browser competition, they wanted control of the desktop and killing a browser was a side effect.  I have the same feeling here - Google's OS might kill Firefox accidentally in its desire to compete with handheld OS makers like phones, of which MS is a little part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I considered this from another angle in the shower this morning.Google has to index page data , some of which is in script format .
Remember when Google 's cached pages showed un-obfuscated e-mail addresses instead of the obfuscated versions from the plain-text HTML ?
Well , Google had to build a tool to parse HTML in order to index the web , so there 's the HTML parser .
They had to add a script engine , so there 's JavaScript .
It has to be distributed , so possible to run in a separate process .
CSS-based layout gives context to the page , and they have to detect link farming or other dirty SEO techniques , so parsing and applying CSS ( looking for white-on-white text for example ) makes sense , there 's your rudimentary layout engine.My conclusion was , Chrome is a byproduct of the optimization of the search engine indexing process .
Turning it into a product was probably just a marketing idea to get Google 's name always in press releases , and a logical outcome of the " ChromeOS " idea where the web is the platform .
If you 're going to deprecate hardware and OS by making the browser where everything happens , as they did with GMail , Google Docs , and piles of other offerings , you come to the conclusion of taking your web bot and turning it into a branding opportunity.No competition with Firefox , yet .
Firefox wo n't switch defaults from the most popular search provider .
Also , Google wo n't be able to keep FireFox from implementing whatever Chrome-specific stuff you are imagining without heavy-handed tactics like wielding patents .
ChromeOS is what Google wants , not browser market share .
Use Chrome , get used to it , then why not switch to our OS since everything is available through the browser ?
Competition happens because the platform changes , not because Chrome wins.Look what happened to Netscape - Microsoft changed the game by making users expect a free , built-in browser with an OS , and the platform changed from a free-for-all open web to IE-only with ActiveX controls seemingly overnight ( even in technological time scales ) .
It was n't really browser competition , they wanted control of the desktop and killing a browser was a side effect .
I have the same feeling here - Google 's OS might kill Firefox accidentally in its desire to compete with handheld OS makers like phones , of which MS is a little part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I considered this from another angle in the shower this morning.Google has to index page data, some of which is in script format.
Remember when Google's cached pages showed un-obfuscated e-mail addresses instead of the obfuscated versions from the plain-text HTML?
Well, Google had to build a tool to parse HTML in order to index the web, so there's the HTML parser.
They had to add a script engine, so there's JavaScript.
It has to be distributed, so possible to run in a separate process.
CSS-based layout gives context to the page, and they have to detect link farming or other dirty SEO techniques, so parsing and applying CSS (looking for white-on-white text for example) makes sense, there's your rudimentary layout engine.My conclusion was, Chrome is a byproduct of the optimization of the search engine indexing process.
Turning it into a product was probably just a marketing idea to get Google's name always in press releases, and a logical outcome of the "ChromeOS" idea where the web is the platform.
If you're going to deprecate hardware and OS by making the browser where everything happens, as they did with GMail, Google Docs, and piles of other offerings, you come to the conclusion of taking your web bot and turning it into a branding opportunity.No competition with Firefox, yet.
Firefox won't switch defaults from the most popular search provider.
Also, Google won't be able to keep FireFox from implementing whatever Chrome-specific stuff you are imagining without heavy-handed tactics like wielding patents.
ChromeOS is what Google wants, not browser market share.
Use Chrome, get used to it, then why not switch to our OS since everything is available through the browser?
Competition happens because the platform changes, not because Chrome wins.Look what happened to Netscape - Microsoft changed the game by making users expect a free, built-in browser with an OS, and the platform changed from a free-for-all open web to IE-only with ActiveX controls seemingly overnight (even in technological time scales).
It wasn't really browser competition, they wanted control of the desktop and killing a browser was a side effect.
I have the same feeling here - Google's OS might kill Firefox accidentally in its desire to compete with handheld OS makers like phones, of which MS is a little part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30843418</id>
	<title>Re:someone</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1264065060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One reason Opera has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users' approach to promoting their platform is:</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's a blatant straw man. That was not the other guy's point at all. His point was that it was claimed that Opera was the one closing the feature gap, when the fact is that Opera has been leading all along.

</p><p>Even if Opera came after Netscape, it still defined the modern browser: Popup blocking, easy search from the address bar or search field, viewing pages within the main window, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason Opera has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users ' approach to promoting their platform is : That 's a blatant straw man .
That was not the other guy 's point at all .
His point was that it was claimed that Opera was the one closing the feature gap , when the fact is that Opera has been leading all along .
Even if Opera came after Netscape , it still defined the modern browser : Popup blocking , easy search from the address bar or search field , viewing pages within the main window , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason Opera has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users' approach to promoting their platform is:
That's a blatant straw man.
That was not the other guy's point at all.
His point was that it was claimed that Opera was the one closing the feature gap, when the fact is that Opera has been leading all along.
Even if Opera came after Netscape, it still defined the modern browser: Popup blocking, easy search from the address bar or search field, viewing pages within the main window, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821570</id>
	<title>Re:What ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember that not long ago Opera didn't support client-side XSLT when IE and Firefox had for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that not long ago Opera did n't support client-side XSLT when IE and Firefox had for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that not long ago Opera didn't support client-side XSLT when IE and Firefox had for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828100</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1263919560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I wanted to lock down the color settings, how might I do that?</p></div><p>Why would you want to do that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I wanted to lock down the color settings , how might I do that ? Why would you want to do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I wanted to lock down the color settings, how might I do that?Why would you want to do that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823004</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263931920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about updating the software, and plugins? How is that achieved in a corporate environment?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well, Debian can do it: Iceweasel (the Debian version of Firefox) is updated via the repositories (and you can setup your own for internal use) and so are some of it's extensions and plugins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about updating the software , and plugins ?
How is that achieved in a corporate environment ?
Well , Debian can do it : Iceweasel ( the Debian version of Firefox ) is updated via the repositories ( and you can setup your own for internal use ) and so are some of it 's extensions and plugins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about updating the software, and plugins?
How is that achieved in a corporate environment?
Well, Debian can do it: Iceweasel (the Debian version of Firefox) is updated via the repositories (and you can setup your own for internal use) and so are some of it's extensions and plugins.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823316</id>
	<title>Re:chrome is werid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263933300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like the concept of that, either. Internet Explorer tried to do this, too. The difference is, IE allows you to toggle the menu bar, in the UI right click menu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the concept of that , either .
Internet Explorer tried to do this , too .
The difference is , IE allows you to toggle the menu bar , in the UI right click menu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the concept of that, either.
Internet Explorer tried to do this, too.
The difference is, IE allows you to toggle the menu bar, in the UI right click menu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823476</id>
	<title>Re:Defaults</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1263934020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing.</p> </div><p>Huh?  Why on earth would they?
</p><p>If nobody's paying them to choose, they'll just default to the best and most popular search engine -- which is google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that if Google does n't sponsor Mozilla , they 'll probably switch to Bing .
Huh ? Why on earth would they ?
If nobody 's paying them to choose , they 'll just default to the best and most popular search engine -- which is google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing.
Huh?  Why on earth would they?
If nobody's paying them to choose, they'll just default to the best and most popular search engine -- which is google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821604</id>
	<title>Google will decide FF fate on my computers</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1263927060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox is not that good anymore, its running far too slow, and does a bunch of short lockups.  Chrome finally added extensions, I'm just waiting for my must haves before I say good bye.  <br>Xmarks is good to go, the adblock is about there(it apparently only hides adds not blocks, so eh), I'm just waiting on NoScript then I'm gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is not that good anymore , its running far too slow , and does a bunch of short lockups .
Chrome finally added extensions , I 'm just waiting for my must haves before I say good bye .
Xmarks is good to go , the adblock is about there ( it apparently only hides adds not blocks , so eh ) , I 'm just waiting on NoScript then I 'm gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is not that good anymore, its running far too slow, and does a bunch of short lockups.
Chrome finally added extensions, I'm just waiting for my must haves before I say good bye.
Xmarks is good to go, the adblock is about there(it apparently only hides adds not blocks, so eh), I'm just waiting on NoScript then I'm gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822488</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1263930240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where exactly does Inkscape's revenue come from? Because that's my favorite vector graphics tool right there. What about WinSCP? Apache? OpenSSH?</p><p>Great applications, no clear revenue stream (Well, I guess Apache and OpenSSH have a revenue stream. Sort of. But it's just end users' free time / job time going towards making their jobs easier.</p><p>And Google will happily continue to pay Firefox to include Google in its search box. Their revenue is quite safe. Google isn't interested in locking you into Chrome, because monocultures yield public, messy security breaches like the most recent one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where exactly does Inkscape 's revenue come from ?
Because that 's my favorite vector graphics tool right there .
What about WinSCP ?
Apache ? OpenSSH ? Great applications , no clear revenue stream ( Well , I guess Apache and OpenSSH have a revenue stream .
Sort of .
But it 's just end users ' free time / job time going towards making their jobs easier.And Google will happily continue to pay Firefox to include Google in its search box .
Their revenue is quite safe .
Google is n't interested in locking you into Chrome , because monocultures yield public , messy security breaches like the most recent one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where exactly does Inkscape's revenue come from?
Because that's my favorite vector graphics tool right there.
What about WinSCP?
Apache? OpenSSH?Great applications, no clear revenue stream (Well, I guess Apache and OpenSSH have a revenue stream.
Sort of.
But it's just end users' free time / job time going towards making their jobs easier.And Google will happily continue to pay Firefox to include Google in its search box.
Their revenue is quite safe.
Google isn't interested in locking you into Chrome, because monocultures yield public, messy security breaches like the most recent one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821422</id>
	<title>Choices need to be made.</title>
	<author>Tirith45</author>
	<datestamp>1263926280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's bad that FireFox, lies in Googles hands, because if Google changes their ideals and shifts into a new direction that Mozilla doesn't like they lose their sponsor and it makes a ton of headaches for both companies. I agree with elrous0 I believe FireFox should break away but at this point they do not have a sponsor so they couldn't break away, unless they wanted to become self sufficent and have to hire a whole new team.But alas even if they do become self sufficent, they would still need the backing of a search engine. Bing, Microsofts creation, is okay, it's not the greatest but I perfer Google to Bing and haven't really had extensive testing with it. Yahoo on the other hand, has dropped out of the race more or less as Microsoft, I believe paid them to drop out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's bad that FireFox , lies in Googles hands , because if Google changes their ideals and shifts into a new direction that Mozilla does n't like they lose their sponsor and it makes a ton of headaches for both companies .
I agree with elrous0 I believe FireFox should break away but at this point they do not have a sponsor so they could n't break away , unless they wanted to become self sufficent and have to hire a whole new team.But alas even if they do become self sufficent , they would still need the backing of a search engine .
Bing , Microsofts creation , is okay , it 's not the greatest but I perfer Google to Bing and have n't really had extensive testing with it .
Yahoo on the other hand , has dropped out of the race more or less as Microsoft , I believe paid them to drop out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's bad that FireFox, lies in Googles hands, because if Google changes their ideals and shifts into a new direction that Mozilla doesn't like they lose their sponsor and it makes a ton of headaches for both companies.
I agree with elrous0 I believe FireFox should break away but at this point they do not have a sponsor so they couldn't break away, unless they wanted to become self sufficent and have to hire a whole new team.But alas even if they do become self sufficent, they would still need the backing of a search engine.
Bing, Microsofts creation, is okay, it's not the greatest but I perfer Google to Bing and haven't really had extensive testing with it.
Yahoo on the other hand, has dropped out of the race more or less as Microsoft, I believe paid them to drop out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822076</id>
	<title>Re:Better question</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1263928980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, these are the stories dependent on rehashing: <a href="http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=hash" title="slashdot.org">a7544691c62afb529c23486bb82a295d</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , these are the stories dependent on rehashing : a7544691c62afb529c23486bb82a295d [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, these are the stories dependent on rehashing: a7544691c62afb529c23486bb82a295d [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004</id>
	<title>chrome is werid</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1263928680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i tried to move to chrome actually. seemed like the right thing to do since i've swallowed the google pill many times over. it's UI is just odd. every other app has a menu bar, but chrome thinks they don't need one. well, actually it still has menus, they are just accessible from other places in the app where you would not logically look for them.</p><p>for example, the &quot;preferences&quot; menu is next to the location bar. it's the little wrench icon. okay, every other app has a menu&gt;tools or menu&gt;edit&gt;prefs. chrome still puts it all under a menu, but they moved the menu into a non-standard location. every other major OS has menu bars. like them or not people are used to them. it's intuitive to start poking around in the menu bar when you want to find something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i tried to move to chrome actually .
seemed like the right thing to do since i 've swallowed the google pill many times over .
it 's UI is just odd .
every other app has a menu bar , but chrome thinks they do n't need one .
well , actually it still has menus , they are just accessible from other places in the app where you would not logically look for them.for example , the " preferences " menu is next to the location bar .
it 's the little wrench icon .
okay , every other app has a menu &gt; tools or menu &gt; edit &gt; prefs .
chrome still puts it all under a menu , but they moved the menu into a non-standard location .
every other major OS has menu bars .
like them or not people are used to them .
it 's intuitive to start poking around in the menu bar when you want to find something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i tried to move to chrome actually.
seemed like the right thing to do since i've swallowed the google pill many times over.
it's UI is just odd.
every other app has a menu bar, but chrome thinks they don't need one.
well, actually it still has menus, they are just accessible from other places in the app where you would not logically look for them.for example, the "preferences" menu is next to the location bar.
it's the little wrench icon.
okay, every other app has a menu&gt;tools or menu&gt;edit&gt;prefs.
chrome still puts it all under a menu, but they moved the menu into a non-standard location.
every other major OS has menu bars.
like them or not people are used to them.
it's intuitive to start poking around in the menu bar when you want to find something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822656</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Gerald</author>
	<datestamp>1263930780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No! It's F/OSS - all the Mozilla developers can go and offer paid support, write books, do some TV reality shows, and they'll make plenty of money! That's the whole business model of F/OSS, isn't it?</p></div><p>Not if you're Snort, Asterisk, or Wireshark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No !
It 's F/OSS - all the Mozilla developers can go and offer paid support , write books , do some TV reality shows , and they 'll make plenty of money !
That 's the whole business model of F/OSS , is n't it ? Not if you 're Snort , Asterisk , or Wireshark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No!
It's F/OSS - all the Mozilla developers can go and offer paid support, write books, do some TV reality shows, and they'll make plenty of money!
That's the whole business model of F/OSS, isn't it?Not if you're Snort, Asterisk, or Wireshark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823988</id>
	<title>Closing the gap on... Opera?!</title>
	<author>Mex</author>
	<datestamp>1263893160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but other than the huge advantage that is all the plugins available for Firefox, Opera has always been lightyears ahead of any other browser's features.<br><a href="http://operawiki.info/OperaInnovations" title="operawiki.info">http://operawiki.info/OperaInnovations</a> [operawiki.info]<br>Tabbed browsing and Zooming into a webpage are only the two that seem most important and were introduced by Opera, but they have always been incredibly innovative, much more so than Firefox. Yet there's not a big developer following, probably because it is not open source like FF, that's Opera's weakest part I guess, but as a browser, I love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but other than the huge advantage that is all the plugins available for Firefox , Opera has always been lightyears ahead of any other browser 's features.http : //operawiki.info/OperaInnovations [ operawiki.info ] Tabbed browsing and Zooming into a webpage are only the two that seem most important and were introduced by Opera , but they have always been incredibly innovative , much more so than Firefox .
Yet there 's not a big developer following , probably because it is not open source like FF , that 's Opera 's weakest part I guess , but as a browser , I love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but other than the huge advantage that is all the plugins available for Firefox, Opera has always been lightyears ahead of any other browser's features.http://operawiki.info/OperaInnovations [operawiki.info]Tabbed browsing and Zooming into a webpage are only the two that seem most important and were introduced by Opera, but they have always been incredibly innovative, much more so than Firefox.
Yet there's not a big developer following, probably because it is not open source like FF, that's Opera's weakest part I guess, but as a browser, I love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>jmyers</author>
	<datestamp>1263926340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does the money go? It seems to me that $66 million could fund a lot of development for many years. Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmers and a decent amount of overhead and never spend a dime of principal and never need additional sponsorship and strings that go with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does the money go ?
It seems to me that $ 66 million could fund a lot of development for many years .
Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmers and a decent amount of overhead and never spend a dime of principal and never need additional sponsorship and strings that go with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does the money go?
It seems to me that $66 million could fund a lot of development for many years.
Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmers and a decent amount of overhead and never spend a dime of principal and never need additional sponsorship and strings that go with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821388</id>
	<title>someone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.."seen Microsoft, Apple, and Opera close the features gap significantly"... Firefox is a joke compared to Opera<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for what its worth firefox seems to simply take the direction Opera sets<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. " seen Microsoft , Apple , and Opera close the features gap significantly " ... Firefox is a joke compared to Opera ... for what its worth firefox seems to simply take the direction Opera sets . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.."seen Microsoft, Apple, and Opera close the features gap significantly"... Firefox is a joke compared to Opera ... for what its worth firefox seems to simply take the direction Opera sets ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822104</id>
	<title>Re:someone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is an excellent company overall, and they are way ahead of Microsoft specifically on small footprint devices like consoles and handsets. This was a good strategic move and while I haven't used Windows Mobile, I suspect that Apple will rise as the smartphone market continues to develop. On Nokia devices, Safari is my default browser.</p><p>That said, their fanbois are massive fail. One reason Apple has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users' approach to promoting their platform is:</p><p>"Your OS does x? Pah, Apple did that back in 1978 on punch card, you're a LOSER for not using the Pioneer Of All Things Computer". My feeling then is, 'Gee, if I start using Apple, I might also turn into a massive message board tool...back to Microsoft!'</p><p>Also, if legacy counted for anything, Apple is the heir of BSD, which antedates Microsoft and thus Microsoft is just a johnny-come-lately to this whole computer thing.<br>Killer apps? Games + MS Office. Deliver that functionality with the same ease of use in a OS that doesn't come from the New Evil Empire, and I'll consider switching. So far, Apple is still no go there, those two apps on Windows are still superior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is an excellent company overall , and they are way ahead of Microsoft specifically on small footprint devices like consoles and handsets .
This was a good strategic move and while I have n't used Windows Mobile , I suspect that Apple will rise as the smartphone market continues to develop .
On Nokia devices , Safari is my default browser.That said , their fanbois are massive fail .
One reason Apple has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users ' approach to promoting their platform is : " Your OS does x ?
Pah , Apple did that back in 1978 on punch card , you 're a LOSER for not using the Pioneer Of All Things Computer " .
My feeling then is , 'Gee , if I start using Apple , I might also turn into a massive message board tool...back to Microsoft !
'Also , if legacy counted for anything , Apple is the heir of BSD , which antedates Microsoft and thus Microsoft is just a johnny-come-lately to this whole computer thing.Killer apps ?
Games + MS Office .
Deliver that functionality with the same ease of use in a OS that does n't come from the New Evil Empire , and I 'll consider switching .
So far , Apple is still no go there , those two apps on Windows are still superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is an excellent company overall, and they are way ahead of Microsoft specifically on small footprint devices like consoles and handsets.
This was a good strategic move and while I haven't used Windows Mobile, I suspect that Apple will rise as the smartphone market continues to develop.
On Nokia devices, Safari is my default browser.That said, their fanbois are massive fail.
One reason Apple has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users' approach to promoting their platform is:"Your OS does x?
Pah, Apple did that back in 1978 on punch card, you're a LOSER for not using the Pioneer Of All Things Computer".
My feeling then is, 'Gee, if I start using Apple, I might also turn into a massive message board tool...back to Microsoft!
'Also, if legacy counted for anything, Apple is the heir of BSD, which antedates Microsoft and thus Microsoft is just a johnny-come-lately to this whole computer thing.Killer apps?
Games + MS Office.
Deliver that functionality with the same ease of use in a OS that doesn't come from the New Evil Empire, and I'll consider switching.
So far, Apple is still no go there, those two apps on Windows are still superior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822320</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>indeed. I dumped some motorola roms based on Linux and their proprietary browser is nothing more than their own UI to libopera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>indeed .
I dumped some motorola roms based on Linux and their proprietary browser is nothing more than their own UI to libopera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>indeed.
I dumped some motorola roms based on Linux and their proprietary browser is nothing more than their own UI to libopera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821360</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263925980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>many, many times before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>many , many times before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many, many times before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822128</id>
	<title>nope</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1263929160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google?</p></div><p>Nope. In fact, it would be wise to weaken its links to google. For example, by binding to more than one search engine. What's important, though, is that search results are presented with a consistent interface, so that users will not feel any negative side-effects from switching between engines.</p><p>Since google has started commoditizing the browser-industry, it seems that it's now time for the browsers to start commoditizing the search engines...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google ? Nope .
In fact , it would be wise to weaken its links to google .
For example , by binding to more than one search engine .
What 's important , though , is that search results are presented with a consistent interface , so that users will not feel any negative side-effects from switching between engines.Since google has started commoditizing the browser-industry , it seems that it 's now time for the browsers to start commoditizing the search engines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google?Nope.
In fact, it would be wise to weaken its links to google.
For example, by binding to more than one search engine.
What's important, though, is that search results are presented with a consistent interface, so that users will not feel any negative side-effects from switching between engines.Since google has started commoditizing the browser-industry, it seems that it's now time for the browsers to start commoditizing the search engines...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1263927660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that it is not a "truly professional piece of software".  How do I manage it on a network?  If I wanted to lock down the color settings, how might I do that?  How about updating the software, and plugins?  How is that achieved in a corporate environment?</p><p>Unless you meant for the home environment, in which case sure, it does have that market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that it is not a " truly professional piece of software " .
How do I manage it on a network ?
If I wanted to lock down the color settings , how might I do that ?
How about updating the software , and plugins ?
How is that achieved in a corporate environment ? Unless you meant for the home environment , in which case sure , it does have that market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that it is not a "truly professional piece of software".
How do I manage it on a network?
If I wanted to lock down the color settings, how might I do that?
How about updating the software, and plugins?
How is that achieved in a corporate environment?Unless you meant for the home environment, in which case sure, it does have that market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822138</id>
	<title>Firefox Going Away Soon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox used to be the lightweight alternative.  Now when everyone else is focusing on speed and usability, Firefox will take longer to start than any other browser, and do all sorts of things that you probably didn't have in mind when you clicked the Firefox icon (Please wait while we update your extensions....Oops, I couldn't update this extension.  Please restart Firefox because I updated this other one.  Do you want me to reopen all your old tabs?  What about next time?  Oh, please update your Firefox!  No?  Please tell us why!  Here, fill out this survey web page which is embedded in this 320x240 pixel window for no reason, and tell us what we can do to improve Firefox.</p><p>Give me a break.  I only ever use it for Firebug anymore and even that's becoming more rare as the tools for Safari and Chrome improve.  Firefox will be irrelevant within 3 years, and still wondering where they went wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox used to be the lightweight alternative .
Now when everyone else is focusing on speed and usability , Firefox will take longer to start than any other browser , and do all sorts of things that you probably did n't have in mind when you clicked the Firefox icon ( Please wait while we update your extensions....Oops , I could n't update this extension .
Please restart Firefox because I updated this other one .
Do you want me to reopen all your old tabs ?
What about next time ?
Oh , please update your Firefox !
No ? Please tell us why !
Here , fill out this survey web page which is embedded in this 320x240 pixel window for no reason , and tell us what we can do to improve Firefox.Give me a break .
I only ever use it for Firebug anymore and even that 's becoming more rare as the tools for Safari and Chrome improve .
Firefox will be irrelevant within 3 years , and still wondering where they went wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox used to be the lightweight alternative.
Now when everyone else is focusing on speed and usability, Firefox will take longer to start than any other browser, and do all sorts of things that you probably didn't have in mind when you clicked the Firefox icon (Please wait while we update your extensions....Oops, I couldn't update this extension.
Please restart Firefox because I updated this other one.
Do you want me to reopen all your old tabs?
What about next time?
Oh, please update your Firefox!
No?  Please tell us why!
Here, fill out this survey web page which is embedded in this 320x240 pixel window for no reason, and tell us what we can do to improve Firefox.Give me a break.
I only ever use it for Firebug anymore and even that's becoming more rare as the tools for Safari and Chrome improve.
Firefox will be irrelevant within 3 years, and still wondering where they went wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821566</id>
	<title>user's best interest</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1263926880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's in mozilla's, and their user's best interest to provide their users with the best search engine by default. that's google as of today. mozilla should be happy that they are getting paid to do the best thing for their users.</p><p>as far as i know google isn't doing anything to subvert mozilla. they are just fairly competing with them. mozilla is open source, and open source shouldn't have any pride. if google bests them at some point, they shouldn't take it as an insult. let the best browser win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's in mozilla 's , and their user 's best interest to provide their users with the best search engine by default .
that 's google as of today .
mozilla should be happy that they are getting paid to do the best thing for their users.as far as i know google is n't doing anything to subvert mozilla .
they are just fairly competing with them .
mozilla is open source , and open source should n't have any pride .
if google bests them at some point , they should n't take it as an insult .
let the best browser win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's in mozilla's, and their user's best interest to provide their users with the best search engine by default.
that's google as of today.
mozilla should be happy that they are getting paid to do the best thing for their users.as far as i know google isn't doing anything to subvert mozilla.
they are just fairly competing with them.
mozilla is open source, and open source shouldn't have any pride.
if google bests them at some point, they shouldn't take it as an insult.
let the best browser win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825650</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a reason for Google to shaft Mozilla?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263900660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only thing I can see is Google would use their leverage over Firefox to get Firefox to switch from the Gecko to WebKit.</p></div></blockquote><p>Doing so would require a 100\% rewrite of Firefox, WebKit does not do what Gecko does.  WebKit is a rendering engine, Gecko is an application toolkit that is focused around rendering markup languages (XUL, HTML, ect).</p><p>If you rewrite Firefox with Gecko<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you've got Chrome or Safari, which is pretty pointless.  Every addon and every extension would need to be reworked.  This wouldn't happen, and if it did, I'd be the first to stop using a software package produced by such an amazingly dumb group of developers (which they would be if they 'switched to webkit')</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I can see is Google would use their leverage over Firefox to get Firefox to switch from the Gecko to WebKit.Doing so would require a 100 \ % rewrite of Firefox , WebKit does not do what Gecko does .
WebKit is a rendering engine , Gecko is an application toolkit that is focused around rendering markup languages ( XUL , HTML , ect ) .If you rewrite Firefox with Gecko ... you 've got Chrome or Safari , which is pretty pointless .
Every addon and every extension would need to be reworked .
This would n't happen , and if it did , I 'd be the first to stop using a software package produced by such an amazingly dumb group of developers ( which they would be if they 'switched to webkit ' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I can see is Google would use their leverage over Firefox to get Firefox to switch from the Gecko to WebKit.Doing so would require a 100\% rewrite of Firefox, WebKit does not do what Gecko does.
WebKit is a rendering engine, Gecko is an application toolkit that is focused around rendering markup languages (XUL, HTML, ect).If you rewrite Firefox with Gecko ... you've got Chrome or Safari, which is pretty pointless.
Every addon and every extension would need to be reworked.
This wouldn't happen, and if it did, I'd be the first to stop using a software package produced by such an amazingly dumb group of developers (which they would be if they 'switched to webkit')
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824298</id>
	<title>Re:Or..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263894600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean you're going without <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en-US" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">AdBlock</a> [google.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean you 're going without AdBlock [ google.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean you're going without AdBlock [google.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826236</id>
	<title>Re:Lone Wolf</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1263903480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if anything, firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera, which had absolute majority of the features first.</p></div><p>Yes and no.</p><p>Opera innovated a lot with stuff like tabs, mouse gestures, and fast page rendering.</p><p>But ever since Firefox 1.5 - which is roughly when a strong community had been built up - extensions/addons have been leading the way for relevant new browser features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if anything , firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera , which had absolute majority of the features first.Yes and no.Opera innovated a lot with stuff like tabs , mouse gestures , and fast page rendering.But ever since Firefox 1.5 - which is roughly when a strong community had been built up - extensions/addons have been leading the way for relevant new browser features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if anything, firefox has mighe have been closing the feature gap with opera, which had absolute majority of the features first.Yes and no.Opera innovated a lot with stuff like tabs, mouse gestures, and fast page rendering.But ever since Firefox 1.5 - which is roughly when a strong community had been built up - extensions/addons have been leading the way for relevant new browser features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392</id>
	<title>Choices?  Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, who should be the default search provider, payments or not?  If I've got a choice, I'm heading to google, not because of some sort of "I love google" sort of thing, but because they have the best search.  If firefox defaults to "Bing!" or "aunt martha's internet search and lemon pies", it won't matter as long as I can set it to Google.</p><p>It's the ability to choose that I want to protect, not what the default is.</p><p>It would be annoying if they switched to a different default, because that would be one more customization step every time I install Firefox.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , who should be the default search provider , payments or not ?
If I 've got a choice , I 'm heading to google , not because of some sort of " I love google " sort of thing , but because they have the best search .
If firefox defaults to " Bing !
" or " aunt martha 's internet search and lemon pies " , it wo n't matter as long as I can set it to Google.It 's the ability to choose that I want to protect , not what the default is.It would be annoying if they switched to a different default , because that would be one more customization step every time I install Firefox.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, who should be the default search provider, payments or not?
If I've got a choice, I'm heading to google, not because of some sort of "I love google" sort of thing, but because they have the best search.
If firefox defaults to "Bing!
" or "aunt martha's internet search and lemon pies", it won't matter as long as I can set it to Google.It's the ability to choose that I want to protect, not what the default is.It would be annoying if they switched to a different default, because that would be one more customization step every time I install Firefox.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30841030</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a reason for Google to shaft Mozilla?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome uses a different JavaScript rendering engine than Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome uses a different JavaScript rendering engine than Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome uses a different JavaScript rendering engine than Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882</id>
	<title>Re:someone</title>
	<author>slyborg</author>
	<datestamp>1263928260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL,this AC has posted about 10 times in this thread.</p><p>Opera is an excellent browser overall, and they are way ahead of Mozilla specifically on small footprint devices like consoles and handsets. This was a good strategic move and while I haven't used Fennec, I suspect that Opera will rise as the smartphone market continues to develop. On Nokia devices, Opera is my default browser.</p><p>That said, their fanbois are massive fail. One reason Opera has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users' approach to promoting their platform is:</p><p>"Your browser does x? Pah, Opera did that back in 1978 on punch card, you're a LOSER for not using the Pioneer Of All Things Browser". My feeling then is, 'Gee, if I start using Opera, I might also turn into a massive message board tool...back to Firefox!'</p><p>Also, if legacy counted for anything, Firefox is the heir of Netscape, which antedates Opera and thus Opera is just a johnny-come-lately to this whole WWW thing.<br>Killer apps? NoScript + AdBlock Plus. Deliver that functionality with the same ease of use in a browser that doesn't come from the New Evil Empire, and I'll consider switching. So far, Opera is still no go there, those two apps on FF are still superior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL,this AC has posted about 10 times in this thread.Opera is an excellent browser overall , and they are way ahead of Mozilla specifically on small footprint devices like consoles and handsets .
This was a good strategic move and while I have n't used Fennec , I suspect that Opera will rise as the smartphone market continues to develop .
On Nokia devices , Opera is my default browser.That said , their fanbois are massive fail .
One reason Opera has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users ' approach to promoting their platform is : " Your browser does x ?
Pah , Opera did that back in 1978 on punch card , you 're a LOSER for not using the Pioneer Of All Things Browser " .
My feeling then is , 'Gee , if I start using Opera , I might also turn into a massive message board tool...back to Firefox !
'Also , if legacy counted for anything , Firefox is the heir of Netscape , which antedates Opera and thus Opera is just a johnny-come-lately to this whole WWW thing.Killer apps ?
NoScript + AdBlock Plus .
Deliver that functionality with the same ease of use in a browser that does n't come from the New Evil Empire , and I 'll consider switching .
So far , Opera is still no go there , those two apps on FF are still superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL,this AC has posted about 10 times in this thread.Opera is an excellent browser overall, and they are way ahead of Mozilla specifically on small footprint devices like consoles and handsets.
This was a good strategic move and while I haven't used Fennec, I suspect that Opera will rise as the smartphone market continues to develop.
On Nokia devices, Opera is my default browser.That said, their fanbois are massive fail.
One reason Opera has issues with mindshare is that it seems that most of its users' approach to promoting their platform is:"Your browser does x?
Pah, Opera did that back in 1978 on punch card, you're a LOSER for not using the Pioneer Of All Things Browser".
My feeling then is, 'Gee, if I start using Opera, I might also turn into a massive message board tool...back to Firefox!
'Also, if legacy counted for anything, Firefox is the heir of Netscape, which antedates Opera and thus Opera is just a johnny-come-lately to this whole WWW thing.Killer apps?
NoScript + AdBlock Plus.
Deliver that functionality with the same ease of use in a browser that doesn't come from the New Evil Empire, and I'll consider switching.
So far, Opera is still no go there, those two apps on FF are still superior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821652</id>
	<title>Privacy, and conflicts of interest</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1263927240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus. Many of the privacy features I'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.</p><p>For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.</p><p>Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users, but this is a bizare case where those controls haven't worked.</p><p>(I know I can solve *my* problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers, but I'm not just looking for a quick fix for me, I'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus .
Many of the privacy features I 'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google , I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google 's money.Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users , but this is a bizare case where those controls have n't worked .
( I know I can solve * my * problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers , but I 'm not just looking for a quick fix for me , I 'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus.
Many of the privacy features I'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users, but this is a bizare case where those controls haven't worked.
(I know I can solve *my* problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers, but I'm not just looking for a quick fix for me, I'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822144</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Kijori</author>
	<datestamp>1263929220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support. Examples include Redhat, formerly Trolltech (aquired by Nokia), and many others.</p></div><p>Neither of those are possible for Mozilla - why would anyone pay for support for a web browser? Why would anyone pay for a web browser? I don't see any way you could make a profit from the consumer web-browser market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support .
Examples include Redhat , formerly Trolltech ( aquired by Nokia ) , and many others.Neither of those are possible for Mozilla - why would anyone pay for support for a web browser ?
Why would anyone pay for a web browser ?
I do n't see any way you could make a profit from the consumer web-browser market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support.
Examples include Redhat, formerly Trolltech (aquired by Nokia), and many others.Neither of those are possible for Mozilla - why would anyone pay for support for a web browser?
Why would anyone pay for a web browser?
I don't see any way you could make a profit from the consumer web-browser market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823556</id>
	<title>Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263934320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Time will tell if the F/OSS model is sustainable."</p><p>1997 called, and I bet you can guess what they want back.</p><p>You are aware that linux completely dominates the server and embedded markets and has for a long time, aren't you?</p><p>You do know that open source has been adopted, leveraged, and improved by corporate giants like Google and IBM, right?</p><p>You do realize that desktop linux is the <b>last</b> frontier, not the first, don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Time will tell if the F/OSS model is sustainable .
" 1997 called , and I bet you can guess what they want back.You are aware that linux completely dominates the server and embedded markets and has for a long time , are n't you ? You do know that open source has been adopted , leveraged , and improved by corporate giants like Google and IBM , right ? You do realize that desktop linux is the last frontier , not the first , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Time will tell if the F/OSS model is sustainable.
"1997 called, and I bet you can guess what they want back.You are aware that linux completely dominates the server and embedded markets and has for a long time, aren't you?You do know that open source has been adopted, leveraged, and improved by corporate giants like Google and IBM, right?You do realize that desktop linux is the last frontier, not the first, don't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30843394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30843418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30830748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30841030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30884434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30831870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_166254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30884434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30843418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30841030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30831870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30830748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30843394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_166254.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30824442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30825630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30828100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30826304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822144
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30823556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30822392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_166254.30821774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
