<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_2353254</id>
	<title>Bing To Become Default iPhone Search?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264005720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>snydeq writes <i>"BusinessWeek reports ongoing talks between Apple and Microsoft to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2010/tc20100119\_759795.htm">make Bing the default search engine for the iPhone</a>. The discussions reflect an accelerating rivalry between Apple and Google, one that some believe will be the <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/google-takes-apple-053">most important rivalry in tech in the years to come</a>. 'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says one person familiar with Apple's thinking. 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " BusinessWeek reports ongoing talks between Apple and Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine for the iPhone .
The discussions reflect an accelerating rivalry between Apple and Google , one that some believe will be the most important rivalry in tech in the years to come .
'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy, ' says one person familiar with Apple 's thinking .
'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "BusinessWeek reports ongoing talks between Apple and Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine for the iPhone.
The discussions reflect an accelerating rivalry between Apple and Google, one that some believe will be the most important rivalry in tech in the years to come.
'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says one person familiar with Apple's thinking.
'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842366</id>
	<title>Will you finally own up to Apple's Evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will you Microsoft haters finally recognize that Apple does just as much sneaky crap as Microsoft... The difference is that Apple gets away with it.</p><p>So lets get this straight...</p><p>Apple will now force me to use BING, rather than Google?</p><p>Where are all of the EU Anti Trust whiners/MS haters now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will you Microsoft haters finally recognize that Apple does just as much sneaky crap as Microsoft... The difference is that Apple gets away with it.So lets get this straight...Apple will now force me to use BING , rather than Google ? Where are all of the EU Anti Trust whiners/MS haters now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will you Microsoft haters finally recognize that Apple does just as much sneaky crap as Microsoft... The difference is that Apple gets away with it.So lets get this straight...Apple will now force me to use BING, rather than Google?Where are all of the EU Anti Trust whiners/MS haters now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842720</id>
	<title>"Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle"</title>
	<author>spintriae</author>
	<datestamp>1264012920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who are the other seven pawns at Apple's disposal? Yahoo maybe? Who else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are the other seven pawns at Apple 's disposal ?
Yahoo maybe ?
Who else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are the other seven pawns at Apple's disposal?
Yahoo maybe?
Who else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843352</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264107240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>icrosoft is trying to break google because they know they will not break apple. Apple will be the dominate one in all of this no matter what option they make as they always buck the trend and get things right the first time (and before everyone else).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>icrosoft is trying to break google because they know they will not break apple .
Apple will be the dominate one in all of this no matter what option they make as they always buck the trend and get things right the first time ( and before everyone else ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>icrosoft is trying to break google because they know they will not break apple.
Apple will be the dominate one in all of this no matter what option they make as they always buck the trend and get things right the first time (and before everyone else).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842738</id>
	<title>Pirates of Silicon Valley</title>
	<author>salemboot</author>
	<datestamp>1264013160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Used to as a child, I wanted a computer.  On Christmas one year I got a vic-20.  Like everybody else I played games on it.  It didn't do much.  What was the purpose for it?   Back then we couldn't type papers in a word processor.  You could make blocks move around and save them to a tape-player.  So I didn't get hooked because I had an Atari.  I could sit down and play for 10 minutes and leave it behind.  But none the less I struggled to learn.

So eventually I got a Tandy 1000 sl.  I played more games on it.  This has been the recurring factor throughout life.    Now-a-days we just update facebook and taut how cool we are because we compiled a kernel in Linux.  We express how elite we are by the mods we make to our game consoles.  How we put down $300.00 for an operating system just so we could play a game.  Switching operating systems, worrying about virus's, different component support, drivers, dvd-playback, why is it nobody is happy?

Point of this is watching the original movie you developed an opinion that Gates, Jobs, and everyone else were just a bunch of jerks wasting our time.
Money</htmltext>
<tokenext>Used to as a child , I wanted a computer .
On Christmas one year I got a vic-20 .
Like everybody else I played games on it .
It did n't do much .
What was the purpose for it ?
Back then we could n't type papers in a word processor .
You could make blocks move around and save them to a tape-player .
So I did n't get hooked because I had an Atari .
I could sit down and play for 10 minutes and leave it behind .
But none the less I struggled to learn .
So eventually I got a Tandy 1000 sl .
I played more games on it .
This has been the recurring factor throughout life .
Now-a-days we just update facebook and taut how cool we are because we compiled a kernel in Linux .
We express how elite we are by the mods we make to our game consoles .
How we put down $ 300.00 for an operating system just so we could play a game .
Switching operating systems , worrying about virus 's , different component support , drivers , dvd-playback , why is it nobody is happy ?
Point of this is watching the original movie you developed an opinion that Gates , Jobs , and everyone else were just a bunch of jerks wasting our time .
Money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Used to as a child, I wanted a computer.
On Christmas one year I got a vic-20.
Like everybody else I played games on it.
It didn't do much.
What was the purpose for it?
Back then we couldn't type papers in a word processor.
You could make blocks move around and save them to a tape-player.
So I didn't get hooked because I had an Atari.
I could sit down and play for 10 minutes and leave it behind.
But none the less I struggled to learn.
So eventually I got a Tandy 1000 sl.
I played more games on it.
This has been the recurring factor throughout life.
Now-a-days we just update facebook and taut how cool we are because we compiled a kernel in Linux.
We express how elite we are by the mods we make to our game consoles.
How we put down $300.00 for an operating system just so we could play a game.
Switching operating systems, worrying about virus's, different component support, drivers, dvd-playback, why is it nobody is happy?
Point of this is watching the original movie you developed an opinion that Gates, Jobs, and everyone else were just a bunch of jerks wasting our time.
Money</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302</id>
	<title>It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1264009620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With apologies to a poster on one of the rumor sites, Bing is not a search engine, it is a decision engine.</p><p>But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere, and there are no signs of that.<br>I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft, what it stands for, and the way it does its business. Pretty much like many Linux folks do.<br>If he should allow for this, I'll eat my shorts. (Figuratively!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With apologies to a poster on one of the rumor sites , Bing is not a search engine , it is a decision engine.But in all seriousness , the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this , is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere , and there are no signs of that.I 'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft , what it stands for , and the way it does its business .
Pretty much like many Linux folks do.If he should allow for this , I 'll eat my shorts .
( Figuratively ! )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With apologies to a poster on one of the rumor sites, Bing is not a search engine, it is a decision engine.But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere, and there are no signs of that.I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft, what it stands for, and the way it does its business.
Pretty much like many Linux folks do.If he should allow for this, I'll eat my shorts.
(Figuratively!)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844728</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Mordaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1264082280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to dig a little deeper friend. All of the nice little things Microsoft did was part of patent infringement negotiations. The cash infusion, the agreement to continue making Office for Mac (the agreement was for 5 years) and Apple making IE the default Mac OS browser were all part of that. By the way - IE being the default browser meant Netscape wasn't. How very nice and generous of them.</p><p>They weren't being nice, they were trying to stay out of court. Saved Apple, indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to dig a little deeper friend .
All of the nice little things Microsoft did was part of patent infringement negotiations .
The cash infusion , the agreement to continue making Office for Mac ( the agreement was for 5 years ) and Apple making IE the default Mac OS browser were all part of that .
By the way - IE being the default browser meant Netscape was n't .
How very nice and generous of them.They were n't being nice , they were trying to stay out of court .
Saved Apple , indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to dig a little deeper friend.
All of the nice little things Microsoft did was part of patent infringement negotiations.
The cash infusion, the agreement to continue making Office for Mac (the agreement was for 5 years) and Apple making IE the default Mac OS browser were all part of that.
By the way - IE being the default browser meant Netscape wasn't.
How very nice and generous of them.They weren't being nice, they were trying to stay out of court.
Saved Apple, indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842714</id>
	<title>Who approached who?</title>
	<author>atomicstrawberry</author>
	<datestamp>1264012920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether or not the two companies are talking isn't really as relevant as who it was that brought up the possibility. Did Apple approach MS (in which case it's all but assured to happen) or did MS approach Apple as a potential vehicle for marketing Bing to people? Semantics, maybe, but the origin of the push will make a big difference to the outcome of any talks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not the two companies are talking is n't really as relevant as who it was that brought up the possibility .
Did Apple approach MS ( in which case it 's all but assured to happen ) or did MS approach Apple as a potential vehicle for marketing Bing to people ?
Semantics , maybe , but the origin of the push will make a big difference to the outcome of any talks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not the two companies are talking isn't really as relevant as who it was that brought up the possibility.
Did Apple approach MS (in which case it's all but assured to happen) or did MS approach Apple as a potential vehicle for marketing Bing to people?
Semantics, maybe, but the origin of the push will make a big difference to the outcome of any talks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842948</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>spintriae</author>
	<datestamp>1264015380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone.<br>
<br>
And then what? A Windows 7 version of their Macbook? I don't think so, Tim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Next i bet you 'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone .
And then what ?
A Windows 7 version of their Macbook ?
I do n't think so , Tim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone.
And then what?
A Windows 7 version of their Macbook?
I don't think so, Tim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843890</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264071300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>What happened to judging products on their merits?<br></i></p><p>It is quite common to judge products based on the manufacturer's reputation.</p><p><i><br>Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?<br></i></p><p>Absolutely, and their EULAs are even worse today.</p><p><i><br>And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?<br></i></p><p>Honestly it would take quite a lot, but acknowledging that using software has no greater relationship to copying than using a book does would be a good start.</p><p><i><br>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?<br></i></p><p>Once a whore always a whore is probably the better analogy, particularly considering who Microsoft is in bed with. They make it well known that they continue play for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to judging products on their merits ? It is quite common to judge products based on the manufacturer 's reputation.Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer * thought * of using a product would make you cringe ? Absolutely , and their EULAs are even worse today.And on a related note , what should Microsoft do to regain your respect ? Honestly it would take quite a lot , but acknowledging that using software has no greater relationship to copying than using a book does would be a good start.On a social analogy , is a thief always a thief , even when he shows remorse and changed his ways ? Once a whore always a whore is probably the better analogy , particularly considering who Microsoft is in bed with .
They make it well known that they continue play for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to judging products on their merits?It is quite common to judge products based on the manufacturer's reputation.Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?Absolutely, and their EULAs are even worse today.And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?Honestly it would take quite a lot, but acknowledging that using software has no greater relationship to copying than using a book does would be a good start.On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?Once a whore always a whore is probably the better analogy, particularly considering who Microsoft is in bed with.
They make it well known that they continue play for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847874</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1264097760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?</i></p><p>Let me know when that happens.</p><p>Until then, a thief is a thief as long as they remain an unrepentant thief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a social analogy , is a thief always a thief , even when he shows remorse and changed his ways ? Let me know when that happens.Until then , a thief is a thief as long as they remain an unrepentant thief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?Let me know when that happens.Until then, a thief is a thief as long as they remain an unrepentant thief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845476</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264087620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC.)</p> </div><p>That may be your opinion, but they still use Entourage which still doesn't have full Exchange support.  I don't know how Microsoft could more blatantly trying to trash the viability of Office for OSX in the corporate world than to hobble Exchange support.
</p><p>Microsoft dropped Exchange support right around the advent of OSX, which was right around the same time they stopped developing IE for Mac, which was also around the time that Apple started to make their comeback.  So when you look at it that way, it looks like Microsoft propped up a minor competitor when they were being prosecuted for antitrust violations only to drop support when that competitor stopped being so minor.
</p><p>Even now, none of Microsoft's Mac software adheres to Mac conventions.  They do crap like stick their configuration files into your "Documents" folder.  Now supposedly they're going to start offering Outlook for Mac in the next year, but we'll see how that turns out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( indeed , Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC .
) That may be your opinion , but they still use Entourage which still does n't have full Exchange support .
I do n't know how Microsoft could more blatantly trying to trash the viability of Office for OSX in the corporate world than to hobble Exchange support .
Microsoft dropped Exchange support right around the advent of OSX , which was right around the same time they stopped developing IE for Mac , which was also around the time that Apple started to make their comeback .
So when you look at it that way , it looks like Microsoft propped up a minor competitor when they were being prosecuted for antitrust violations only to drop support when that competitor stopped being so minor .
Even now , none of Microsoft 's Mac software adheres to Mac conventions .
They do crap like stick their configuration files into your " Documents " folder .
Now supposedly they 're going to start offering Outlook for Mac in the next year , but we 'll see how that turns out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC.
) That may be your opinion, but they still use Entourage which still doesn't have full Exchange support.
I don't know how Microsoft could more blatantly trying to trash the viability of Office for OSX in the corporate world than to hobble Exchange support.
Microsoft dropped Exchange support right around the advent of OSX, which was right around the same time they stopped developing IE for Mac, which was also around the time that Apple started to make their comeback.
So when you look at it that way, it looks like Microsoft propped up a minor competitor when they were being prosecuted for antitrust violations only to drop support when that competitor stopped being so minor.
Even now, none of Microsoft's Mac software adheres to Mac conventions.
They do crap like stick their configuration files into your "Documents" folder.
Now supposedly they're going to start offering Outlook for Mac in the next year, but we'll see how that turns out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843596</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Of course Apple is going to negotiate with Google and Microsoft. They want to get a better deal, as John Gruber puts it:<br><a href="http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple\_google\_bing\_search" title="daringfireball.net">http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple\_google\_bing\_search</a> [daringfireball.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion .
Of course Apple is going to negotiate with Google and Microsoft .
They want to get a better deal , as John Gruber puts it : http : //daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple \ _google \ _bing \ _search [ daringfireball.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.
Of course Apple is going to negotiate with Google and Microsoft.
They want to get a better deal, as John Gruber puts it:http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple\_google\_bing\_search [daringfireball.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843212</id>
	<title>Re:'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1264105560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The corporation with the $271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $190 billion. That makes sense.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It makes sense when bigger part of 271 billion market cap comes from completely different market and 190 billion corps have higher market share in selected market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The corporation with the $ 271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $ 190 billion .
That makes sense .
It makes sense when bigger part of 271 billion market cap comes from completely different market and 190 billion corps have higher market share in selected market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corporation with the $271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $190 billion.
That makes sense.
It makes sense when bigger part of 271 billion market cap comes from completely different market and 190 billion corps have higher market share in selected market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844206</id>
	<title>2nd Source?</title>
	<author>phooka.de</author>
	<datestamp>1264075440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All articles I see refer to business week.</p><p>Can we have a second independent source, please?</p><p>It sounds implausible enough to drive business week's webtraffic. It includes all bis three in IT, a sure way to generate traffic. It implies that Apple-Fanboys will soon support the arch-enemy, a sure way to boost webtraffic.</p><p>I don't buy it, not without a second source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All articles I see refer to business week.Can we have a second independent source , please ? It sounds implausible enough to drive business week 's webtraffic .
It includes all bis three in IT , a sure way to generate traffic .
It implies that Apple-Fanboys will soon support the arch-enemy , a sure way to boost webtraffic.I do n't buy it , not without a second source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All articles I see refer to business week.Can we have a second independent source, please?It sounds implausible enough to drive business week's webtraffic.
It includes all bis three in IT, a sure way to generate traffic.
It implies that Apple-Fanboys will soon support the arch-enemy, a sure way to boost webtraffic.I don't buy it, not without a second source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30862560</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1264192560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?</p></div><p>What evidence is there that Microsoft has changed it's ways?  There certainly has never been any showing of remorse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a social analogy , is a thief always a thief , even when he shows remorse and changed his ways ? What evidence is there that Microsoft has changed it 's ways ?
There certainly has never been any showing of remorse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?What evidence is there that Microsoft has changed it's ways?
There certainly has never been any showing of remorse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30856096</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>kregg</author>
	<datestamp>1264092720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.I judged Bing by doing a search on the word Linux and at the time it came up with the top result for a linux vs MS Server page on Microsoft. Ok so they fixed that but still. How can I trust them to not hide things from me.</p><p>2. Yes. Have you see the Windows 7 party video on YouTube, or have you used Windows Mobile? All very cringe worthy. Bing is just a copy of Google with a fancy background.</p><p>3. I would have more respect for Microsoft if they didn't always try to lock you in to their products e.g Sharepoint, Office, C# etc.</p><p>4. Hard to say....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.I judged Bing by doing a search on the word Linux and at the time it came up with the top result for a linux vs MS Server page on Microsoft .
Ok so they fixed that but still .
How can I trust them to not hide things from me.2 .
Yes. Have you see the Windows 7 party video on YouTube , or have you used Windows Mobile ?
All very cringe worthy .
Bing is just a copy of Google with a fancy background.3 .
I would have more respect for Microsoft if they did n't always try to lock you in to their products e.g Sharepoint , Office , C # etc.4 .
Hard to say... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.I judged Bing by doing a search on the word Linux and at the time it came up with the top result for a linux vs MS Server page on Microsoft.
Ok so they fixed that but still.
How can I trust them to not hide things from me.2.
Yes. Have you see the Windows 7 party video on YouTube, or have you used Windows Mobile?
All very cringe worthy.
Bing is just a copy of Google with a fancy background.3.
I would have more respect for Microsoft if they didn't always try to lock you in to their products e.g Sharepoint, Office, C# etc.4.
Hard to say....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846790</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1264093500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the thought of using bing makes me cringe</p></div><p>What happened to judging products on their merits?</p></div><p>Why are you assuming he's <b>not</b> judging it based on merit?</p><p>Maybe he likes his search engine to be <a href="http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1518398&amp;cid=30844236" title="slashdot.org">unbiased</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the thought of using bing makes me cringeWhat happened to judging products on their merits ? Why are you assuming he 's not judging it based on merit ? Maybe he likes his search engine to be unbiased [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the thought of using bing makes me cringeWhat happened to judging products on their merits?Why are you assuming he's not judging it based on merit?Maybe he likes his search engine to be unbiased [slashdot.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260</id>
	<title>Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more than just Apple vs Google fight, this is serious battle between Microsoft and Google. MS has actually made their search engine better than Google (the different categories and combining them together shows this, and it's greatly improved over Live search).</p><p>Immediately when Bing was released Google tried to answer back with its sidebar options. But it never really got where Bing is. And now <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/15/169227/Bing-Gaining-Market-Share-Faster" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before</a> [slashdot.org]. It is actually a good product, and actually something MS has left alone from their other marketing efforts (for example, they use flash instead of silverlight, because flash is installed on so many machines, and do not try to promote silverlight on cost of their search engine).</p><p>I hate microsofts business practices as much as the next guy on slashdot, but Bing is something they're actually done really good. Yesterdays news about <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/10/01/19/2138215/Microsoft-To-Delete-Bing-IP-Data-After-6-Months" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Bing deleting user data in 6 months</a> [slashdot.org] just shows that bitter battle with Google is getting even better and better. Bing keeps gaining market share every month, faster and faster. Google pulls out from China market. Google CEO <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/09/12/08/0127219/Google-CEO-Says-Privacy-Worries-Are-For-Wrongdoers" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">says privacy doesn't matter</a> [slashdot.org]. This is something to watch while drinking cola and making some popcorns - two giants fighting to death.</p><p>This shows competition is good. It surely leads to innovations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more than just Apple vs Google fight , this is serious battle between Microsoft and Google .
MS has actually made their search engine better than Google ( the different categories and combining them together shows this , and it 's greatly improved over Live search ) .Immediately when Bing was released Google tried to answer back with its sidebar options .
But it never really got where Bing is .
And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before [ slashdot.org ] .
It is actually a good product , and actually something MS has left alone from their other marketing efforts ( for example , they use flash instead of silverlight , because flash is installed on so many machines , and do not try to promote silverlight on cost of their search engine ) .I hate microsofts business practices as much as the next guy on slashdot , but Bing is something they 're actually done really good .
Yesterdays news about Bing deleting user data in 6 months [ slashdot.org ] just shows that bitter battle with Google is getting even better and better .
Bing keeps gaining market share every month , faster and faster .
Google pulls out from China market .
Google CEO says privacy does n't matter [ slashdot.org ] .
This is something to watch while drinking cola and making some popcorns - two giants fighting to death.This shows competition is good .
It surely leads to innovations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more than just Apple vs Google fight, this is serious battle between Microsoft and Google.
MS has actually made their search engine better than Google (the different categories and combining them together shows this, and it's greatly improved over Live search).Immediately when Bing was released Google tried to answer back with its sidebar options.
But it never really got where Bing is.
And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before [slashdot.org].
It is actually a good product, and actually something MS has left alone from their other marketing efforts (for example, they use flash instead of silverlight, because flash is installed on so many machines, and do not try to promote silverlight on cost of their search engine).I hate microsofts business practices as much as the next guy on slashdot, but Bing is something they're actually done really good.
Yesterdays news about Bing deleting user data in 6 months [slashdot.org] just shows that bitter battle with Google is getting even better and better.
Bing keeps gaining market share every month, faster and faster.
Google pulls out from China market.
Google CEO says privacy doesn't matter [slashdot.org].
This is something to watch while drinking cola and making some popcorns - two giants fighting to death.This shows competition is good.
It surely leads to innovations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843568</id>
	<title>interface</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1264066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's hope that they will polish up Bing's interface while they are at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope that they will polish up Bing 's interface while they are at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope that they will polish up Bing's interface while they are at it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842736</id>
	<title>Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?</title>
	<author>TrancePhreak</author>
	<datestamp>1264013100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that the AT&amp;T data plans are not unlimited. They'd likely be seeping off your available data usage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that the AT&amp;T data plans are not unlimited .
They 'd likely be seeping off your available data usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that the AT&amp;T data plans are not unlimited.
They'd likely be seeping off your available data usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842680</id>
	<title>'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'</title>
	<author>NoPantsJim</author>
	<datestamp>1264012620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure. The corporation with the $271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $190 billion. That makes sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
The corporation with the $ 271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $ 190 billion .
That makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
The corporation with the $271.6 billion market cap is the pawn in the battle between two corps with market caps around $190 billion.
That makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842822</id>
	<title>Re:And here I'm trying to get it off my Blackberry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for Opera Mini?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Opera Mini ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Opera Mini?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845474</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1264087620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?</p></div><p>It's called boycott ie. when you use an alternative product simply because you don't like the business practices of the company that produces it. Doesn't matter whether they have a better product or not; MS has demonstrated that they can't play nice. Of course Google is not perfect but they're at least better. Easy decision for me: I choose Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to judging products on their merits ?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer * thought * of using a product would make you cringe ? It 's called boycott ie .
when you use an alternative product simply because you do n't like the business practices of the company that produces it .
Does n't matter whether they have a better product or not ; MS has demonstrated that they ca n't play nice .
Of course Google is not perfect but they 're at least better .
Easy decision for me : I choose Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to judging products on their merits?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?It's called boycott ie.
when you use an alternative product simply because you don't like the business practices of the company that produces it.
Doesn't matter whether they have a better product or not; MS has demonstrated that they can't play nice.
Of course Google is not perfect but they're at least better.
Easy decision for me: I choose Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843248</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, because Apple has <em>never</em> cut a deal with Microsoft when they had "piss weak" marketshare (by the way, the iPhone's marketshare is far from "piss weak"), and Apple ended up coming out stronger than ever.</p><p>Apple isn't stupid either.</p><p>And about your WinMo thing, Apple prides itself far too much on its hardware-software integration to let that ever happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , because Apple has never cut a deal with Microsoft when they had " piss weak " marketshare ( by the way , the iPhone 's marketshare is far from " piss weak " ) , and Apple ended up coming out stronger than ever.Apple is n't stupid either.And about your WinMo thing , Apple prides itself far too much on its hardware-software integration to let that ever happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, because Apple has never cut a deal with Microsoft when they had "piss weak" marketshare (by the way, the iPhone's marketshare is far from "piss weak"), and Apple ended up coming out stronger than ever.Apple isn't stupid either.And about your WinMo thing, Apple prides itself far too much on its hardware-software integration to let that ever happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845196</id>
	<title>When has MS changes its ways?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1264086000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear you saying that you think MS is a reformed thief. Fine, but where is your evidence? I seen them not change at all. People have been saying for over 10 years that MS has changed and it is never true.
</p><p>But fine, point me to some evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear you saying that you think MS is a reformed thief .
Fine , but where is your evidence ?
I seen them not change at all .
People have been saying for over 10 years that MS has changed and it is never true .
But fine , point me to some evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear you saying that you think MS is a reformed thief.
Fine, but where is your evidence?
I seen them not change at all.
People have been saying for over 10 years that MS has changed and it is never true.
But fine, point me to some evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842448</id>
	<title>Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>someone needs decaf, stat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someone needs decaf , stat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone needs decaf, stat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30849666</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264105620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've personally judge it after using it and it does not offer enough over Google, I find some its results for certain searches to be questionable and quite frankly I don't support any company that uses it advantages in other areas to gain an artificial advantage (ie making your search engine the default in your market dominating browser).
<br> <br>
If MS pays to be the search engine on the iPhone I'm fine with that. I wouldn't fight it but I would still think making it the default on IE is wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've personally judge it after using it and it does not offer enough over Google , I find some its results for certain searches to be questionable and quite frankly I do n't support any company that uses it advantages in other areas to gain an artificial advantage ( ie making your search engine the default in your market dominating browser ) .
If MS pays to be the search engine on the iPhone I 'm fine with that .
I would n't fight it but I would still think making it the default on IE is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've personally judge it after using it and it does not offer enough over Google, I find some its results for certain searches to be questionable and quite frankly I don't support any company that uses it advantages in other areas to gain an artificial advantage (ie making your search engine the default in your market dominating browser).
If MS pays to be the search engine on the iPhone I'm fine with that.
I wouldn't fight it but I would still think making it the default on IE is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842624</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MS is hardly anyones fool. what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other. Apple's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat, so initally siding wiht them is logical. Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone. mark my words children....</p></div><p>Wha'? I know people don't read the articles here - but you should at least consider reading the summary. We're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers. Apple's marketshare is pretty darn good (to say the least). As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group, and they don't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two. It is not Microsoft's golden child by any stretch of the imagination.</p><p>Seriously - Microsoft hasn't managed to leverage their Windows near-monopoly into a dominant position in any of these spaces. I'm glad you're happy with your Zune, but... wow. Seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is hardly anyones fool .
what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other .
Apple 's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat , so initally siding wiht them is logical .
Next i bet you 'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone .
mark my words children....Wha ' ?
I know people do n't read the articles here - but you should at least consider reading the summary .
We 're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers .
Apple 's marketshare is pretty darn good ( to say the least ) .
As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group , and they do n't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two .
It is not Microsoft 's golden child by any stretch of the imagination.Seriously - Microsoft has n't managed to leverage their Windows near-monopoly into a dominant position in any of these spaces .
I 'm glad you 're happy with your Zune , but... wow. Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is hardly anyones fool.
what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other.
Apple's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat, so initally siding wiht them is logical.
Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone.
mark my words children....Wha'?
I know people don't read the articles here - but you should at least consider reading the summary.
We're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers.
Apple's marketshare is pretty darn good (to say the least).
As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group, and they don't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two.
It is not Microsoft's golden child by any stretch of the imagination.Seriously - Microsoft hasn't managed to leverage their Windows near-monopoly into a dominant position in any of these spaces.
I'm glad you're happy with your Zune, but... wow. Seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843638</id>
	<title>1984</title>
	<author>davygrvy</author>
	<datestamp>1264067940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Images of 1984 by George Orwell pop into mind like the three factions: Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania.  &ldquo;War is Peace&rdquo; "Freedom is Slavery&rdquo; and &ldquo;Ignorance is Strength.&rdquo;  It's always 2 vs 1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Images of 1984 by George Orwell pop into mind like the three factions : Eastasia , Eurasia , and Oceania .
   War is Peace    " Freedom is Slavery    and    Ignorance is Strength.    It 's always 2 vs 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Images of 1984 by George Orwell pop into mind like the three factions: Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania.
“War is Peace” "Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.”  It's always 2 vs 1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845230</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264086300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?<br></i><br>The trouble is, how do you know the "reformed" thief is sincere? My elderly dad says "one 'oh shit' wipes out a whole lot of 'attaboys'".</p><p>Once bitten, twice shy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a thief always a thief , even when he shows remorse and changed his ways ? The trouble is , how do you know the " reformed " thief is sincere ?
My elderly dad says " one 'oh shit ' wipes out a whole lot of 'attaboys ' " .Once bitten , twice shy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?The trouble is, how do you know the "reformed" thief is sincere?
My elderly dad says "one 'oh shit' wipes out a whole lot of 'attaboys'".Once bitten, twice shy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846836</id>
	<title>Re:not even in the same league / market</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1264093800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry - are you high? You claim that iPhone has "1\%" of the smart phone market, and that Android has more? Utter crap. The most recent <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/03/canalys\_q3\_2009\_iphone\_rim\_taking\_over\_smartphone\_market.html" title="appleinsider.com">data I could find</a> [appleinsider.com] from the end of last year gives Apple 18\%, behind Symbian and RIM. Android is showing a whopping 3.5\%. Now I'm sure Android did much better in Q4 and will continue to rise, but I would bet my house they won't even reach iPhone by the end of 2010, never mind pass them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry - are you high ?
You claim that iPhone has " 1 \ % " of the smart phone market , and that Android has more ?
Utter crap .
The most recent data I could find [ appleinsider.com ] from the end of last year gives Apple 18 \ % , behind Symbian and RIM .
Android is showing a whopping 3.5 \ % .
Now I 'm sure Android did much better in Q4 and will continue to rise , but I would bet my house they wo n't even reach iPhone by the end of 2010 , never mind pass them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry - are you high?
You claim that iPhone has "1\%" of the smart phone market, and that Android has more?
Utter crap.
The most recent data I could find [appleinsider.com] from the end of last year gives Apple 18\%, behind Symbian and RIM.
Android is showing a whopping 3.5\%.
Now I'm sure Android did much better in Q4 and will continue to rise, but I would bet my house they won't even reach iPhone by the end of 2010, never mind pass them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847444</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264096260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The $150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows. Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a "vote of confidence" from Microsoft and Bill Gates.</p></div><p>Oh yes, I'm sure that Steve was particularly happy to get IE as a default browser for MacOS. You can <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY" title="youtube.com">practically see him beaming</a> [youtube.com] in that video!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The $ 150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows .
Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a " vote of confidence " from Microsoft and Bill Gates.Oh yes , I 'm sure that Steve was particularly happy to get IE as a default browser for MacOS .
You can practically see him beaming [ youtube.com ] in that video !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The $150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows.
Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a "vote of confidence" from Microsoft and Bill Gates.Oh yes, I'm sure that Steve was particularly happy to get IE as a default browser for MacOS.
You can practically see him beaming [youtube.com] in that video!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843628</id>
	<title>not even in the same league / market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only area where Google and Apple are seriously competing is in the smart phone market.  And even there, the iPhone isn't even in the same league: you can get nice Android devices for a third of what an iPhone costs.  Same goes for Apple's online offering, Mobile Me, compared to Google.  The most-used apps on the iPhone (and probably any other smart phone) are Google's.  There is nothing Apple offers that anybody outside its 1\% sliver of the phone market cares about.</p><p>For Google, Android is a means to an end: to get people to do things on-line more of the time.  That's why Google gives Android away.  For Apple, the iPhone itself is the product.  It's a conflict alright, but on very unequal terms, and terms that are quite unfavorable to Apple.  The same kind of conflict is going to arise over Google Chrome vs Apple's tablet and ultralight offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only area where Google and Apple are seriously competing is in the smart phone market .
And even there , the iPhone is n't even in the same league : you can get nice Android devices for a third of what an iPhone costs .
Same goes for Apple 's online offering , Mobile Me , compared to Google .
The most-used apps on the iPhone ( and probably any other smart phone ) are Google 's .
There is nothing Apple offers that anybody outside its 1 \ % sliver of the phone market cares about.For Google , Android is a means to an end : to get people to do things on-line more of the time .
That 's why Google gives Android away .
For Apple , the iPhone itself is the product .
It 's a conflict alright , but on very unequal terms , and terms that are quite unfavorable to Apple .
The same kind of conflict is going to arise over Google Chrome vs Apple 's tablet and ultralight offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only area where Google and Apple are seriously competing is in the smart phone market.
And even there, the iPhone isn't even in the same league: you can get nice Android devices for a third of what an iPhone costs.
Same goes for Apple's online offering, Mobile Me, compared to Google.
The most-used apps on the iPhone (and probably any other smart phone) are Google's.
There is nothing Apple offers that anybody outside its 1\% sliver of the phone market cares about.For Google, Android is a means to an end: to get people to do things on-line more of the time.
That's why Google gives Android away.
For Apple, the iPhone itself is the product.
It's a conflict alright, but on very unequal terms, and terms that are quite unfavorable to Apple.
The same kind of conflict is going to arise over Google Chrome vs Apple's tablet and ultralight offerings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842404</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve once said, after Apple took $150M USD from M$ a few years ago, that it was not necessary for Microsoft to fail for Apple to succeed.</p><p>He may hate M$, but he's a smart businessman, and Apple and M$ have worked together more than you'd think over the years.</p><p>I hope the rumor is true, I'm not a fan of Google, or M$, but I'm tired of being mined for data, and right now M$ has a better privacy message.</p><p>Even better would be an opt in on all data mining, but we all know there are too many well funded lobbyists flying first class from Silicon Valley/Redmond to ever let that happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve once said , after Apple took $ 150M USD from M $ a few years ago , that it was not necessary for Microsoft to fail for Apple to succeed.He may hate M $ , but he 's a smart businessman , and Apple and M $ have worked together more than you 'd think over the years.I hope the rumor is true , I 'm not a fan of Google , or M $ , but I 'm tired of being mined for data , and right now M $ has a better privacy message.Even better would be an opt in on all data mining , but we all know there are too many well funded lobbyists flying first class from Silicon Valley/Redmond to ever let that happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve once said, after Apple took $150M USD from M$ a few years ago, that it was not necessary for Microsoft to fail for Apple to succeed.He may hate M$, but he's a smart businessman, and Apple and M$ have worked together more than you'd think over the years.I hope the rumor is true, I'm not a fan of Google, or M$, but I'm tired of being mined for data, and right now M$ has a better privacy message.Even better would be an opt in on all data mining, but we all know there are too many well funded lobbyists flying first class from Silicon Valley/Redmond to ever let that happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386</id>
	<title>Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1264010220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Apple is also working on ways to manage ad placement on its mobile devices"</p><p>What the hell is that line about. Apple better not be spamming the fuck out fo me when i'm paying for their fucking devices and software AND cell service.</p><p>FUCK YOU APPLE.. Dont even try it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple is also working on ways to manage ad placement on its mobile devices " What the hell is that line about .
Apple better not be spamming the fuck out fo me when i 'm paying for their fucking devices and software AND cell service.FUCK YOU APPLE.. Dont even try it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple is also working on ways to manage ad placement on its mobile devices"What the hell is that line about.
Apple better not be spamming the fuck out fo me when i'm paying for their fucking devices and software AND cell service.FUCK YOU APPLE.. Dont even try it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842618</id>
	<title>The editors must use Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they ran basically the <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/17/1639221" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">same story</a> [slashdot.org] three days ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they ran basically the same story [ slashdot.org ] three days ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they ran basically the same story [slashdot.org] three days ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842740</id>
	<title>The missing detail</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1264013160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This rumor is correct in a way, but is missing crucial details. The iPhone's search will be powered by a Bing... but it will be Bing Crosby.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This rumor is correct in a way , but is missing crucial details .
The iPhone 's search will be powered by a Bing... but it will be Bing Crosby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This rumor is correct in a way, but is missing crucial details.
The iPhone's search will be powered by a Bing... but it will be Bing Crosby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847220</id>
	<title>Al-Quaeda air</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1264095360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Al-Quaeda suddenly started donating to orphanages, building schools, and then started an airline with  cheap booze, hot stewardesses, and free flights for Americans... would you fly with them?</p><p>How about you throw in that in the meantime they're still planting roadside bombs and otherwise doing other evil things.<br>But hey, it's a free first-class flight. Never mind that looming tower in the distance.</p><p>With a well-deserved reputation, it will be a LONG bloody time before many in the industry trust MS, if ever. Probably not until their "mighty empire" has been brought down more than a peg or two and they *HAVE* to behave in order to do business, as opposed to bulldozing their way through competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Al-Quaeda suddenly started donating to orphanages , building schools , and then started an airline with cheap booze , hot stewardesses , and free flights for Americans... would you fly with them ? How about you throw in that in the meantime they 're still planting roadside bombs and otherwise doing other evil things.But hey , it 's a free first-class flight .
Never mind that looming tower in the distance.With a well-deserved reputation , it will be a LONG bloody time before many in the industry trust MS , if ever .
Probably not until their " mighty empire " has been brought down more than a peg or two and they * HAVE * to behave in order to do business , as opposed to bulldozing their way through competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Al-Quaeda suddenly started donating to orphanages, building schools, and then started an airline with  cheap booze, hot stewardesses, and free flights for Americans... would you fly with them?How about you throw in that in the meantime they're still planting roadside bombs and otherwise doing other evil things.But hey, it's a free first-class flight.
Never mind that looming tower in the distance.With a well-deserved reputation, it will be a LONG bloody time before many in the industry trust MS, if ever.
Probably not until their "mighty empire" has been brought down more than a peg or two and they *HAVE* to behave in order to do business, as opposed to bulldozing their way through competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30855052</id>
	<title>Re:calling bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole sex appeal thing has to be some of the biggest BS I've seen. Sex is such a big thing for many people that they will project it onto anything. You'd have to be silly to actually try to base some reasoning on this "sexy" concept in that way. Besides, what's so sexy about Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole sex appeal thing has to be some of the biggest BS I 've seen .
Sex is such a big thing for many people that they will project it onto anything .
You 'd have to be silly to actually try to base some reasoning on this " sexy " concept in that way .
Besides , what 's so sexy about Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole sex appeal thing has to be some of the biggest BS I've seen.
Sex is such a big thing for many people that they will project it onto anything.
You'd have to be silly to actually try to base some reasoning on this "sexy" concept in that way.
Besides, what's so sexy about Google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843566</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?</p></div><p>The thief will have always done the thieving, regardless of what he does later in life. In order for the thief to regain trust, he'll have to admit to that. Has Microsoft done that?</p><p>Microsoft hasn't "shown remorse and changed their ways". And this is all assuming one accepts the premise that corporations deserve forgiveness or a second chance in the same way a human does. I'm not convinced they do. Not so readily or so easily, at least.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a social analogy , is a thief always a thief , even when he shows remorse and changed his ways ? The thief will have always done the thieving , regardless of what he does later in life .
In order for the thief to regain trust , he 'll have to admit to that .
Has Microsoft done that ? Microsoft has n't " shown remorse and changed their ways " .
And this is all assuming one accepts the premise that corporations deserve forgiveness or a second chance in the same way a human does .
I 'm not convinced they do .
Not so readily or so easily , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?The thief will have always done the thieving, regardless of what he does later in life.
In order for the thief to regain trust, he'll have to admit to that.
Has Microsoft done that?Microsoft hasn't "shown remorse and changed their ways".
And this is all assuming one accepts the premise that corporations deserve forgiveness or a second chance in the same way a human does.
I'm not convinced they do.
Not so readily or so easily, at least.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845692</id>
	<title>Re:Perverse Bias in results</title>
	<author>grepppo</author>
	<datestamp>1264088640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even worse, at the bottom of the bing search

"Six reasons to switch from Ubuntu to Vista" !!!??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse , at the bottom of the bing search " Six reasons to switch from Ubuntu to Vista " ! ! ! ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse, at the bottom of the bing search

"Six reasons to switch from Ubuntu to Vista" !!!?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316</id>
	<title>Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS is hardly anyones fool. what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other. Apple's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat, so initally siding wiht them is logical. Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone. mark my words children....</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is hardly anyones fool .
what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other .
Apple 's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat , so initally siding wiht them is logical .
Next i bet you 'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone .
mark my words children... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is hardly anyones fool.
what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other.
Apple's piss weak market share makes them less of a threat, so initally siding wiht them is logical.
Next i bet you'll see MS leverage this into a windows mobile version of the iphone.
mark my words children....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846750</id>
	<title>Feels like Bush having dinner with Bin Laden</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264093320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although Bush and Bin Laden having dinner would be less likely to surprise me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although Bush and Bin Laden having dinner would be less likely to surprise me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although Bush and Bin Laden having dinner would be less likely to surprise me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842968</id>
	<title>Total world domination!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264015680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>First, they ignored us.</li><li>Then, we declared war on them.</li><li>Then, they ignored us.</li><li>Then, we took the webservers. And they kind of noticed us.</li><li>Then, they ignored us.</li><li>Then, we took the netbooks. And they really started noticing us.</li><li>Then, they ignored us.</li><li>Then, we took the mobile phones. And they started to worry.</li><li>Then, we ignored them.  And they stopped ignoring us.  Kind of.</li><li>Then, came the next big thing.  And it didn't say, "Microsoft," but came from Google or Apple.</li><li>Then, we ignored them completely.  And it ran Android and OSX/FreeBSD.</li><li>And then, we won.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , they ignored us.Then , we declared war on them.Then , they ignored us.Then , we took the webservers .
And they kind of noticed us.Then , they ignored us.Then , we took the netbooks .
And they really started noticing us.Then , they ignored us.Then , we took the mobile phones .
And they started to worry.Then , we ignored them .
And they stopped ignoring us .
Kind of.Then , came the next big thing .
And it did n't say , " Microsoft , " but came from Google or Apple.Then , we ignored them completely .
And it ran Android and OSX/FreeBSD.And then , we won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First, they ignored us.Then, we declared war on them.Then, they ignored us.Then, we took the webservers.
And they kind of noticed us.Then, they ignored us.Then, we took the netbooks.
And they really started noticing us.Then, they ignored us.Then, we took the mobile phones.
And they started to worry.Then, we ignored them.
And they stopped ignoring us.
Kind of.Then, came the next big thing.
And it didn't say, "Microsoft," but came from Google or Apple.Then, we ignored them completely.
And it ran Android and OSX/FreeBSD.And then, we won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847112</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264094940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure there's quite a bit more</p></div><p>After everything you've already listed, I find it hard to imagine a list of "more" that wouldn't include seppuku in it somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there 's quite a bit moreAfter everything you 've already listed , I find it hard to imagine a list of " more " that would n't include seppuku in it somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there's quite a bit moreAfter everything you've already listed, I find it hard to imagine a list of "more" that wouldn't include seppuku in it somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842646</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>johncadengo</author>
	<datestamp>1264012260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I don't see Microsoft as a pawn at all. It seems to me that they are employing the well-known and time-proven strategy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide\_and\_rule" title="wikipedia.org">divide and rule</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I do n't see Microsoft as a pawn at all .
It seems to me that they are employing the well-known and time-proven strategy of divide and rule [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I don't see Microsoft as a pawn at all.
It seems to me that they are employing the well-known and time-proven strategy of divide and rule [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842992</id>
	<title>Re:'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a big freakin' pawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a big freakin ' pawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a big freakin' pawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844516</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264079880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC"</p><p>Personal preference. I always thought the Mac Office felt horrible and slow. Both the different UI and the responsiveness.</p><p>MS Office 2007 on Windows got it right with the ribbon bar. Have to admit I was sceptic, but am a convert now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" indeed , Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC " Personal preference .
I always thought the Mac Office felt horrible and slow .
Both the different UI and the responsiveness.MS Office 2007 on Windows got it right with the ribbon bar .
Have to admit I was sceptic , but am a convert now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC"Personal preference.
I always thought the Mac Office felt horrible and slow.
Both the different UI and the responsiveness.MS Office 2007 on Windows got it right with the ribbon bar.
Have to admit I was sceptic, but am a convert now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846302</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264091220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They have stifled innovation for years (for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare, only updated again once its share was threatened several years later).</p></div></blockquote><p>This is what's really insidious about Bing. What happens if Microsoft wins the current search engine wars, like they did the browser wars or the operating system wars? Will they keep on innovating, or will search stagnate for a decade?</p><p>Whenever Microsoft wins, everyone else loses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have stifled innovation for years ( for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare , only updated again once its share was threatened several years later ) .This is what 's really insidious about Bing .
What happens if Microsoft wins the current search engine wars , like they did the browser wars or the operating system wars ?
Will they keep on innovating , or will search stagnate for a decade ? Whenever Microsoft wins , everyone else loses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have stifled innovation for years (for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare, only updated again once its share was threatened several years later).This is what's really insidious about Bing.
What happens if Microsoft wins the current search engine wars, like they did the browser wars or the operating system wars?
Will they keep on innovating, or will search stagnate for a decade?Whenever Microsoft wins, everyone else loses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30856158</id>
	<title>User choice</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1264093320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple do go down this route they had better leave the option open for users to change back to google if they see fit.  I have no interest in using Bing - I'm very happy with the search results I get from google thanks.</p><p>And if Apple decide to do a Verison and take the choice away from me then I won't hesitate to take the option to jailbreak my iPhone:  something I've never felt the need to do before now.   I expect I would not be alone either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple do go down this route they had better leave the option open for users to change back to google if they see fit .
I have no interest in using Bing - I 'm very happy with the search results I get from google thanks.And if Apple decide to do a Verison and take the choice away from me then I wo n't hesitate to take the option to jailbreak my iPhone : something I 've never felt the need to do before now .
I expect I would not be alone either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple do go down this route they had better leave the option open for users to change back to google if they see fit.
I have no interest in using Bing - I'm very happy with the search results I get from google thanks.And if Apple decide to do a Verison and take the choice away from me then I won't hesitate to take the option to jailbreak my iPhone:  something I've never felt the need to do before now.
I expect I would not be alone either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843944</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know what you mean. The worst thing is the word itself. There is a whole world of difference between "I Googled Hillary Clinton last night" and "I Binged Hillary Clinton last night".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Cringe</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what you mean .
The worst thing is the word itself .
There is a whole world of difference between " I Googled Hillary Clinton last night " and " I Binged Hillary Clinton last night " .
.... Cringe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what you mean.
The worst thing is the word itself.
There is a whole world of difference between "I Googled Hillary Clinton last night" and "I Binged Hillary Clinton last night".
.... Cringe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1264010460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft <a href="http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/dayintech\_0806/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">saved Apple.</a> [wired.com] Microsoft kept Apple viable in the workplace by continuing to release Office for Mac (indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC.) Apple produces great hardware to run Microsoft software, even their OS, on. And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.</p><p>Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices. Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Mac and now iDisk. Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is. Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.)</p><p>All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft saved Apple .
[ wired.com ] Microsoft kept Apple viable in the workplace by continuing to release Office for Mac ( indeed , Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC .
) Apple produces great hardware to run Microsoft software , even their OS , on .
And while Jobs is an avid competitor , I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.Google , on the other hand , is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market : mobile devices .
Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple , to .Mac and now iDisk .
Google is encroaching , encroaching , encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is .
Apple probably feels betrayed by Google ( and vice versa , after the rejection of Google 's app in the AppStore .
) All three are competing with each other in various sectors , but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now , it is between Apple and Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft saved Apple.
[wired.com] Microsoft kept Apple viable in the workplace by continuing to release Office for Mac (indeed, Office on a Mac is much nicer than Office on a PC.
) Apple produces great hardware to run Microsoft software, even their OS, on.
And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.
Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to .Mac and now iDisk.
Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is.
Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.
)All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844350</id>
	<title>It better be configurable back to Google...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264077840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is all I am saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all I am saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all I am saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842702</id>
	<title>Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool your jets, seriously. They are most likely talking about advertising inside of free applications from the iTunes store. Don't like it? don't use the app, or spend $2 or $3 for the "full" (non-ad-supported) version. There was even talk about Apple competing with Google to purchase "Admob" at one point, a company that does a very significant portion of advertising for the free games on the itunes store.</p><p><a href="http://precursorblog.com/content/whyhow-did-google-outbid-apple-admob-schmidt-google-apple-not-primary-competitors" title="precursorblog.com" rel="nofollow">http://precursorblog.com/content/whyhow-did-google-outbid-apple-admob-schmidt-google-apple-not-primary-competitors</a> [precursorblog.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool your jets , seriously .
They are most likely talking about advertising inside of free applications from the iTunes store .
Do n't like it ?
do n't use the app , or spend $ 2 or $ 3 for the " full " ( non-ad-supported ) version .
There was even talk about Apple competing with Google to purchase " Admob " at one point , a company that does a very significant portion of advertising for the free games on the itunes store.http : //precursorblog.com/content/whyhow-did-google-outbid-apple-admob-schmidt-google-apple-not-primary-competitors [ precursorblog.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool your jets, seriously.
They are most likely talking about advertising inside of free applications from the iTunes store.
Don't like it?
don't use the app, or spend $2 or $3 for the "full" (non-ad-supported) version.
There was even talk about Apple competing with Google to purchase "Admob" at one point, a company that does a very significant portion of advertising for the free games on the itunes store.http://precursorblog.com/content/whyhow-did-google-outbid-apple-admob-schmidt-google-apple-not-primary-competitors [precursorblog.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844304</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1264077120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What should Microsoft do to regain your respect?</p></div><p>Make good the things they have stolen.  Show contrition and remorse.

</p><p>Give back the Browser market to Mozilla by cancelling all future development of IE and giving a 2 year end of life notice (Netscape is no more; still they should pay compensation to the shareholders).

</p><p>Give back the operating system market; announce that Windows will be GPLed, compensate the owners of DRDos OS2.  Pay back money to all consumers who would have bought

</p><p>Cancel all future development of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc/.docx "standard"; agree to only stick to registered features of ODF.  Compensate the shareholders of Wordperfect.

</p><p>Donate 50\% future profits to a charity to pay for victims of computer viruses.  Donate a further 25\% of future profits to pay for the education of children who were denied access to OLPC laptops by their actions.  Remaining 25\% left for victims I haven't thought of right now.

</p><p>I'm sure there's quite a bit more, but that's a beginning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What should Microsoft do to regain your respect ? Make good the things they have stolen .
Show contrition and remorse .
Give back the Browser market to Mozilla by cancelling all future development of IE and giving a 2 year end of life notice ( Netscape is no more ; still they should pay compensation to the shareholders ) .
Give back the operating system market ; announce that Windows will be GPLed , compensate the owners of DRDos OS2 .
Pay back money to all consumers who would have bought Cancel all future development of the .doc/.docx " standard " ; agree to only stick to registered features of ODF .
Compensate the shareholders of Wordperfect .
Donate 50 \ % future profits to a charity to pay for victims of computer viruses .
Donate a further 25 \ % of future profits to pay for the education of children who were denied access to OLPC laptops by their actions .
Remaining 25 \ % left for victims I have n't thought of right now .
I 'm sure there 's quite a bit more , but that 's a beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What should Microsoft do to regain your respect?Make good the things they have stolen.
Show contrition and remorse.
Give back the Browser market to Mozilla by cancelling all future development of IE and giving a 2 year end of life notice (Netscape is no more; still they should pay compensation to the shareholders).
Give back the operating system market; announce that Windows will be GPLed, compensate the owners of DRDos OS2.
Pay back money to all consumers who would have bought

Cancel all future development of the .doc/.docx "standard"; agree to only stick to registered features of ODF.
Compensate the shareholders of Wordperfect.
Donate 50\% future profits to a charity to pay for victims of computer viruses.
Donate a further 25\% of future profits to pay for the education of children who were denied access to OLPC laptops by their actions.
Remaining 25\% left for victims I haven't thought of right now.
I'm sure there's quite a bit more, but that's a beginning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843956</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?</p></div><p>Yes, Yes, Yes<br>
Its like saying that you should allow the KKK to adopt a highway because they do a reasonable job of clearing the litter - sometimes the nature of organisation outways  the merrits of the product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to judging products on their merits ?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer * thought * of using a product would make you cringe ? Yes , Yes , Yes Its like saying that you should allow the KKK to adopt a highway because they do a reasonable job of clearing the litter - sometimes the nature of organisation outways the merrits of the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to judging products on their merits?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?Yes, Yes, Yes
Its like saying that you should allow the KKK to adopt a highway because they do a reasonable job of clearing the litter - sometimes the nature of organisation outways  the merrits of the product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842416</id>
	<title>And here I'm trying to get it off my Blackberry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It showed up after a software update, and for some reason doesn't have an entry in the Applications menu (where I can easily remove Google and other 3rd party apps if I want).
<p>
What is really interesting about Bing on the Blackberry anyway  if I accidently select it it (after a long time) loads a screen asking me if I agree to the EULA. I click the "I do not agree" button.
</p><p>
It loads anyway.
</p><p>
It's like a shoe that fits so tightly that I can't get it off my foot (maybe that was what Jerry was talking to Bill about?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It showed up after a software update , and for some reason does n't have an entry in the Applications menu ( where I can easily remove Google and other 3rd party apps if I want ) .
What is really interesting about Bing on the Blackberry anyway if I accidently select it it ( after a long time ) loads a screen asking me if I agree to the EULA .
I click the " I do not agree " button .
It loads anyway .
It 's like a shoe that fits so tightly that I ca n't get it off my foot ( maybe that was what Jerry was talking to Bill about ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It showed up after a software update, and for some reason doesn't have an entry in the Applications menu (where I can easily remove Google and other 3rd party apps if I want).
What is really interesting about Bing on the Blackberry anyway  if I accidently select it it (after a long time) loads a screen asking me if I agree to the EULA.
I click the "I do not agree" button.
It loads anyway.
It's like a shoe that fits so tightly that I can't get it off my foot (maybe that was what Jerry was talking to Bill about?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843928</id>
	<title>Past companies who partnered with Microsoft</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1264071960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some past companies who partnered with Microsoft (or tried to):
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os/2" title="wikipedia.org">IBM</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,\_Inc." title="wikipedia.org">Spyglass</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac\_Electronics" title="wikipedia.org">Stac Electronics</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J/Direct" title="wikipedia.org">Sun</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendo" title="wikipedia.org">Sendo</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument\_software#Microsoft\_Office\_2007\_SP2\_support\_controversy" title="wikipedia.org">OpenDocument</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
Good luck, Apple!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some past companies who partnered with Microsoft ( or tried to ) : IBM [ wikipedia.org ] Spyglass [ wikipedia.org ] Stac Electronics [ wikipedia.org ] Sun [ wikipedia.org ] Sendo [ wikipedia.org ] OpenDocument [ wikipedia.org ] Good luck , Apple !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some past companies who partnered with Microsoft (or tried to):
 
IBM [wikipedia.org] 
Spyglass [wikipedia.org] 
Stac Electronics [wikipedia.org] 
Sun [wikipedia.org] 
Sendo [wikipedia.org] 
OpenDocument [wikipedia.org]
 
Good luck, Apple!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842314</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree. It's more about google and ms, not apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
It 's more about google and ms , not apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
It's more about google and ms, not apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843642</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1264068000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Microsoft is synonymous with "cheap"</i> <br>I think you may have misinterpreted their low TCO campaigns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is synonymous with " cheap " I think you may have misinterpreted their low TCO campaigns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is synonymous with "cheap" I think you may have misinterpreted their low TCO campaigns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846248</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264091040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a word...Yes.</p><p>A person may make a mistake, be labelled as a thief or criminal, be punished, and change their ways. I would give them a second chance and not hold past mistakes against them.  I may even give them a third.</p><p>Microsoft is not like such a person.  I've given them way too many chances already, they've almost never been punished for the mistakes they've made (albeit they're mostly "moral" crimes than outright "legal" crimes") and have never shown true regret at these transgressions.</p><p>So yes, they have to prove, beyond every reasonable and not-so-reasonable doubt that it's safe for me and for my future concerns to use or subscribe to one of their products.</p><p>Just to put this inperspective,  I still judhe each of their efforts on it's own and have in fact been convinced in some areas.  But I am forever vigilant and cautious about each new step and direction that company takes.  As someone who works in IT they have as much power and influence over my small world as you would expect a government and laws have over everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a word...Yes.A person may make a mistake , be labelled as a thief or criminal , be punished , and change their ways .
I would give them a second chance and not hold past mistakes against them .
I may even give them a third.Microsoft is not like such a person .
I 've given them way too many chances already , they 've almost never been punished for the mistakes they 've made ( albeit they 're mostly " moral " crimes than outright " legal " crimes " ) and have never shown true regret at these transgressions.So yes , they have to prove , beyond every reasonable and not-so-reasonable doubt that it 's safe for me and for my future concerns to use or subscribe to one of their products.Just to put this inperspective , I still judhe each of their efforts on it 's own and have in fact been convinced in some areas .
But I am forever vigilant and cautious about each new step and direction that company takes .
As someone who works in IT they have as much power and influence over my small world as you would expect a government and laws have over everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a word...Yes.A person may make a mistake, be labelled as a thief or criminal, be punished, and change their ways.
I would give them a second chance and not hold past mistakes against them.
I may even give them a third.Microsoft is not like such a person.
I've given them way too many chances already, they've almost never been punished for the mistakes they've made (albeit they're mostly "moral" crimes than outright "legal" crimes") and have never shown true regret at these transgressions.So yes, they have to prove, beyond every reasonable and not-so-reasonable doubt that it's safe for me and for my future concerns to use or subscribe to one of their products.Just to put this inperspective,  I still judhe each of their efforts on it's own and have in fact been convinced in some areas.
But I am forever vigilant and cautious about each new step and direction that company takes.
As someone who works in IT they have as much power and influence over my small world as you would expect a government and laws have over everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844780</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264082820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes...<br>Microsoft have done a huge amount of damage to their customers and the industry as a whole...</p><p>They have stifled innovation for years (for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare, only updated again once its share was threatened several years later).<br>They have locked thousands of individuals and businesses into their products, removing those peoples freedom to choose the best product for the job. Even worse is that the lockin extends to those who aren't their customers, it's common to send proprietary microsoft format files around and people are expected to open them.</p><p>In many markets we are unable to judge products in their merits precisely because of microsoft. A competing product may be cheaper (or free), do everything you need better, but lacks compatibility with some proprietary microsoft technology therefore ruling it out.</p><p>To regain any level of respect, they need to undo all of the underhanded anti-consumer actions they have taken, and start competing purely based on the merits of their products in all the markets they operate in.</p><p>As it stands, although they may be trying to compete on merit right now, history has shown that once they gain sufficient market share they revert to their usual underhanded practices of locking people in and allowing the product to stagnate and/or using one product to forcibly push another. Don't forget all the "embrace, extend, extinguish" stuff from a few years back...</p><p>To give an example, the vast majority of MS products are tied to windows (forcibly pushing)..<br>By contrast, google simply promote their products, if you use their sites from some non-chrome browsers you will see advertisements for chrome, but the sites will not refuse to work in other browsers and aren't tied to chrome-os etc... This is promotion as opposed to forcibly pushing.</p><p>So that's what MS can do, give us the ability to judge all their products on merit and we will be more likely to judge them all that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes...Microsoft have done a huge amount of damage to their customers and the industry as a whole...They have stifled innovation for years ( for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare , only updated again once its share was threatened several years later ) .They have locked thousands of individuals and businesses into their products , removing those peoples freedom to choose the best product for the job .
Even worse is that the lockin extends to those who are n't their customers , it 's common to send proprietary microsoft format files around and people are expected to open them.In many markets we are unable to judge products in their merits precisely because of microsoft .
A competing product may be cheaper ( or free ) , do everything you need better , but lacks compatibility with some proprietary microsoft technology therefore ruling it out.To regain any level of respect , they need to undo all of the underhanded anti-consumer actions they have taken , and start competing purely based on the merits of their products in all the markets they operate in.As it stands , although they may be trying to compete on merit right now , history has shown that once they gain sufficient market share they revert to their usual underhanded practices of locking people in and allowing the product to stagnate and/or using one product to forcibly push another .
Do n't forget all the " embrace , extend , extinguish " stuff from a few years back...To give an example , the vast majority of MS products are tied to windows ( forcibly pushing ) ..By contrast , google simply promote their products , if you use their sites from some non-chrome browsers you will see advertisements for chrome , but the sites will not refuse to work in other browsers and are n't tied to chrome-os etc... This is promotion as opposed to forcibly pushing.So that 's what MS can do , give us the ability to judge all their products on merit and we will be more likely to judge them all that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes...Microsoft have done a huge amount of damage to their customers and the industry as a whole...They have stifled innovation for years (for an example see IE6 - allowed to totally stagnate once it had a dominant marketshare, only updated again once its share was threatened several years later).They have locked thousands of individuals and businesses into their products, removing those peoples freedom to choose the best product for the job.
Even worse is that the lockin extends to those who aren't their customers, it's common to send proprietary microsoft format files around and people are expected to open them.In many markets we are unable to judge products in their merits precisely because of microsoft.
A competing product may be cheaper (or free), do everything you need better, but lacks compatibility with some proprietary microsoft technology therefore ruling it out.To regain any level of respect, they need to undo all of the underhanded anti-consumer actions they have taken, and start competing purely based on the merits of their products in all the markets they operate in.As it stands, although they may be trying to compete on merit right now, history has shown that once they gain sufficient market share they revert to their usual underhanded practices of locking people in and allowing the product to stagnate and/or using one product to forcibly push another.
Don't forget all the "embrace, extend, extinguish" stuff from a few years back...To give an example, the vast majority of MS products are tied to windows (forcibly pushing)..By contrast, google simply promote their products, if you use their sites from some non-chrome browsers you will see advertisements for chrome, but the sites will not refuse to work in other browsers and aren't tied to chrome-os etc... This is promotion as opposed to forcibly pushing.So that's what MS can do, give us the ability to judge all their products on merit and we will be more likely to judge them all that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842418</id>
	<title>My old chess coach: "Move the pawn!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext> 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'<br> <br>But for a chair, the battle was lost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle .
' But for a chair , the battle was lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.
' But for a chair, the battle was lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842954</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>perpenso</author>
	<datestamp>1264015440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple produces great hardware to run Microsoft software, even their OS, on.</p></div><p>

Apple's switch to Intel CPUs was a good thing in and of itself, it erased the performance gap.  However the single thing that did the most to improve Apple's market share may have been Apple's support of Microsoft Windows on their hardware.  For decades having to choose PC or Mac blocked sales, some folks were interested in Mac but needed a PC for compatibility with work or gaming.  With Boot Camp the PC or Mac choice was no longer a barrier, you could have both on the same system.<br> <br>

To a lesser degree the switch to Intel performed a similar role.  Emulation of Windows became practical since the CPU instruction set no longer had to be entirely emulated.<br>

<br>
--<br>
<a href="http://www.perpenso.com/calc/" title="perpenso.com" rel="nofollow">Perpenso Calc</a> [perpenso.com] for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple produces great hardware to run Microsoft software , even their OS , on .
Apple 's switch to Intel CPUs was a good thing in and of itself , it erased the performance gap .
However the single thing that did the most to improve Apple 's market share may have been Apple 's support of Microsoft Windows on their hardware .
For decades having to choose PC or Mac blocked sales , some folks were interested in Mac but needed a PC for compatibility with work or gaming .
With Boot Camp the PC or Mac choice was no longer a barrier , you could have both on the same system .
To a lesser degree the switch to Intel performed a similar role .
Emulation of Windows became practical since the CPU instruction set no longer had to be entirely emulated .
-- Perpenso Calc [ perpenso.com ] for iPhone and iPod touch , scientific and bill/tip calculator , fractions , complex numbers , RPN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple produces great hardware to run Microsoft software, even their OS, on.
Apple's switch to Intel CPUs was a good thing in and of itself, it erased the performance gap.
However the single thing that did the most to improve Apple's market share may have been Apple's support of Microsoft Windows on their hardware.
For decades having to choose PC or Mac blocked sales, some folks were interested in Mac but needed a PC for compatibility with work or gaming.
With Boot Camp the PC or Mac choice was no longer a barrier, you could have both on the same system.
To a lesser degree the switch to Intel performed a similar role.
Emulation of Windows became practical since the CPU instruction set no longer had to be entirely emulated.
--
Perpenso Calc [perpenso.com] for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842832</id>
	<title>Maps?</title>
	<author>thzinc</author>
	<datestamp>1264014060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will Apple ditch Google Maps in favor of Microsoft's offering as well, or is really just an addition to the list of search providers in Safari?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Apple ditch Google Maps in favor of Microsoft 's offering as well , or is really just an addition to the list of search providers in Safari ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Apple ditch Google Maps in favor of Microsoft's offering as well, or is really just an addition to the list of search providers in Safari?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30856188</id>
	<title>The future is one word...</title>
	<author>mantissa128</author>
	<datestamp>1264093620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Goople.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goople .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goople.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846932</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264094220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I switched to Bing today and so far, I'm liking it.</p><p>captcha: optimism</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I switched to Bing today and so far , I 'm liking it.captcha : optimism</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I switched to Bing today and so far, I'm liking it.captcha: optimism</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30849802</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1264106220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.</p><p>Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices. Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Mac and now iDisk. Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is. Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.)</p><p>All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.</p></div><p>Well then Apple has something coming to them if they don't see that they will have just as much (if not more) beef with MS as they do with Google. Let's go through your list:</p><p>- alternate ecosystem to Apple on mobile devices: <a href="http://developer.windowsphone.com/marketplace.aspx" title="windowsphone.com" rel="nofollow">check</a> [windowsphone.com] (wait until WinMo7 later this year for a bigger surprise)<br>-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mac: check (hotmail, msn, etc.)<br>- iDisk: <a href="http://skydrive.live.com/" title="live.com" rel="nofollow">check</a> [live.com]</p><p>They will still be competing in the area of phones, tablet devices, notebooks/netbooks. And we didn't even get started on desktop/laptop operating systems where MS has anywhere from 80\% to 90\% market share.</p><p>Oh and they've got something else coming to them - MS' motto is NOT "do no evil". In short, they should be aligning themselves with Google even if they get half the "deal" they think they are getting from MS. I thought they'd been burned before by the same company... fool me once....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And while Jobs is an avid competitor , I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.Google , on the other hand , is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market : mobile devices .
Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple , to .Mac and now iDisk .
Google is encroaching , encroaching , encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is .
Apple probably feels betrayed by Google ( and vice versa , after the rejection of Google 's app in the AppStore .
) All three are competing with each other in various sectors , but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now , it is between Apple and Google.Well then Apple has something coming to them if they do n't see that they will have just as much ( if not more ) beef with MS as they do with Google .
Let 's go through your list : - alternate ecosystem to Apple on mobile devices : check [ windowsphone.com ] ( wait until WinMo7 later this year for a bigger surprise ) - .mac : check ( hotmail , msn , etc .
) - iDisk : check [ live.com ] They will still be competing in the area of phones , tablet devices , notebooks/netbooks .
And we did n't even get started on desktop/laptop operating systems where MS has anywhere from 80 \ % to 90 \ % market share.Oh and they 've got something else coming to them - MS ' motto is NOT " do no evil " .
In short , they should be aligning themselves with Google even if they get half the " deal " they think they are getting from MS. I thought they 'd been burned before by the same company... fool me once... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.
Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to .Mac and now iDisk.
Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is.
Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.
)All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.Well then Apple has something coming to them if they don't see that they will have just as much (if not more) beef with MS as they do with Google.
Let's go through your list:- alternate ecosystem to Apple on mobile devices: check [windowsphone.com] (wait until WinMo7 later this year for a bigger surprise)- .mac: check (hotmail, msn, etc.
)- iDisk: check [live.com]They will still be competing in the area of phones, tablet devices, notebooks/netbooks.
And we didn't even get started on desktop/laptop operating systems where MS has anywhere from 80\% to 90\% market share.Oh and they've got something else coming to them - MS' motto is NOT "do no evil".
In short, they should be aligning themselves with Google even if they get half the "deal" they think they are getting from MS. I thought they'd been burned before by the same company... fool me once....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842620</id>
	<title>More like a whore</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1264011960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, not what you think, more like "Who're we dealing with today"</p><p>You know, like <i>Where do you want to go today</i>. Really.</p><p>P.S. And not because of the earlier item re MS siding with AT&amp;T vs. Tivo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , not what you think , more like " Who 're we dealing with today " You know , like Where do you want to go today .
Really.P.S. And not because of the earlier item re MS siding with AT&amp;T vs. Tivo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, not what you think, more like "Who're we dealing with today"You know, like Where do you want to go today.
Really.P.S. And not because of the earlier item re MS siding with AT&amp;T vs. Tivo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843684</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1264068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?</i></p><p>Every single product I have ever bought from Microsoft has sucked to some degree (some more than others), so, yes, I do cringe.</p><p>I gave Bing a serious try since I don't like all my data going to Google.  And?  Same thing as with other Microsoft products: it sounds good in theory, it has lots of features, but it doesn't do its primary function very well.</p><p>See, people hate Microsoft not because of business strategy, they hate Microsoft because they don't like their products <i>and</i> Microsoft is using business strategy to force them to use those products anyway.</p><p>I dislike Microsoft a lot less since their monopoly has started crumbling and I don't have to use them anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to judging products on their merits ?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer * thought * of using a product would make you cringe ? Every single product I have ever bought from Microsoft has sucked to some degree ( some more than others ) , so , yes , I do cringe.I gave Bing a serious try since I do n't like all my data going to Google .
And ? Same thing as with other Microsoft products : it sounds good in theory , it has lots of features , but it does n't do its primary function very well.See , people hate Microsoft not because of business strategy , they hate Microsoft because they do n't like their products and Microsoft is using business strategy to force them to use those products anyway.I dislike Microsoft a lot less since their monopoly has started crumbling and I do n't have to use them anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to judging products on their merits?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?Every single product I have ever bought from Microsoft has sucked to some degree (some more than others), so, yes, I do cringe.I gave Bing a serious try since I don't like all my data going to Google.
And?  Same thing as with other Microsoft products: it sounds good in theory, it has lots of features, but it doesn't do its primary function very well.See, people hate Microsoft not because of business strategy, they hate Microsoft because they don't like their products and Microsoft is using business strategy to force them to use those products anyway.I dislike Microsoft a lot less since their monopoly has started crumbling and I don't have to use them anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843310</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1264106880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do you think anybody would care about ipod if there would be macos required?</htmltext>
<tokenext>do you think anybody would care about ipod if there would be macos required ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do you think anybody would care about ipod if there would be macos required?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846612</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264092660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple are so scared of Google they jump into bed with Microsoft? wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple are so scared of Google they jump into bed with Microsoft ?
wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple are so scared of Google they jump into bed with Microsoft?
wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843000</id>
	<title>Isn't it like in Battlestar Galactica (spoiler)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when we realize that a character we kinda like (Apple) goes against a character we mostly love (Google) because it turns out IT'S ACTUALLY A FUCKIN' CYLON SYMPATHIZER, YOU GUYS! (Microsoft)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when we realize that a character we kinda like ( Apple ) goes against a character we mostly love ( Google ) because it turns out IT 'S ACTUALLY A FUCKIN ' CYLON SYMPATHIZER , YOU GUYS !
( Microsoft )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when we realize that a character we kinda like (Apple) goes against a character we mostly love (Google) because it turns out IT'S ACTUALLY A FUCKIN' CYLON SYMPATHIZER, YOU GUYS!
(Microsoft)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845572</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264088040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.</p></div><p>Let's not forget that Microsoft also has a phone OS, owns Danger, and has announced that they plan on releasing a Microsoft-branded phone in the next year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , on the other hand , is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market : mobile devices.Let 's not forget that Microsoft also has a phone OS , owns Danger , and has announced that they plan on releasing a Microsoft-branded phone in the next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.Let's not forget that Microsoft also has a phone OS, owns Danger, and has announced that they plan on releasing a Microsoft-branded phone in the next year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844776</id>
	<title>Apple Vs Google</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1264082760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>soory Google is in the Advertsing business Apple is not. In No way at all is Apple Googles primary enemey or vice versa</htmltext>
<tokenext>soory Google is in the Advertsing business Apple is not .
In No way at all is Apple Googles primary enemey or vice versa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>soory Google is in the Advertsing business Apple is not.
In No way at all is Apple Googles primary enemey or vice versa</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the thought of using bing makes me cringe</htmltext>
<tokenext>the thought of using bing makes me cringe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the thought of using bing makes me cringe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844054</id>
	<title>Re:Apple to force ads on the iPhone?! WHAT?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264073760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, they'll ease the concept into you gently - imagery fully intended - by spamming you with directions to the nearest Starbucks.  Or to the one next door if you're already in one.  Which you will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they 'll ease the concept into you gently - imagery fully intended - by spamming you with directions to the nearest Starbucks .
Or to the one next door if you 're already in one .
Which you will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they'll ease the concept into you gently - imagery fully intended - by spamming you with directions to the nearest Starbucks.
Or to the one next door if you're already in one.
Which you will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844456</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264079100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What happened to judging products on their merits?<br>It's always been a bad idea. IE for mac was a good product. In the beginning. Then came the extend and extinguish part.<br>MS suing for FAT related idiotic patents PROVES they didn't change. End of discussion for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What happened to judging products on their merits ? It 's always been a bad idea .
IE for mac was a good product .
In the beginning .
Then came the extend and extinguish part.MS suing for FAT related idiotic patents PROVES they did n't change .
End of discussion for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What happened to judging products on their merits?It's always been a bad idea.
IE for mac was a good product.
In the beginning.
Then came the extend and extinguish part.MS suing for FAT related idiotic patents PROVES they didn't change.
End of discussion for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845456</id>
	<title>Re:Total world domination!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264087560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but if you're talking about Linux, you did not take the netbooks. You fucking lost. You didn't take the mobile phones. You fucking lost. And you don't ignore them. You fucking complain about them like little bitches every two fucking seconds around shitholes like this filled with other deranged fags who believe Linux will ever be anything other than useless. Linux failed a long time ago, and that will never change. They ignored you because you fat, nerdy, man-tittied assholes are no threat. You fucking lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but if you 're talking about Linux , you did not take the netbooks .
You fucking lost .
You did n't take the mobile phones .
You fucking lost .
And you do n't ignore them .
You fucking complain about them like little bitches every two fucking seconds around shitholes like this filled with other deranged fags who believe Linux will ever be anything other than useless .
Linux failed a long time ago , and that will never change .
They ignored you because you fat , nerdy , man-tittied assholes are no threat .
You fucking lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but if you're talking about Linux, you did not take the netbooks.
You fucking lost.
You didn't take the mobile phones.
You fucking lost.
And you don't ignore them.
You fucking complain about them like little bitches every two fucking seconds around shitholes like this filled with other deranged fags who believe Linux will ever be anything other than useless.
Linux failed a long time ago, and that will never change.
They ignored you because you fat, nerdy, man-tittied assholes are no threat.
You fucking lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30859586</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264176660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?</p></div><p> <strong>Yes</strong></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is a thief always a thief , even when he shows remorse and changed his ways ?
Yes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?
Yes
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842708</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1264012860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd liken Microsoft to some kind of weird arms dealer in this scenario.  It pretty much can't lose if Apple is using its products in some vendetta against Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd liken Microsoft to some kind of weird arms dealer in this scenario .
It pretty much ca n't lose if Apple is using its products in some vendetta against Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd liken Microsoft to some kind of weird arms dealer in this scenario.
It pretty much can't lose if Apple is using its products in some vendetta against Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844298</id>
	<title>Re:not even in the same league / market</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1264077060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The most-used apps on the iPhone (and probably any other smart phone) are Google's.  There is nothing Apple offers that anybody outside its 1\% sliver of the phone market cares about.</p></div><p>Dude, you've got this seriously wrong, iTunes is the killer app. The iPhone isn't really a smart phone, it's an iPod with a built in phone. It got people who don't even know what a smart phone is buying them.</p><p>
&nbsp; Android is a smart phone users/geeks gadget, I don't think the overlap is that great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most-used apps on the iPhone ( and probably any other smart phone ) are Google 's .
There is nothing Apple offers that anybody outside its 1 \ % sliver of the phone market cares about.Dude , you 've got this seriously wrong , iTunes is the killer app .
The iPhone is n't really a smart phone , it 's an iPod with a built in phone .
It got people who do n't even know what a smart phone is buying them .
  Android is a smart phone users/geeks gadget , I do n't think the overlap is that great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most-used apps on the iPhone (and probably any other smart phone) are Google's.
There is nothing Apple offers that anybody outside its 1\% sliver of the phone market cares about.Dude, you've got this seriously wrong, iTunes is the killer app.
The iPhone isn't really a smart phone, it's an iPod with a built in phone.
It got people who don't even know what a smart phone is buying them.
  Android is a smart phone users/geeks gadget, I don't think the overlap is that great.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842452</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1264010700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>MS is hardly anyones fool. what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Haw! MS is the ugly fat chick in the room. A company would have to be desperate to be with her. Microsoft is synonymous with "cheap".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is hardly anyones fool .
what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other .
Haw ! MS is the ugly fat chick in the room .
A company would have to be desperate to be with her .
Microsoft is synonymous with " cheap " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is hardly anyones fool.
what is far more likely is that MS will play the 2 off against each other.
Haw! MS is the ugly fat chick in the room.
A company would have to be desperate to be with her.
Microsoft is synonymous with "cheap".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30848420</id>
	<title>Re:Past companies who partnered with Microsoft</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1264100100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot one <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applesoft\_basic" title="wikipedia.org">former partner</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot one former partner [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot one former partner [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846878</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>mamer-retrogamer</author>
	<datestamp>1264093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true that Microsoft gave Apple an infusion of cash and guaranteed software support for the Mac platform just when it needed it most, but Microsoft was not doing it to be benevolent. It was just beginning to defend itself from the accusations of being a monopoly and needed a "harmless" alternative to the Windows ecosystem they could point to. At the time, Microsoft needed Apple to survive.</p><p>Microsoft never thought in a million years thought Apple could ever be a serious competitor to their core business. After all, Microsoft's main business was selling software to computer manufacturers, while Apple sold consumer computer systems directly to a limited subset of consumers. To Microsoft, Apple's competitors seemed to be the likes of IBM, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, Packard Bell, etc., all of which purchased their software from Microsoft. With an over 90\% market share, Microsoft didn't seem to have anything to worry about from the "beleaguered" Apple.</p><p>Fast forward about a decade and a half. The internet has exploded and become the primary way people get and store information. For the first time in computer history, you are less tied to a specific application written by a specific company to access information. As a result, Apple's computer market share is over 10\% for the first time since 1994. More and more people are even using non-PC devices to access information. In the exploding smart phone market, Microsoft is now in third place behind Research In Motion and Apple. And with Google now throwing its hat into the smart phone market ring there is even more competition in that sector.</p><p>Microsoft is competing with Apple the mobile music device market, and losing. Microsoft is competing with Nintendo and Sony in the home video game market, and losing. Microsoft is competing with RIM and Apple in the smart phone operating system market and losing. Microsoft is losing on a lot of fronts.</p><p>Sure, Microsoft is winning is in PC operating systems and PC business software. But as more and more people realize that they don't need a PC with Microsoft software to access and process their information, that market will become less and less important and will lose "share" to seemingly unrelated market areas.</p><p>Make no mistake, Apple and Microsoft and Google and Sony and a litany of other technology companies are direct competitors in the, as yet, undefined "electronic information access" market.</p><p>As much as the iPhone is locked down, Apple still seems to remember that it is damned near impossible to make a successful computer systems or information access devices without successful third party support. And it gets real complicated when your third parties are also your competitors. Which competitor should Apple help gain a foothold in a market they are nearly dominating? Microsoft? Google? Of course, the simple answer is neither, but that just would hurt Apple in the long run.</p><p>Now that we are emerging from the dark ages of the Microsoft monopoly of computer tech, we are headed into very interesting times indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that Microsoft gave Apple an infusion of cash and guaranteed software support for the Mac platform just when it needed it most , but Microsoft was not doing it to be benevolent .
It was just beginning to defend itself from the accusations of being a monopoly and needed a " harmless " alternative to the Windows ecosystem they could point to .
At the time , Microsoft needed Apple to survive.Microsoft never thought in a million years thought Apple could ever be a serious competitor to their core business .
After all , Microsoft 's main business was selling software to computer manufacturers , while Apple sold consumer computer systems directly to a limited subset of consumers .
To Microsoft , Apple 's competitors seemed to be the likes of IBM , Dell , Gateway , Compaq , HP , Packard Bell , etc. , all of which purchased their software from Microsoft .
With an over 90 \ % market share , Microsoft did n't seem to have anything to worry about from the " beleaguered " Apple.Fast forward about a decade and a half .
The internet has exploded and become the primary way people get and store information .
For the first time in computer history , you are less tied to a specific application written by a specific company to access information .
As a result , Apple 's computer market share is over 10 \ % for the first time since 1994 .
More and more people are even using non-PC devices to access information .
In the exploding smart phone market , Microsoft is now in third place behind Research In Motion and Apple .
And with Google now throwing its hat into the smart phone market ring there is even more competition in that sector.Microsoft is competing with Apple the mobile music device market , and losing .
Microsoft is competing with Nintendo and Sony in the home video game market , and losing .
Microsoft is competing with RIM and Apple in the smart phone operating system market and losing .
Microsoft is losing on a lot of fronts.Sure , Microsoft is winning is in PC operating systems and PC business software .
But as more and more people realize that they do n't need a PC with Microsoft software to access and process their information , that market will become less and less important and will lose " share " to seemingly unrelated market areas.Make no mistake , Apple and Microsoft and Google and Sony and a litany of other technology companies are direct competitors in the , as yet , undefined " electronic information access " market.As much as the iPhone is locked down , Apple still seems to remember that it is damned near impossible to make a successful computer systems or information access devices without successful third party support .
And it gets real complicated when your third parties are also your competitors .
Which competitor should Apple help gain a foothold in a market they are nearly dominating ?
Microsoft ? Google ?
Of course , the simple answer is neither , but that just would hurt Apple in the long run.Now that we are emerging from the dark ages of the Microsoft monopoly of computer tech , we are headed into very interesting times indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that Microsoft gave Apple an infusion of cash and guaranteed software support for the Mac platform just when it needed it most, but Microsoft was not doing it to be benevolent.
It was just beginning to defend itself from the accusations of being a monopoly and needed a "harmless" alternative to the Windows ecosystem they could point to.
At the time, Microsoft needed Apple to survive.Microsoft never thought in a million years thought Apple could ever be a serious competitor to their core business.
After all, Microsoft's main business was selling software to computer manufacturers, while Apple sold consumer computer systems directly to a limited subset of consumers.
To Microsoft, Apple's competitors seemed to be the likes of IBM, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, Packard Bell, etc., all of which purchased their software from Microsoft.
With an over 90\% market share, Microsoft didn't seem to have anything to worry about from the "beleaguered" Apple.Fast forward about a decade and a half.
The internet has exploded and become the primary way people get and store information.
For the first time in computer history, you are less tied to a specific application written by a specific company to access information.
As a result, Apple's computer market share is over 10\% for the first time since 1994.
More and more people are even using non-PC devices to access information.
In the exploding smart phone market, Microsoft is now in third place behind Research In Motion and Apple.
And with Google now throwing its hat into the smart phone market ring there is even more competition in that sector.Microsoft is competing with Apple the mobile music device market, and losing.
Microsoft is competing with Nintendo and Sony in the home video game market, and losing.
Microsoft is competing with RIM and Apple in the smart phone operating system market and losing.
Microsoft is losing on a lot of fronts.Sure, Microsoft is winning is in PC operating systems and PC business software.
But as more and more people realize that they don't need a PC with Microsoft software to access and process their information, that market will become less and less important and will lose "share" to seemingly unrelated market areas.Make no mistake, Apple and Microsoft and Google and Sony and a litany of other technology companies are direct competitors in the, as yet, undefined "electronic information access" market.As much as the iPhone is locked down, Apple still seems to remember that it is damned near impossible to make a successful computer systems or information access devices without successful third party support.
And it gets real complicated when your third parties are also your competitors.
Which competitor should Apple help gain a foothold in a market they are nearly dominating?
Microsoft? Google?
Of course, the simple answer is neither, but that just would hurt Apple in the long run.Now that we are emerging from the dark ages of the Microsoft monopoly of computer tech, we are headed into very interesting times indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845294</id>
	<title>Well, I am suprised</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1264086720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I frankly didn't see this coming. Steve Jobs must really be asleep at the wheel.
</p><p>So, Google launches a mobile phone and all of sudden that is the big enemy? The biggest competitor? Has Jobs gained his kidney in exchange for his brain?
</p><p>Google vs Apple: mobile phone.
</p><p>MS vs Apple: Mobile phone, OS, Browser, Office productivity, home movie making software, media codecs, media plugin for browser, music shop, MP3 player (iPod vs Zune), portable media player (iPod touch vs Zune HD), Tablet, server OS...
</p><p>The list probably goes on, but anyone with a brain will notice the difference already in the list size.
</p><p>Apple seems to be cutting of its head to spite its face. They don't want google to have iPhone search data... why? Because MS won't be using the data to promote their OWN smartphones AND everything else OVER Apples product.
</p><p>Either Apple sees google blowing them out of the water in every other aspect as well (do they think Android/ChomeOS could wipe OSX of the map?) or they got VERY short memories. MS does NOT play well, they should know this, they been screwed before.
</p><p>I predict that this will NOT work out well, don't know how it is going bite Apple in the ass, but if you seen as many butts with MS tooth prints in it, you know the signs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I frankly did n't see this coming .
Steve Jobs must really be asleep at the wheel .
So , Google launches a mobile phone and all of sudden that is the big enemy ?
The biggest competitor ?
Has Jobs gained his kidney in exchange for his brain ?
Google vs Apple : mobile phone .
MS vs Apple : Mobile phone , OS , Browser , Office productivity , home movie making software , media codecs , media plugin for browser , music shop , MP3 player ( iPod vs Zune ) , portable media player ( iPod touch vs Zune HD ) , Tablet , server OS.. . The list probably goes on , but anyone with a brain will notice the difference already in the list size .
Apple seems to be cutting of its head to spite its face .
They do n't want google to have iPhone search data... why ? Because MS wo n't be using the data to promote their OWN smartphones AND everything else OVER Apples product .
Either Apple sees google blowing them out of the water in every other aspect as well ( do they think Android/ChomeOS could wipe OSX of the map ?
) or they got VERY short memories .
MS does NOT play well , they should know this , they been screwed before .
I predict that this will NOT work out well , do n't know how it is going bite Apple in the ass , but if you seen as many butts with MS tooth prints in it , you know the signs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I frankly didn't see this coming.
Steve Jobs must really be asleep at the wheel.
So, Google launches a mobile phone and all of sudden that is the big enemy?
The biggest competitor?
Has Jobs gained his kidney in exchange for his brain?
Google vs Apple: mobile phone.
MS vs Apple: Mobile phone, OS, Browser, Office productivity, home movie making software, media codecs, media plugin for browser, music shop, MP3 player (iPod vs Zune), portable media player (iPod touch vs Zune HD), Tablet, server OS...
The list probably goes on, but anyone with a brain will notice the difference already in the list size.
Apple seems to be cutting of its head to spite its face.
They don't want google to have iPhone search data... why? Because MS won't be using the data to promote their OWN smartphones AND everything else OVER Apples product.
Either Apple sees google blowing them out of the water in every other aspect as well (do they think Android/ChomeOS could wipe OSX of the map?
) or they got VERY short memories.
MS does NOT play well, they should know this, they been screwed before.
I predict that this will NOT work out well, don't know how it is going bite Apple in the ass, but if you seen as many butts with MS tooth prints in it, you know the signs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844922</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A man works for an animal rescue centre, and at weekends helps feed homeless people.</p><p>Every night he goes home and beats his wife before abusing his children.</p><p>Is he a good person, or a bad person?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A man works for an animal rescue centre , and at weekends helps feed homeless people.Every night he goes home and beats his wife before abusing his children.Is he a good person , or a bad person ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A man works for an animal rescue centre, and at weekends helps feed homeless people.Every night he goes home and beats his wife before abusing his children.Is he a good person, or a bad person?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844722</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>RedK</author>
	<datestamp>1264082220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.</p></div><p>Microsoft on the other hand is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.  What's the difference ?  Zune, Windows Mobile, ring a bell ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , on the other hand , is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market : mobile devices.Microsoft on the other hand is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market : mobile devices .
What 's the difference ?
Zune , Windows Mobile , ring a bell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.Microsoft on the other hand is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices.
What's the difference ?
Zune, Windows Mobile, ring a bell ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846012</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft a pawn?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264089960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers. Apple's marketshare is pretty darn good (to say the least).</i></p><p>Apple are about 5\% max in the phone market last time I looked. Which is what I thought the Mac's market share was around, too.</p><p><i> As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group, and they don't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two.</i></p><p>Which just adds to his point - since MS aren't in that market significantly, they're even less in competition with Apple these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers .
Apple 's marketshare is pretty darn good ( to say the least ) .Apple are about 5 \ % max in the phone market last time I looked .
Which is what I thought the Mac 's market share was around , too .
As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group , and they do n't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two.Which just adds to his point - since MS are n't in that market significantly , they 're even less in competition with Apple these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about the iPhone and mobile devices and search - not personal computers.
Apple's marketshare is pretty darn good (to say the least).Apple are about 5\% max in the phone market last time I looked.
Which is what I thought the Mac's market share was around, too.
As far as Windows Mobile goes... I know some guys that work in that group, and they don't currently expect it to even exist in another year or two.Which just adds to his point - since MS aren't in that market significantly, they're even less in competition with Apple these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844652</id>
	<title>Re:And here I'm trying to get it off my Blackberry</title>
	<author>aplusjimages</author>
	<datestamp>1264081500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here. Verizon pushed Bing onto my phone as well. I couldn't see where to delete it as well. I clicked on it as well just to see it and it automatically changed my home page and won't let me change it to anything else but Bing. Great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
Verizon pushed Bing onto my phone as well .
I could n't see where to delete it as well .
I clicked on it as well just to see it and it automatically changed my home page and wo n't let me change it to anything else but Bing .
Great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
Verizon pushed Bing onto my phone as well.
I couldn't see where to delete it as well.
I clicked on it as well just to see it and it automatically changed my home page and won't let me change it to anything else but Bing.
Great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844212</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1264075500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not the original poster, but for me, yes. It absolutely does matter what relationship I have with the company I buy products from. And I won't buy anything from Microsoft.</p><blockquote><div><p>And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?</p></div></blockquote><p>25 years into their dirty habits, they are beyond redemption. Hopefully they'll take a gradual fade into oblivion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to judging products on their merits ?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer * thought * of using a product would make you cringe ? I 'm not the original poster , but for me , yes .
It absolutely does matter what relationship I have with the company I buy products from .
And I wo n't buy anything from Microsoft.And on a related note , what should Microsoft do to regain your respect ? 25 years into their dirty habits , they are beyond redemption .
Hopefully they 'll take a gradual fade into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to judging products on their merits?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?I'm not the original poster, but for me, yes.
It absolutely does matter what relationship I have with the company I buy products from.
And I won't buy anything from Microsoft.And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?25 years into their dirty habits, they are beyond redemption.
Hopefully they'll take a gradual fade into oblivion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842716</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1264012920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know corporations are essentially people, but I didn't know that they had feelings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know corporations are essentially people , but I did n't know that they had feelings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know corporations are essentially people, but I didn't know that they had feelings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842320</id>
	<title>Default but still switchable actually helps google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes because having the default search engine for IE / Netscape / AOL not be google really hurt google?<br>I think the opposite that it increased the name recognition beyond its competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because having the default search engine for IE / Netscape / AOL not be google really hurt google ? I think the opposite that it increased the name recognition beyond its competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because having the default search engine for IE / Netscape / AOL not be google really hurt google?I think the opposite that it increased the name recognition beyond its competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844106</id>
	<title>Bias in results</title>
	<author>polyp2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264074180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Search<br>"switching to ubuntu" on bing ,<br>and then try Google.</p><p>Googles first result is "switching to ubuntu from windows"<br>Bings first result is "switching to ubuntu from OSX"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Search " switching to ubuntu " on bing ,and then try Google.Googles first result is " switching to ubuntu from windows " Bings first result is " switching to ubuntu from OSX "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search"switching to ubuntu" on bing ,and then try Google.Googles first result is "switching to ubuntu from windows"Bings first result is "switching to ubuntu from OSX"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843110</id>
	<title>4/1?</title>
	<author>ryanhos</author>
	<datestamp>1264017540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow...April is coming early this year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow...April is coming early this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...April is coming early this year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845314</id>
	<title>What could they do?</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1264086780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To put this post in context, check out this video to see what I mean: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo</a> [youtube.com]
<br> <br>
In Microsoft's fantasy world, everyone uses Windows, Microsoft development tools and there is no competition.  What could they do to regain my respect? Stop lying about their competition (especially Linux), drop their patents and lawsuit threats, embrace and support open standards without extending them with proprietary lock-in.  Put customers first before the egos of executives and shareholders.  Quit trying to embrace, extend and extinguish FOSS.
<br> <br>
Oh, and they could try making better software instead of spin.
<br> <br>
I know.  They have a business model they are trying to support, and shareholders to satisfy. But their all-encompassing, over-arching, take-no-prisoners attitude has gotta go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To put this post in context , check out this video to see what I mean : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6YExl9ojclo [ youtube.com ] In Microsoft 's fantasy world , everyone uses Windows , Microsoft development tools and there is no competition .
What could they do to regain my respect ?
Stop lying about their competition ( especially Linux ) , drop their patents and lawsuit threats , embrace and support open standards without extending them with proprietary lock-in .
Put customers first before the egos of executives and shareholders .
Quit trying to embrace , extend and extinguish FOSS .
Oh , and they could try making better software instead of spin .
I know .
They have a business model they are trying to support , and shareholders to satisfy .
But their all-encompassing , over-arching , take-no-prisoners attitude has got ta go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To put this post in context, check out this video to see what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo [youtube.com]
 
In Microsoft's fantasy world, everyone uses Windows, Microsoft development tools and there is no competition.
What could they do to regain my respect?
Stop lying about their competition (especially Linux), drop their patents and lawsuit threats, embrace and support open standards without extending them with proprietary lock-in.
Put customers first before the egos of executives and shareholders.
Quit trying to embrace, extend and extinguish FOSS.
Oh, and they could try making better software instead of spin.
I know.
They have a business model they are trying to support, and shareholders to satisfy.
But their all-encompassing, over-arching, take-no-prisoners attitude has gotta go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843560</id>
	<title>re:Bing To Become Default iPhone Search?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO. FUCK YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO .
FUCK YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO.
FUCK YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846946</id>
	<title>WTF are people smoking</title>
	<author>MistrBlank</author>
	<datestamp>1264094280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've already established Apple doesn't feel it needs to crush opponents to win.  It just needs to exist to win.</p><p>Why does anyone think that Apple needs to get into bed with Microsoft over Google?  Here's a tip, all three are competitors with each other in the mobile market.  As far as device makers go, neither google nor M$ actually make their phones, the Nexus One is STILL AN HTC DEVICE.</p><p>Please stop spewing this CRAP and sensationalistic reporting to keep people visiting the site.  This is about as bad as suggesting Apple dump their hardware sales and license to Dell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already established Apple does n't feel it needs to crush opponents to win .
It just needs to exist to win.Why does anyone think that Apple needs to get into bed with Microsoft over Google ?
Here 's a tip , all three are competitors with each other in the mobile market .
As far as device makers go , neither google nor M $ actually make their phones , the Nexus One is STILL AN HTC DEVICE.Please stop spewing this CRAP and sensationalistic reporting to keep people visiting the site .
This is about as bad as suggesting Apple dump their hardware sales and license to Dell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already established Apple doesn't feel it needs to crush opponents to win.
It just needs to exist to win.Why does anyone think that Apple needs to get into bed with Microsoft over Google?
Here's a tip, all three are competitors with each other in the mobile market.
As far as device makers go, neither google nor M$ actually make their phones, the Nexus One is STILL AN HTC DEVICE.Please stop spewing this CRAP and sensationalistic reporting to keep people visiting the site.
This is about as bad as suggesting Apple dump their hardware sales and license to Dell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842998</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple was not *SAVED* by Microsoft.  Apple still had cash in the bank.  The $150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows.  Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a "vote of confidence" from Microsoft and Bill Gates.</p><p>Google is pissing me off with the wild encroaching into all sectors (not unlike MS) but I do not want BING. It sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple was not * SAVED * by Microsoft .
Apple still had cash in the bank .
The $ 150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows .
Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a " vote of confidence " from Microsoft and Bill Gates.Google is pissing me off with the wild encroaching into all sectors ( not unlike MS ) but I do not want BING .
It sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple was not *SAVED* by Microsoft.
Apple still had cash in the bank.
The $150 million investment in non-voting stock and other agreements such as Office for 5 years where part of a very serious IP theft and patent suit Apple had against Microsoft related to Video for Windows.
Steve turned it into an opportunity to get some positive press for Apple by spinning the settlement into a "vote of confidence" from Microsoft and Bill Gates.Google is pissing me off with the wild encroaching into all sectors (not unlike MS) but I do not want BING.
It sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842688</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264012680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft, what it stands for, and the way it does its business. Pretty much like many Linux folks do</i> </p><p>Apple and Microsoft have had a mutually profitable - symbiotic - relationship for thirty years.</p><p>Apple sells an upscale urban lifestyle.</p><p>Microsoft solid middle class value.</p><p>Both have a very clear notion of how to profitably leverage the other's platform. Windows gets iTunes. The Mac gets MS Office.</p><p>Hate makes good theater - but rarely good business - and the geek needs to remember when he is watching a show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft , what it stands for , and the way it does its business .
Pretty much like many Linux folks do Apple and Microsoft have had a mutually profitable - symbiotic - relationship for thirty years.Apple sells an upscale urban lifestyle.Microsoft solid middle class value.Both have a very clear notion of how to profitably leverage the other 's platform .
Windows gets iTunes .
The Mac gets MS Office.Hate makes good theater - but rarely good business - and the geek needs to remember when he is watching a show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft, what it stands for, and the way it does its business.
Pretty much like many Linux folks do Apple and Microsoft have had a mutually profitable - symbiotic - relationship for thirty years.Apple sells an upscale urban lifestyle.Microsoft solid middle class value.Both have a very clear notion of how to profitably leverage the other's platform.
Windows gets iTunes.
The Mac gets MS Office.Hate makes good theater - but rarely good business - and the geek needs to remember when he is watching a show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843574</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1264066980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because Microsoft might actually get off their collective asses for once in their lives doesn't get them a cookie in my book.  You are talking about a multi billion dollar corporation that has done nothing but hinder an entire industry.  There will always be competition where large sums of money are involved and Microsoft while being an extremely 'innovative' and cunning business wise they have coasted happily when it has become the path of least resistance product wise.  The entanglement of these three massive companies so directly will evolve some amazing solutions across the board but thanking Microsoft for getting up for Google after they were pissing on their lawn doesn't get them any more from me then before.  Microsoft is like a world heavy weight boxing champion that won't get off their chair to dance in the ring, sure they win but they put on a really shitty event.  Now Google comes along and they finally have to get off the chair to connect a punch and we all become enthralled but we are supposed to thank a boxer for boxing?  I don't think so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because Microsoft might actually get off their collective asses for once in their lives does n't get them a cookie in my book .
You are talking about a multi billion dollar corporation that has done nothing but hinder an entire industry .
There will always be competition where large sums of money are involved and Microsoft while being an extremely 'innovative ' and cunning business wise they have coasted happily when it has become the path of least resistance product wise .
The entanglement of these three massive companies so directly will evolve some amazing solutions across the board but thanking Microsoft for getting up for Google after they were pissing on their lawn does n't get them any more from me then before .
Microsoft is like a world heavy weight boxing champion that wo n't get off their chair to dance in the ring , sure they win but they put on a really shitty event .
Now Google comes along and they finally have to get off the chair to connect a punch and we all become enthralled but we are supposed to thank a boxer for boxing ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because Microsoft might actually get off their collective asses for once in their lives doesn't get them a cookie in my book.
You are talking about a multi billion dollar corporation that has done nothing but hinder an entire industry.
There will always be competition where large sums of money are involved and Microsoft while being an extremely 'innovative' and cunning business wise they have coasted happily when it has become the path of least resistance product wise.
The entanglement of these three massive companies so directly will evolve some amazing solutions across the board but thanking Microsoft for getting up for Google after they were pissing on their lawn doesn't get them any more from me then before.
Microsoft is like a world heavy weight boxing champion that won't get off their chair to dance in the ring, sure they win but they put on a really shitty event.
Now Google comes along and they finally have to get off the chair to connect a punch and we all become enthralled but we are supposed to thank a boxer for boxing?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842974</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264015740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'd have thought the only reason Apple would consider this is if Microsoft were offering them more money than Google. Assuming Bing is a suitably competent alternative Apple would be insane not to consider it as an option. Similarly Google would be insane to pin all their mobile hopes on Apple's platform.<br> <br>
I think anyone trying to make this into some drama is missing the fact that nothing here suggests either of the companies are making emotionally driven decisions, merely rational ones.<br> <br>
After all, Apple dropping Google is hardly a move that would make Google reconsider Android, it will merely make it more obvious why Google can't afford to put all their, er... apples in the one basket.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in all seriousness , the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this , is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere I 'd have thought the only reason Apple would consider this is if Microsoft were offering them more money than Google .
Assuming Bing is a suitably competent alternative Apple would be insane not to consider it as an option .
Similarly Google would be insane to pin all their mobile hopes on Apple 's platform .
I think anyone trying to make this into some drama is missing the fact that nothing here suggests either of the companies are making emotionally driven decisions , merely rational ones .
After all , Apple dropping Google is hardly a move that would make Google reconsider Android , it will merely make it more obvious why Google ca n't afford to put all their , er... apples in the one basket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere
I'd have thought the only reason Apple would consider this is if Microsoft were offering them more money than Google.
Assuming Bing is a suitably competent alternative Apple would be insane not to consider it as an option.
Similarly Google would be insane to pin all their mobile hopes on Apple's platform.
I think anyone trying to make this into some drama is missing the fact that nothing here suggests either of the companies are making emotionally driven decisions, merely rational ones.
After all, Apple dropping Google is hardly a move that would make Google reconsider Android, it will merely make it more obvious why Google can't afford to put all their, er... apples in the one basket.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846658</id>
	<title>The Unmentioned WHY</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1264092840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a theory about this, and it hasn't been mentioned in this thread that I've seen.</p><p>Apple is considering this deal because it will significantly weaken MS, and Google both.</p><p>Think if it this way, Apple has no dog in this show (Search), they don't care one way or another except for Google has Android, and MS is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well MS.</p><p>By having this deal, MS is funneling $ to Apple, for what? An icon on the iPhone? Apple knows that it would be fairly easy to ALSO install a Google Icon, and make it fairly easy for the average iPhone user to switch.</p><p>Best of both worlds, Apple gets $ from MS, and doesn't prevent people from moving to Google.</p><p>Well that and BING Is Not Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a theory about this , and it has n't been mentioned in this thread that I 've seen.Apple is considering this deal because it will significantly weaken MS , and Google both.Think if it this way , Apple has no dog in this show ( Search ) , they do n't care one way or another except for Google has Android , and MS is ... well MS.By having this deal , MS is funneling $ to Apple , for what ?
An icon on the iPhone ?
Apple knows that it would be fairly easy to ALSO install a Google Icon , and make it fairly easy for the average iPhone user to switch.Best of both worlds , Apple gets $ from MS , and does n't prevent people from moving to Google.Well that and BING Is Not Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a theory about this, and it hasn't been mentioned in this thread that I've seen.Apple is considering this deal because it will significantly weaken MS, and Google both.Think if it this way, Apple has no dog in this show (Search), they don't care one way or another except for Google has Android, and MS is ... well MS.By having this deal, MS is funneling $ to Apple, for what?
An icon on the iPhone?
Apple knows that it would be fairly easy to ALSO install a Google Icon, and make it fairly easy for the average iPhone user to switch.Best of both worlds, Apple gets $ from MS, and doesn't prevent people from moving to Google.Well that and BING Is Not Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264064760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the thought of using bing makes me cringe</p></div><p>What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe? And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?</p><p>On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the thought of using bing makes me cringeWhat happened to judging products on their merits ?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer * thought * of using a product would make you cringe ?
And on a related note , what should Microsoft do to regain your respect ? On a social analogy , is a thief always a thief , even when he shows remorse and changed his ways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the thought of using bing makes me cringeWhat happened to judging products on their merits?
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?
And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842500</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere, and there are no signs of that.</i></p><p>But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Microsoft dangled more $$$$$ in front of their face. Apple isn't referring traffic to Google for free just because they're cool dudes, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in all seriousness , the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this , is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere , and there are no signs of that.But in all seriousness , the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this , is if Microsoft dangled more $ $ $ $ $ in front of their face .
Apple is n't referring traffic to Google for free just because they 're cool dudes , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere, and there are no signs of that.But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Microsoft dangled more $$$$$ in front of their face.
Apple isn't referring traffic to Google for free just because they're cool dudes, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842988</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a search engine</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1264015980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm pretty positive that Steve hates Microsoft</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but he absolutely *hates* Eric Schmidt.  He hates how much the iPhone is beholden to Google.  Notice how Google has basically been prevented from making iPhone apps now.  Why would Apple kill Google Latitude, yet allow Loopt (even use Loopt in their advertising)?  Of course we now know that Apple killed Google Voice, not AT&amp;T.</p><p>Google Goggles, Google Navigation, even Google Sky Map... all droid-only, and I doubt it's because of Google.  The only thing coming out of Google for the iPhone are web apps that Steve Jobs has no control over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty positive that Steve hates MicrosoftYes , but he absolutely * hates * Eric Schmidt .
He hates how much the iPhone is beholden to Google .
Notice how Google has basically been prevented from making iPhone apps now .
Why would Apple kill Google Latitude , yet allow Loopt ( even use Loopt in their advertising ) ?
Of course we now know that Apple killed Google Voice , not AT&amp;T.Google Goggles , Google Navigation , even Google Sky Map... all droid-only , and I doubt it 's because of Google .
The only thing coming out of Google for the iPhone are web apps that Steve Jobs has no control over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty positive that Steve hates MicrosoftYes, but he absolutely *hates* Eric Schmidt.
He hates how much the iPhone is beholden to Google.
Notice how Google has basically been prevented from making iPhone apps now.
Why would Apple kill Google Latitude, yet allow Loopt (even use Loopt in their advertising)?
Of course we now know that Apple killed Google Voice, not AT&amp;T.Google Goggles, Google Navigation, even Google Sky Map... all droid-only, and I doubt it's because of Google.
The only thing coming out of Google for the iPhone are web apps that Steve Jobs has no control over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844566</id>
	<title>Microsoft &amp; Apple</title>
	<author>Ice Wewe</author>
	<datestamp>1264080420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is anything like their previous relationships, it won't end well.
<br> <br>
Remember those early versions of OS X? The ones that shipped with IE 5 as the default (and only) web browser. Any self respecting person would immediately uninstall IE after downloading Mozilla/Opera/Netscape because IE 5 was horrible.
<br> <br>
I think we should give Microsoft a chance to show that they've changed, but if history is any indication, this agreement will likely end up causing user frustration and resentment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is anything like their previous relationships , it wo n't end well .
Remember those early versions of OS X ?
The ones that shipped with IE 5 as the default ( and only ) web browser .
Any self respecting person would immediately uninstall IE after downloading Mozilla/Opera/Netscape because IE 5 was horrible .
I think we should give Microsoft a chance to show that they 've changed , but if history is any indication , this agreement will likely end up causing user frustration and resentment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is anything like their previous relationships, it won't end well.
Remember those early versions of OS X?
The ones that shipped with IE 5 as the default (and only) web browser.
Any self respecting person would immediately uninstall IE after downloading Mozilla/Opera/Netscape because IE 5 was horrible.
I think we should give Microsoft a chance to show that they've changed, but if history is any indication, this agreement will likely end up causing user frustration and resentment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842640</id>
	<title>One person .... ???</title>
	<author>kWahab</author>
	<datestamp>1264012200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> 'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says ONE person familiar with Apple's thinking. 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.'"</p></div><p>I wonder who it is ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy, ' says ONE person familiar with Apple 's thinking .
'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle .
' " I wonder who it is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says ONE person familiar with Apple's thinking.
'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.
'"I wonder who it is ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842576</id>
	<title>Re:Default but still switchable actually helps goo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does Google pay Mozilla tens of millions per year for default placement in Firefox then?</p><p>I think you need to think about this a little more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Google pay Mozilla tens of millions per year for default placement in Firefox then ? I think you need to think about this a little more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Google pay Mozilla tens of millions per year for default placement in Firefox then?I think you need to think about this a little more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845878</id>
	<title>a pawn in that battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264089480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says one person familiar with Apple's thinking. 'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle<i>"<br> <br>

If Apple thinks it can play off Microsoft against Google then they are deluded. You got that backwards Apple is a pawn in Microsofts battle with Google. It's not the first time Apple has proved usefull to Redmond, indeed  Microsoft has been known to funnel revenue their way under the guise of cross-licensing and 'investment'. Of course in the process, that renders the Apple a niche market. The graveyard is littered with Microsoft partners<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</i></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy, ' says one person familiar with Apple 's thinking .
'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle " If Apple thinks it can play off Microsoft against Google then they are deluded .
You got that backwards Apple is a pawn in Microsofts battle with Google .
It 's not the first time Apple has proved usefull to Redmond , indeed Microsoft has been known to funnel revenue their way under the guise of cross-licensing and 'investment' .
Of course in the process , that renders the Apple a niche market .
The graveyard is littered with Microsoft partners .. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,' says one person familiar with Apple's thinking.
'Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle" 

If Apple thinks it can play off Microsoft against Google then they are deluded.
You got that backwards Apple is a pawn in Microsofts battle with Google.
It's not the first time Apple has proved usefull to Redmond, indeed  Microsoft has been known to funnel revenue their way under the guise of cross-licensing and 'investment'.
Of course in the process, that renders the Apple a niche market.
The graveyard is littered with Microsoft partners .. :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843208</id>
	<title>calling bullshit</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1264105560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm calling bullshit on this one.</p><p>Apple goes for "sexy" in everything it does. Tell me where Bing is sexy? It has no appeal whatsoever to anyone I know. Heck, 80\% of the people I know probably don't even know what the heck it is and would guess it's a new clothes shop or something.</p><p>I also think Apple got into bed with MS once and still feels somewhat sorry about it. After initial great support (IE on Mac is said to have been far better than the windos version) MS did to them what they do to everyone: Let them hang. I doubt that brings them much love from Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm calling bullshit on this one.Apple goes for " sexy " in everything it does .
Tell me where Bing is sexy ?
It has no appeal whatsoever to anyone I know .
Heck , 80 \ % of the people I know probably do n't even know what the heck it is and would guess it 's a new clothes shop or something.I also think Apple got into bed with MS once and still feels somewhat sorry about it .
After initial great support ( IE on Mac is said to have been far better than the windos version ) MS did to them what they do to everyone : Let them hang .
I doubt that brings them much love from Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm calling bullshit on this one.Apple goes for "sexy" in everything it does.
Tell me where Bing is sexy?
It has no appeal whatsoever to anyone I know.
Heck, 80\% of the people I know probably don't even know what the heck it is and would guess it's a new clothes shop or something.I also think Apple got into bed with MS once and still feels somewhat sorry about it.
After initial great support (IE on Mac is said to have been far better than the windos version) MS did to them what they do to everyone: Let them hang.
I doubt that brings them much love from Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843298</id>
	<title>Dirty Tricks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="wwwbing.com" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">wwwbing.com</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Also try removing the first dot after doing any search in bing......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wwwbing.com [ slashdot.org ] Also try removing the first dot after doing any search in bing..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wwwbing.com [slashdot.org]Also try removing the first dot after doing any search in bing......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842352</id>
	<title>as the old saying goes</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1264009980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the old saying goes...Adversity makes strange bed fellows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the old saying goes...Adversity makes strange bed fellows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the old saying goes...Adversity makes strange bed fellows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844870</id>
	<title>Re:Big Battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844682</id>
	<title>Oh Steve!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264081740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this episode Steve job learns that while my enemy's enemy may be my friend, that will be of little comfort when I feel a cold steel blade in my back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this episode Steve job learns that while my enemy 's enemy may be my friend , that will be of little comfort when I feel a cold steel blade in my back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this episode Steve job learns that while my enemy's enemy may be my friend, that will be of little comfort when I feel a cold steel blade in my back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847036</id>
	<title>Re: Microsucks didn't save Apple</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1264094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft didn't save Apple.<br>Apple doesn't need Office.<br>Office is an elephant in a row boat.<br>Too much feature bloat and lack of focus.<br>Elephants also don't have thumbs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft did n't save Apple.Apple does n't need Office.Office is an elephant in a row boat.Too much feature bloat and lack of focus.Elephants also do n't have thumbs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft didn't save Apple.Apple doesn't need Office.Office is an elephant in a row boat.Too much feature bloat and lack of focus.Elephants also don't have thumbs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30848420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30855052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30849802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30859586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30849666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30856096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30862560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2353254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30855052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30848420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30849802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844304
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845196
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30862560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844212
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30856096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30847220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846790
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30849666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844780
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30845314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30859586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30846012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30843642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30844054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2353254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2353254.30842640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
