<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_21_1616205</id>
	<title>The Apple Tablet Interface Must Be Like This</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264098240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>kylevh writes <i>"On one side, there are the people who think that a traditional GUI&mdash;one built on windows, folders and the old desktop metaphor&mdash;is the only way to go for a tablet. In another camp, there are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff, thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface that nobody can imagine now, one that will bring universal love, world peace and pancakes for everyone. Both camps are wrong: The iPhone started a UI revolution, and <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5452501/the-apple-tablet-interface-must-be-like-this">the tablet is just step two</a>. Here's why."</i>  There are lots of cool UI ideas in there, even if it is entirely speculation. It's worth a read just to think about what the future could be like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>kylevh writes " On one side , there are the people who think that a traditional GUI    one built on windows , folders and the old desktop metaphor    is the only way to go for a tablet .
In another camp , there are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff , thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface that nobody can imagine now , one that will bring universal love , world peace and pancakes for everyone .
Both camps are wrong : The iPhone started a UI revolution , and the tablet is just step two .
Here 's why .
" There are lots of cool UI ideas in there , even if it is entirely speculation .
It 's worth a read just to think about what the future could be like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kylevh writes "On one side, there are the people who think that a traditional GUI—one built on windows, folders and the old desktop metaphor—is the only way to go for a tablet.
In another camp, there are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff, thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface that nobody can imagine now, one that will bring universal love, world peace and pancakes for everyone.
Both camps are wrong: The iPhone started a UI revolution, and the tablet is just step two.
Here's why.
"  There are lots of cool UI ideas in there, even if it is entirely speculation.
It's worth a read just to think about what the future could be like.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850024</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264107060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the only people talk about being "revolutionary" is the multitouch stuff.  It's more than just "cute", but there is a limit to its usefulness.  Also, when you get down to it, it's only a couple of gestures implemented in a couple of places.  It mostly amounts to a very good way of zooming in and out.
</p><p>I think what people like about the interface is that it's simple and direct and it works well.  Instead of using a stylus to point to tiny checkboxes or using scroll wheel with your thumb to navigate through the OS, they just made all the controls simple enough and big enough that you can just point to what you want and it does what you want.  It's well designed, not revolutionary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only people talk about being " revolutionary " is the multitouch stuff .
It 's more than just " cute " , but there is a limit to its usefulness .
Also , when you get down to it , it 's only a couple of gestures implemented in a couple of places .
It mostly amounts to a very good way of zooming in and out .
I think what people like about the interface is that it 's simple and direct and it works well .
Instead of using a stylus to point to tiny checkboxes or using scroll wheel with your thumb to navigate through the OS , they just made all the controls simple enough and big enough that you can just point to what you want and it does what you want .
It 's well designed , not revolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only people talk about being "revolutionary" is the multitouch stuff.
It's more than just "cute", but there is a limit to its usefulness.
Also, when you get down to it, it's only a couple of gestures implemented in a couple of places.
It mostly amounts to a very good way of zooming in and out.
I think what people like about the interface is that it's simple and direct and it works well.
Instead of using a stylus to point to tiny checkboxes or using scroll wheel with your thumb to navigate through the OS, they just made all the controls simple enough and big enough that you can just point to what you want and it does what you want.
It's well designed, not revolutionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850528</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1264065840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get about people hating the file/folder metaphore is: what do you expect to be better?</p><p>A database? Well then you have to search for everything, which in turn means remembering the name or type of everything. People can't do that. It's handy when they can, as seen in Windows 7/Vista search, but there will always be times when we forget.</p><p>I think it's just better to encourage people to learn the file/folder metaphore rather than trying to replace it for the sake of replacing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get about people hating the file/folder metaphore is : what do you expect to be better ? A database ?
Well then you have to search for everything , which in turn means remembering the name or type of everything .
People ca n't do that .
It 's handy when they can , as seen in Windows 7/Vista search , but there will always be times when we forget.I think it 's just better to encourage people to learn the file/folder metaphore rather than trying to replace it for the sake of replacing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get about people hating the file/folder metaphore is: what do you expect to be better?A database?
Well then you have to search for everything, which in turn means remembering the name or type of everything.
People can't do that.
It's handy when they can, as seen in Windows 7/Vista search, but there will always be times when we forget.I think it's just better to encourage people to learn the file/folder metaphore rather than trying to replace it for the sake of replacing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849140</id>
	<title>Why 3D interfaces will never work</title>
	<author>rockNme2349</author>
	<datestamp>1264103460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans see in 2 dimensions, we can infer 3D data from various signals I will not go into in this post. When you are viewing something in a 2 dimensional plane, you can see the entirety of the plane at once. When looking in 3-space, you can only see a projection of that space onto a 2 dimensional plane. You will never be able to simply understand everything in that space at one point, which is why they aren't popular. They are difficult to use, and are only useful for gimmicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans see in 2 dimensions , we can infer 3D data from various signals I will not go into in this post .
When you are viewing something in a 2 dimensional plane , you can see the entirety of the plane at once .
When looking in 3-space , you can only see a projection of that space onto a 2 dimensional plane .
You will never be able to simply understand everything in that space at one point , which is why they are n't popular .
They are difficult to use , and are only useful for gimmicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans see in 2 dimensions, we can infer 3D data from various signals I will not go into in this post.
When you are viewing something in a 2 dimensional plane, you can see the entirety of the plane at once.
When looking in 3-space, you can only see a projection of that space onto a 2 dimensional plane.
You will never be able to simply understand everything in that space at one point, which is why they aren't popular.
They are difficult to use, and are only useful for gimmicks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857924</id>
	<title>it's all about the touch screen</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1264161600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes.  exactly.  It's not so much about a
better UI, that's just a crutch, a work around.  Tablet sensors on the
market today just are not fast or accurate enough, well ok, I don't know about those $5000 ones for artists.  Writing with your hand on a tablet is like using a fat crayon, and in till it can interpret the center of my finger as a fine line with no input lag, it's a problem.   On the silly drawing program on my tablet I can run 2 fingers across the screen and it takes half a second for the paint lines on the screen to catch up and draw it.
Not just hand writing, but hand writing requisition.  I've seen improvements with pressure sensoring and improvements with finger centering, but it's not good enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes .
exactly. It 's not so much about a better UI , that 's just a crutch , a work around .
Tablet sensors on the market today just are not fast or accurate enough , well ok , I do n't know about those $ 5000 ones for artists .
Writing with your hand on a tablet is like using a fat crayon , and in till it can interpret the center of my finger as a fine line with no input lag , it 's a problem .
On the silly drawing program on my tablet I can run 2 fingers across the screen and it takes half a second for the paint lines on the screen to catch up and draw it .
Not just hand writing , but hand writing requisition .
I 've seen improvements with pressure sensoring and improvements with finger centering , but it 's not good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes.
exactly.  It's not so much about a
better UI, that's just a crutch, a work around.
Tablet sensors on the
market today just are not fast or accurate enough, well ok, I don't know about those $5000 ones for artists.
Writing with your hand on a tablet is like using a fat crayon, and in till it can interpret the center of my finger as a fine line with no input lag, it's a problem.
On the silly drawing program on my tablet I can run 2 fingers across the screen and it takes half a second for the paint lines on the screen to catch up and draw it.
Not just hand writing, but hand writing requisition.
I've seen improvements with pressure sensoring and improvements with finger centering, but it's not good enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852228</id>
	<title>Re:...and another thing.</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1264071120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same as my PC.  My web browser looks different to my word processor.  Wow, my PC has a revolutionary interface, all buttons look like buttons for consistency but they vary in positioning and what they do for each application.  A little arrow pointing left always means go back in whatever program I am using whether it is my web browser, file browser or pdf reader.  When I select a text box this little flashing cursor always appears and then if I try typing on my keyboard text appears in the box, it is wonderful how this happens everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same as my PC .
My web browser looks different to my word processor .
Wow , my PC has a revolutionary interface , all buttons look like buttons for consistency but they vary in positioning and what they do for each application .
A little arrow pointing left always means go back in whatever program I am using whether it is my web browser , file browser or pdf reader .
When I select a text box this little flashing cursor always appears and then if I try typing on my keyboard text appears in the box , it is wonderful how this happens everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same as my PC.
My web browser looks different to my word processor.
Wow, my PC has a revolutionary interface, all buttons look like buttons for consistency but they vary in positioning and what they do for each application.
A little arrow pointing left always means go back in whatever program I am using whether it is my web browser, file browser or pdf reader.
When I select a text box this little flashing cursor always appears and then if I try typing on my keyboard text appears in the box, it is wonderful how this happens everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855624</id>
	<title>Re:We'll see.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264088400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree entirely. It would be funny to see them kill the Mac, and then see the Mac fans have to accept it, but it wouldn't surprise me, they happily ditch technology when it's of no use to them (classic MacOS, PowerPC), and even "Mac" itself is today just a trademark for Apple PCs running an OS that has nothing to do with the original MacOS.</p><p>I also share your fears. Thankfully the Iphone doesn't have anywhere near the success that Slashdot fans claim, and I don't see how an expensive and oversized istale would change that. But I do fear a self-fulfilling prophecy: thanks to all the free advertising by the media (including Slashdot), imagine if in 10 years' time, Apple have a monopoly on all mobile computing. We'd live in the locked down world where Apple controlled all released software. Open source would be severely hampered (you'd have to pay to develop, and Apple might only allow one fork of any given program, citing reasons of duplication). Running alternative OSs would not be an option unless you hacked the devices. "Open" computers would become an increasingly rare commodity.</p><p>And whilst geeks at least criticised Microsoft's control, which pales in comparison to what Apple want, the sad thing is that in places like Slashdot, Apple are loved.</p><p>This was once a place that supported open systems. How ironic that it now supports and advertises Apple's vision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree entirely .
It would be funny to see them kill the Mac , and then see the Mac fans have to accept it , but it would n't surprise me , they happily ditch technology when it 's of no use to them ( classic MacOS , PowerPC ) , and even " Mac " itself is today just a trademark for Apple PCs running an OS that has nothing to do with the original MacOS.I also share your fears .
Thankfully the Iphone does n't have anywhere near the success that Slashdot fans claim , and I do n't see how an expensive and oversized istale would change that .
But I do fear a self-fulfilling prophecy : thanks to all the free advertising by the media ( including Slashdot ) , imagine if in 10 years ' time , Apple have a monopoly on all mobile computing .
We 'd live in the locked down world where Apple controlled all released software .
Open source would be severely hampered ( you 'd have to pay to develop , and Apple might only allow one fork of any given program , citing reasons of duplication ) .
Running alternative OSs would not be an option unless you hacked the devices .
" Open " computers would become an increasingly rare commodity.And whilst geeks at least criticised Microsoft 's control , which pales in comparison to what Apple want , the sad thing is that in places like Slashdot , Apple are loved.This was once a place that supported open systems .
How ironic that it now supports and advertises Apple 's vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree entirely.
It would be funny to see them kill the Mac, and then see the Mac fans have to accept it, but it wouldn't surprise me, they happily ditch technology when it's of no use to them (classic MacOS, PowerPC), and even "Mac" itself is today just a trademark for Apple PCs running an OS that has nothing to do with the original MacOS.I also share your fears.
Thankfully the Iphone doesn't have anywhere near the success that Slashdot fans claim, and I don't see how an expensive and oversized istale would change that.
But I do fear a self-fulfilling prophecy: thanks to all the free advertising by the media (including Slashdot), imagine if in 10 years' time, Apple have a monopoly on all mobile computing.
We'd live in the locked down world where Apple controlled all released software.
Open source would be severely hampered (you'd have to pay to develop, and Apple might only allow one fork of any given program, citing reasons of duplication).
Running alternative OSs would not be an option unless you hacked the devices.
"Open" computers would become an increasingly rare commodity.And whilst geeks at least criticised Microsoft's control, which pales in comparison to what Apple want, the sad thing is that in places like Slashdot, Apple are loved.This was once a place that supported open systems.
How ironic that it now supports and advertises Apple's vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848990</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I woke up I would agree with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I woke up I would agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I woke up I would agree with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849554</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen. This site should seriously consider taking a break from being steve jobs's bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
This site should seriously consider taking a break from being steve jobs 's bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
This site should seriously consider taking a break from being steve jobs's bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852204</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>narcc</author>
	<datestamp>1264071000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It has no buttons and does not use a stylus.</p> </div><p>Nope, no buttons at all...</p><p>Except the Sleep/Wake button, the volume-control buttons, and the home button.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has no buttons and does not use a stylus .
Nope , no buttons at all...Except the Sleep/Wake button , the volume-control buttons , and the home button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has no buttons and does not use a stylus.
Nope, no buttons at all...Except the Sleep/Wake button, the volume-control buttons, and the home button.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849344</id>
	<title>You said you'd never forget.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1264104360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>vi v. emacs</b><br>or even<br><b>vi v. vim</b></p><p>Prepare to eat your words, sir. 80 columns at a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>vi v. emacsor evenvi v. vimPrepare to eat your words , sir .
80 columns at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vi v. emacsor evenvi v. vimPrepare to eat your words, sir.
80 columns at a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849668</id>
	<title>The first interface</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1264105620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The netbook craze has shown one thing: average users no longer care about speed or enormous screen size. Honestly, I would have never believed anyone if they said I could buy a gigahertz <i>phone</i> in 2010, I'm not sure I would have believed them. If it can play MP3s, 720p, and requires little maintenance, most users are going to be happy.</p><p>Pretty soon the only thing the user is going to care about is the size of the screen. They'll want it to dock to a keyboard and mouse when they sit down to write a paper. Otherwise, they'd like to drag it around the house. It won't be a computer, so much as an interface to their data - as the article states, a true information appliance.</p><p>The Apple product may suck, but it will probably sell people on the idea that tablets are "cool." And in a way, that may be the most important thing to go to the next level of interaction with computers.</p><p>Think about the iMacs that were just released: wireless keyboard and mouse, enormous display with a stand that only requires a power cable. Exchange the stand with a dock and make it smaller with a touch interface. Hopefully they will provide some good hardware I/O on the dock, but again, for the regular users, they won't care if it has every sort of port in the world. As long as they can get on youtube and facebook without having to fuss with a traditional computer, they will be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The netbook craze has shown one thing : average users no longer care about speed or enormous screen size .
Honestly , I would have never believed anyone if they said I could buy a gigahertz phone in 2010 , I 'm not sure I would have believed them .
If it can play MP3s , 720p , and requires little maintenance , most users are going to be happy.Pretty soon the only thing the user is going to care about is the size of the screen .
They 'll want it to dock to a keyboard and mouse when they sit down to write a paper .
Otherwise , they 'd like to drag it around the house .
It wo n't be a computer , so much as an interface to their data - as the article states , a true information appliance.The Apple product may suck , but it will probably sell people on the idea that tablets are " cool .
" And in a way , that may be the most important thing to go to the next level of interaction with computers.Think about the iMacs that were just released : wireless keyboard and mouse , enormous display with a stand that only requires a power cable .
Exchange the stand with a dock and make it smaller with a touch interface .
Hopefully they will provide some good hardware I/O on the dock , but again , for the regular users , they wo n't care if it has every sort of port in the world .
As long as they can get on youtube and facebook without having to fuss with a traditional computer , they will be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The netbook craze has shown one thing: average users no longer care about speed or enormous screen size.
Honestly, I would have never believed anyone if they said I could buy a gigahertz phone in 2010, I'm not sure I would have believed them.
If it can play MP3s, 720p, and requires little maintenance, most users are going to be happy.Pretty soon the only thing the user is going to care about is the size of the screen.
They'll want it to dock to a keyboard and mouse when they sit down to write a paper.
Otherwise, they'd like to drag it around the house.
It won't be a computer, so much as an interface to their data - as the article states, a true information appliance.The Apple product may suck, but it will probably sell people on the idea that tablets are "cool.
" And in a way, that may be the most important thing to go to the next level of interaction with computers.Think about the iMacs that were just released: wireless keyboard and mouse, enormous display with a stand that only requires a power cable.
Exchange the stand with a dock and make it smaller with a touch interface.
Hopefully they will provide some good hardware I/O on the dock, but again, for the regular users, they won't care if it has every sort of port in the world.
As long as they can get on youtube and facebook without having to fuss with a traditional computer, they will be fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849012</id>
	<title>If it's just gonna be an oversized iPhone</title>
	<author>cjeze</author>
	<datestamp>1264102860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll be disappointed.

But if it is going to be a color eInk reader with similar <i>friendliness</i> as the iPhone, then there might be hope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be disappointed .
But if it is going to be a color eInk reader with similar friendliness as the iPhone , then there might be hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be disappointed.
But if it is going to be a color eInk reader with similar friendliness as the iPhone, then there might be hope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849676</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a market or hidden demand for tablets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The average Slashdot reader probably owns about 50 paperback books. It sure is a neat for factor, isn't it?</p><p>The thing is that nobody has ever made a half-decent paperback-sized tablet. Odds are that it will sell.</p><p>I agree with TFA that the iPhone OS is the best choice of OS for Apple. Not because it is the best possible OS for a tablet, but because it is a great OS that people like. It has an interface that keeps people buying apps and songs and whatnot (books seem like a good thing for a table). It has an interface that keeps them from developing their own software and thus keeps them from hacking and "stealing" so-called "intellectual property"...</p><p>Or so it would seem. Good luck with that in the long run.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The average Slashdot reader probably owns about 50 paperback books .
It sure is a neat for factor , is n't it ? The thing is that nobody has ever made a half-decent paperback-sized tablet .
Odds are that it will sell.I agree with TFA that the iPhone OS is the best choice of OS for Apple .
Not because it is the best possible OS for a tablet , but because it is a great OS that people like .
It has an interface that keeps people buying apps and songs and whatnot ( books seem like a good thing for a table ) .
It has an interface that keeps them from developing their own software and thus keeps them from hacking and " stealing " so-called " intellectual property " ...Or so it would seem .
Good luck with that in the long run .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average Slashdot reader probably owns about 50 paperback books.
It sure is a neat for factor, isn't it?The thing is that nobody has ever made a half-decent paperback-sized tablet.
Odds are that it will sell.I agree with TFA that the iPhone OS is the best choice of OS for Apple.
Not because it is the best possible OS for a tablet, but because it is a great OS that people like.
It has an interface that keeps people buying apps and songs and whatnot (books seem like a good thing for a table).
It has an interface that keeps them from developing their own software and thus keeps them from hacking and "stealing" so-called "intellectual property"...Or so it would seem.
Good luck with that in the long run.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a market or hidden demand for tablets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the digital handwriting problem could be solved, there would be demand for a tablet.  Taking notes is something that computers still don't do particularly well.  You can get by, sure, and there are some applications which aid in that, but it's not quite the same as being able to easily sketch or make simple diagrams by hand and integrate those with text.</p><p>The other main use for a tablet form factor is for consumption of media.  Touchscreens will probably not be as good as typing for quite a long time, if ever.  But if you don't need to type much, then it can be fine.  Watching movies and reading books would work with a tablet.  The main problem, of course, is cost.  When you can buy a laptop that also does those things, why in the world would you bother with paying more money to get a tablet?  What do you gain, other than perhaps something which is lighter weight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the digital handwriting problem could be solved , there would be demand for a tablet .
Taking notes is something that computers still do n't do particularly well .
You can get by , sure , and there are some applications which aid in that , but it 's not quite the same as being able to easily sketch or make simple diagrams by hand and integrate those with text.The other main use for a tablet form factor is for consumption of media .
Touchscreens will probably not be as good as typing for quite a long time , if ever .
But if you do n't need to type much , then it can be fine .
Watching movies and reading books would work with a tablet .
The main problem , of course , is cost .
When you can buy a laptop that also does those things , why in the world would you bother with paying more money to get a tablet ?
What do you gain , other than perhaps something which is lighter weight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the digital handwriting problem could be solved, there would be demand for a tablet.
Taking notes is something that computers still don't do particularly well.
You can get by, sure, and there are some applications which aid in that, but it's not quite the same as being able to easily sketch or make simple diagrams by hand and integrate those with text.The other main use for a tablet form factor is for consumption of media.
Touchscreens will probably not be as good as typing for quite a long time, if ever.
But if you don't need to type much, then it can be fine.
Watching movies and reading books would work with a tablet.
The main problem, of course, is cost.
When you can buy a laptop that also does those things, why in the world would you bother with paying more money to get a tablet?
What do you gain, other than perhaps something which is lighter weight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852674</id>
	<title>Re:cloud UI</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1264072500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the hype isn't coming from Apple, it's coming from "pundits" and the "tech media."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the hype is n't coming from Apple , it 's coming from " pundits " and the " tech media .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the hype isn't coming from Apple, it's coming from "pundits" and the "tech media.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080</id>
	<title>...and another thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different. The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done. The UI CHANGES to suit the task.</p><p>This sounds remarkably like the EXACT OPPOSITE of the sort of "consistency" that's supposed to be the bedrock of "good interfaces".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different .
The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done .
The UI CHANGES to suit the task.This sounds remarkably like the EXACT OPPOSITE of the sort of " consistency " that 's supposed to be the bedrock of " good interfaces " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different.
The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done.
The UI CHANGES to suit the task.This sounds remarkably like the EXACT OPPOSITE of the sort of "consistency" that's supposed to be the bedrock of "good interfaces".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848846</id>
	<title>This is how it will all play out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple\_introduces\_revolutionary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/apple \ _introduces \ _revolutionary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple\_introduces\_revolutionary</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848914</id>
	<title>Missed a story?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, huh, I must have missed the announcement that the Apple tablet wasn't just a rumor but actually a real thing.  Odd, normally I'm on top of things like that.  Oh well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , huh , I must have missed the announcement that the Apple tablet was n't just a rumor but actually a real thing .
Odd , normally I 'm on top of things like that .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, huh, I must have missed the announcement that the Apple tablet wasn't just a rumor but actually a real thing.
Odd, normally I'm on top of things like that.
Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849760</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? I actually find it fairly hilarious, mainly because despite all the noise, nobody has really answered in any compelling way what I am supposed to want one of these for. If you think about your average Apple fanboy (I like their stuff, but don't count myself in that category), they likely already have:
<br>-iPhone
<br>-Mac laptop (macbook, macbook pro, etc)
<br>-Mac desktop (iMac, etc)

</p><p>Ok, so 2 and 3 might not be the rule, but still - what computing niche does this table fill that isn't already covered? The best I've heard so far is sitting on the couch/laying in bed. Seriously. People are justifying buying this hypothetical device because it might be more comfortable to use in bed or on the couch (not really sure how a laptop isn't better when sitting, though). I'm not sure how you can do anything but laugh at this (and maybe buy Apple stock).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I actually find it fairly hilarious , mainly because despite all the noise , nobody has really answered in any compelling way what I am supposed to want one of these for .
If you think about your average Apple fanboy ( I like their stuff , but do n't count myself in that category ) , they likely already have : -iPhone -Mac laptop ( macbook , macbook pro , etc ) -Mac desktop ( iMac , etc ) Ok , so 2 and 3 might not be the rule , but still - what computing niche does this table fill that is n't already covered ?
The best I 've heard so far is sitting on the couch/laying in bed .
Seriously. People are justifying buying this hypothetical device because it might be more comfortable to use in bed or on the couch ( not really sure how a laptop is n't better when sitting , though ) .
I 'm not sure how you can do anything but laugh at this ( and maybe buy Apple stock ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I actually find it fairly hilarious, mainly because despite all the noise, nobody has really answered in any compelling way what I am supposed to want one of these for.
If you think about your average Apple fanboy (I like their stuff, but don't count myself in that category), they likely already have:
-iPhone
-Mac laptop (macbook, macbook pro, etc)
-Mac desktop (iMac, etc)

Ok, so 2 and 3 might not be the rule, but still - what computing niche does this table fill that isn't already covered?
The best I've heard so far is sitting on the couch/laying in bed.
Seriously. People are justifying buying this hypothetical device because it might be more comfortable to use in bed or on the couch (not really sure how a laptop isn't better when sitting, though).
I'm not sure how you can do anything but laugh at this (and maybe buy Apple stock).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851706</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264069500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture</p></div>
</blockquote><p>But you see, that's the genius! I predict that Apple is harnessing the Internet to <i>design</i> the tablet for them. By putting small hints out, they can direct the flow of ideas. Once everyone's satisfied with the speculated design, they start manufacturing it (with a few changes to surprise people).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture But you see , that 's the genius !
I predict that Apple is harnessing the Internet to design the tablet for them .
By putting small hints out , they can direct the flow of ideas .
Once everyone 's satisfied with the speculated design , they start manufacturing it ( with a few changes to surprise people ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture
But you see, that's the genius!
I predict that Apple is harnessing the Internet to design the tablet for them.
By putting small hints out, they can direct the flow of ideas.
Once everyone's satisfied with the speculated design, they start manufacturing it (with a few changes to surprise people).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849482</id>
	<title>Re:my "stove top" app has been accepted by Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Bill Gates....come on admit it Bill</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Bill Gates....come on admit it Bill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Bill Gates....come on admit it Bill</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848928</id>
	<title>Pancakes?</title>
	<author>nate\_wilbanks</author>
	<datestamp>1264102500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer waffles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer waffles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer waffles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30872158</id>
	<title>Re:...and another thing.</title>
	<author>JabrTheHut</author>
	<datestamp>1264238520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I haven't seen anyone look at the ".com" button and freak out.</p></div><p>I have.  An ex-windows programmer friend of mine.  Freaked right out, started screaming and everything.
<br> <br>
He does Java now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen anyone look at the " .com " button and freak out.I have .
An ex-windows programmer friend of mine .
Freaked right out , started screaming and everything .
He does Java now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen anyone look at the ".com" button and freak out.I have.
An ex-windows programmer friend of mine.
Freaked right out, started screaming and everything.
He does Java now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856052</id>
	<title>Re:Sanctifying Raskin, again</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1264092180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may be interested in the folklore.org website, particularly <a href="http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&amp;story=I\_Invented\_Burrell.txt&amp;characters=Jef\%20Raskin&amp;sortOrder=Sort\%20by\%20Date&amp;detail=medium" title="folklore.org">this story</a> [folklore.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be interested in the folklore.org website , particularly this story [ folklore.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be interested in the folklore.org website, particularly this story [folklore.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855246</id>
	<title>The New Amiga will beat the IsLate hands down</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264085100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. Speculation on future UIs can be interesting, but what has that got to do with any potential Apple product? There are plenty of companies who have and are making tablets (actually ones, not vaporware like the istale).</p><p>I might as well make up a long list of what I'd like to see in a computer, and then post a story saying "The New Amiga Must Be Like This".</p><p>If this was an Apple site, I could understand, but otherwise, why not keep it generic? Oh wait, there's my answer - this <i>is</i> an Apple site. (There are only <i>three</i> stories mentioning the Iphone today! The joke about the <i>Daily</i> Iphone story is obviously old hat...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Speculation on future UIs can be interesting , but what has that got to do with any potential Apple product ?
There are plenty of companies who have and are making tablets ( actually ones , not vaporware like the istale ) .I might as well make up a long list of what I 'd like to see in a computer , and then post a story saying " The New Amiga Must Be Like This " .If this was an Apple site , I could understand , but otherwise , why not keep it generic ?
Oh wait , there 's my answer - this is an Apple site .
( There are only three stories mentioning the Iphone today !
The joke about the Daily Iphone story is obviously old hat... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Speculation on future UIs can be interesting, but what has that got to do with any potential Apple product?
There are plenty of companies who have and are making tablets (actually ones, not vaporware like the istale).I might as well make up a long list of what I'd like to see in a computer, and then post a story saying "The New Amiga Must Be Like This".If this was an Apple site, I could understand, but otherwise, why not keep it generic?
Oh wait, there's my answer - this is an Apple site.
(There are only three stories mentioning the Iphone today!
The joke about the Daily Iphone story is obviously old hat...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848872</id>
	<title>Files</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264102320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is okay for files to go away, right up until the point that I notice I can't access some data because it is stuck in some app.</p><p>And I don't mean that files should never go away, I just mean that each time I notice it, I get confirmation that they aren't done making whatever it was that they changed work correctly yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is okay for files to go away , right up until the point that I notice I ca n't access some data because it is stuck in some app.And I do n't mean that files should never go away , I just mean that each time I notice it , I get confirmation that they are n't done making whatever it was that they changed work correctly yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is okay for files to go away, right up until the point that I notice I can't access some data because it is stuck in some app.And I don't mean that files should never go away, I just mean that each time I notice it, I get confirmation that they aren't done making whatever it was that they changed work correctly yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849212</id>
	<title>Brain Interface...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the next big step, ie. Cyberbrains....</p><p>Turn everyone with one into a info savant and idiot.   Only then will we be able to reach the holy grail of computing, "LOL cats IN yur head, messin' up yur mew-ons"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the next big step , ie .
Cyberbrains....Turn everyone with one into a info savant and idiot .
Only then will we be able to reach the holy grail of computing , " LOL cats IN yur head , messin ' up yur mew-ons "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the next big step, ie.
Cyberbrains....Turn everyone with one into a info savant and idiot.
Only then will we be able to reach the holy grail of computing, "LOL cats IN yur head, messin' up yur mew-ons"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849166</id>
	<title>Mostly-receive devices</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264103580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There's a difference between devices that are mostly for receiving information, and those that are for doing something with it.  Music players, "e-book" readers, navigation devices, and entertainment devices in general are mostly-receive.  They need a much simpler interface than a creation device.  Try to cram a <a href="http://cadtouch.com/" title="cadtouch.com">CAD application into the iPhone interface.</a> [cadtouch.com] It's possible, but it's not happy there.
</p><p>
This is a bigger distinction than the form factor.   Mostly-receive devices can get along with a blunt interface of big buttons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between devices that are mostly for receiving information , and those that are for doing something with it .
Music players , " e-book " readers , navigation devices , and entertainment devices in general are mostly-receive .
They need a much simpler interface than a creation device .
Try to cram a CAD application into the iPhone interface .
[ cadtouch.com ] It 's possible , but it 's not happy there .
This is a bigger distinction than the form factor .
Mostly-receive devices can get along with a blunt interface of big buttons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There's a difference between devices that are mostly for receiving information, and those that are for doing something with it.
Music players, "e-book" readers, navigation devices, and entertainment devices in general are mostly-receive.
They need a much simpler interface than a creation device.
Try to cram a CAD application into the iPhone interface.
[cadtouch.com] It's possible, but it's not happy there.
This is a bigger distinction than the form factor.
Mostly-receive devices can get along with a blunt interface of big buttons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851934</id>
	<title>obligatory 'lame' slashdot quote...</title>
	<author>kirkb</author>
	<datestamp>1264070160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay slashdotters, deadline is Jan 27 to think up some good quotes based on "No X.  Less Y than a Z.  Lame."  Winner whores beaucoup karma.  Or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay slashdotters , deadline is Jan 27 to think up some good quotes based on " No X. Less Y than a Z .
Lame. " Winner whores beaucoup karma .
Or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay slashdotters, deadline is Jan 27 to think up some good quotes based on "No X.  Less Y than a Z.
Lame."  Winner whores beaucoup karma.
Or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851342</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1264068420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Files and folders are not too confusing.  Files and folders are too inconvenient for average users.  What you are doing is wrapping other models into a file/folder concept when it may not make sense.  And here's the basic jist:  Users don't care to know what is happening in the background when they do something; only whether they get results.  They don't care when they look for an album on a website that some HTTP request was initiated that queried a database which is really file that returned results.  They only care if they found the album.</p><p>It's the same thing with organizing music.  Some people really, really care that their music is exquisitely organized into the right file names and the right folders.  Most people don't care.  When they are in their media player, can they find the song and play it?  Can they group their favorites together.  Where that particular file is on the HD is meaningless to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Files and folders are not too confusing .
Files and folders are too inconvenient for average users .
What you are doing is wrapping other models into a file/folder concept when it may not make sense .
And here 's the basic jist : Users do n't care to know what is happening in the background when they do something ; only whether they get results .
They do n't care when they look for an album on a website that some HTTP request was initiated that queried a database which is really file that returned results .
They only care if they found the album.It 's the same thing with organizing music .
Some people really , really care that their music is exquisitely organized into the right file names and the right folders .
Most people do n't care .
When they are in their media player , can they find the song and play it ?
Can they group their favorites together .
Where that particular file is on the HD is meaningless to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Files and folders are not too confusing.
Files and folders are too inconvenient for average users.
What you are doing is wrapping other models into a file/folder concept when it may not make sense.
And here's the basic jist:  Users don't care to know what is happening in the background when they do something; only whether they get results.
They don't care when they look for an album on a website that some HTTP request was initiated that queried a database which is really file that returned results.
They only care if they found the album.It's the same thing with organizing music.
Some people really, really care that their music is exquisitely organized into the right file names and the right folders.
Most people don't care.
When they are in their media player, can they find the song and play it?
Can they group their favorites together.
Where that particular file is on the HD is meaningless to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30863416</id>
	<title>user interface consistency is a means not an end</title>
	<author>Mr. Punch</author>
	<datestamp>1264154460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consistency in user interface isn't an end unto itself.  Consistency is a means to making the UI easier for users to understand.</p><p>I develop software that runs on Windows.  I follow Microsoft's conventions for button size and placement because the majority of our users are accustomed to those conventions.  When I give them a button that looks familiar and does in my application what it does in others, I'm able to tap into previous Windows experience to make my software easier to use.</p><p>I'm at best an average user interface designer.  I need things like this to cheat and make a more usable product.</p><p>Apple has UI designers that are significantly better than that.  Many third party iPhone application developers are also extremely good.  A good enough UI designer can come up with an interface that is both intuitive and perfectly suited to the task at hand without looking like the other UIs out there.</p><p>The fact that they aren't being consistent isn't bad if the end result is simple to use for both beginning and experienced developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consistency in user interface is n't an end unto itself .
Consistency is a means to making the UI easier for users to understand.I develop software that runs on Windows .
I follow Microsoft 's conventions for button size and placement because the majority of our users are accustomed to those conventions .
When I give them a button that looks familiar and does in my application what it does in others , I 'm able to tap into previous Windows experience to make my software easier to use.I 'm at best an average user interface designer .
I need things like this to cheat and make a more usable product.Apple has UI designers that are significantly better than that .
Many third party iPhone application developers are also extremely good .
A good enough UI designer can come up with an interface that is both intuitive and perfectly suited to the task at hand without looking like the other UIs out there.The fact that they are n't being consistent is n't bad if the end result is simple to use for both beginning and experienced developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consistency in user interface isn't an end unto itself.
Consistency is a means to making the UI easier for users to understand.I develop software that runs on Windows.
I follow Microsoft's conventions for button size and placement because the majority of our users are accustomed to those conventions.
When I give them a button that looks familiar and does in my application what it does in others, I'm able to tap into previous Windows experience to make my software easier to use.I'm at best an average user interface designer.
I need things like this to cheat and make a more usable product.Apple has UI designers that are significantly better than that.
Many third party iPhone application developers are also extremely good.
A good enough UI designer can come up with an interface that is both intuitive and perfectly suited to the task at hand without looking like the other UIs out there.The fact that they aren't being consistent isn't bad if the end result is simple to use for both beginning and experienced developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849142</id>
	<title>Pfffft, this gizmodo editorial sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone RTFA???  The author claims that the iPhone is radical because it "transforms" into various appliances.... an idea lead by the "visionary" Jef Raskins  (Oh, let's forget about that stupid Canon Cat idea which kinda F'd up any idea of how much of a Nostradamus this guy was.</p><p>It's called "Maximize" in any modern GUI.  Hide the start menu, make your screen black, set up "one touch" for desktop icons, and every application now magically has an iPhone interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone RTFA ? ? ?
The author claims that the iPhone is radical because it " transforms " into various appliances.... an idea lead by the " visionary " Jef Raskins ( Oh , let 's forget about that stupid Canon Cat idea which kinda F 'd up any idea of how much of a Nostradamus this guy was.It 's called " Maximize " in any modern GUI .
Hide the start menu , make your screen black , set up " one touch " for desktop icons , and every application now magically has an iPhone interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone RTFA???
The author claims that the iPhone is radical because it "transforms" into various appliances.... an idea lead by the "visionary" Jef Raskins  (Oh, let's forget about that stupid Canon Cat idea which kinda F'd up any idea of how much of a Nostradamus this guy was.It's called "Maximize" in any modern GUI.
Hide the start menu, make your screen black, set up "one touch" for desktop icons, and every application now magically has an iPhone interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849010</id>
	<title>Obligatory...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264102860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It would have the right number of buttons</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be one, then?  [ducks for cover]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have the right number of buttonsThat would be one , then ?
[ ducks for cover ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have the right number of buttonsThat would be one, then?
[ducks for cover]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850598</id>
	<title>Re:more like a product in search of a market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have more than 150 apps on my [not jailbroken] ipod touch.  All for free from the app store.  Lots of good apps and lots of not so good apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have more than 150 apps on my [ not jailbroken ] ipod touch .
All for free from the app store .
Lots of good apps and lots of not so good apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have more than 150 apps on my [not jailbroken] ipod touch.
All for free from the app store.
Lots of good apps and lots of not so good apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world? "</i>
<br> <br>
Thank you!
<br> <br>
Actually I'll take it a step forward:  <b>shut-up already!</b>  Tell me when it comes out and give me a full review with a components breakdown.  I'm so incredibly tired of every tech site I go to running a article every day with potential design mock-ups, hypothetical processor specs, and emerging screen technologies that <i>might</i> appear in the new not-formally-announced Apple tablet.  <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/10/226205" title="slashdot.org">I've been reading Apple Tablet stories on slashdot for five years</a> [slashdot.org], and frankly I'm tired of hearing about it.
<br> <br>
This thing has more hype than Duke Nukem Forever and half the credibility, <a href="http://kotaku.com/353315/confirmed-duke-nukem-forever-coming-in-2008-3d-hitting-xbla" title="kotaku.com">at least Duek Nukem Forever had confirmed release dates</a> [kotaku.com].
<br> <br>
So what about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., am I still going to be reading Apple Tablet might-have stories on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. in 2015, or can we finally stop beating this very dead horse and bury it until it's really released?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world ?
" Thank you !
Actually I 'll take it a step forward : shut-up already !
Tell me when it comes out and give me a full review with a components breakdown .
I 'm so incredibly tired of every tech site I go to running a article every day with potential design mock-ups , hypothetical processor specs , and emerging screen technologies that might appear in the new not-formally-announced Apple tablet .
I 've been reading Apple Tablet stories on slashdot for five years [ slashdot.org ] , and frankly I 'm tired of hearing about it .
This thing has more hype than Duke Nukem Forever and half the credibility , at least Duek Nukem Forever had confirmed release dates [ kotaku.com ] .
So what about it /. , am I still going to be reading Apple Tablet might-have stories on / .
in 2015 , or can we finally stop beating this very dead horse and bury it until it 's really released ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world?
"
 
Thank you!
Actually I'll take it a step forward:  shut-up already!
Tell me when it comes out and give me a full review with a components breakdown.
I'm so incredibly tired of every tech site I go to running a article every day with potential design mock-ups, hypothetical processor specs, and emerging screen technologies that might appear in the new not-formally-announced Apple tablet.
I've been reading Apple Tablet stories on slashdot for five years [slashdot.org], and frankly I'm tired of hearing about it.
This thing has more hype than Duke Nukem Forever and half the credibility, at least Duek Nukem Forever had confirmed release dates [kotaku.com].
So what about it /., am I still going to be reading Apple Tablet might-have stories on /.
in 2015, or can we finally stop beating this very dead horse and bury it until it's really released?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</id>
	<title>Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>Em Ellel</author>
	<datestamp>1264104000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface?</p><p>They have pages of icons - kind of like desktop UI, but pretty much EXACLY like 90's PalmOS and many other portable OS's.</p><p>They added gestures on OS level (scroll bar everywhere, instead of certain part of the screen), which was also available on PC and some advanced PalmOS apps - although it was a nice touch to make it part of OS. Multi-touch is cute, but hardly a revolution (except maybe literally)</p><p>They removed many standard UI components like date pickers and replaced them with clunky wheels - that was probably a step back.</p><p>They added a software repository- the kind Linux world was using for a decade.</p><p>They added extra sensors to the OS - which were nice, but also been available on other devices for a while.</p><p>There is nothing new here except for putting bunch of existing things all together, for which they certainly deserve praise, but all in all it seems like a great evolutionary work, hardly a revolutionary one.</p><p>-Em</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please ) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface ? They have pages of icons - kind of like desktop UI , but pretty much EXACLY like 90 's PalmOS and many other portable OS 's.They added gestures on OS level ( scroll bar everywhere , instead of certain part of the screen ) , which was also available on PC and some advanced PalmOS apps - although it was a nice touch to make it part of OS .
Multi-touch is cute , but hardly a revolution ( except maybe literally ) They removed many standard UI components like date pickers and replaced them with clunky wheels - that was probably a step back.They added a software repository- the kind Linux world was using for a decade.They added extra sensors to the OS - which were nice , but also been available on other devices for a while.There is nothing new here except for putting bunch of existing things all together , for which they certainly deserve praise , but all in all it seems like a great evolutionary work , hardly a revolutionary one.-Em</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface?They have pages of icons - kind of like desktop UI, but pretty much EXACLY like 90's PalmOS and many other portable OS's.They added gestures on OS level (scroll bar everywhere, instead of certain part of the screen), which was also available on PC and some advanced PalmOS apps - although it was a nice touch to make it part of OS.
Multi-touch is cute, but hardly a revolution (except maybe literally)They removed many standard UI components like date pickers and replaced them with clunky wheels - that was probably a step back.They added a software repository- the kind Linux world was using for a decade.They added extra sensors to the OS - which were nice, but also been available on other devices for a while.There is nothing new here except for putting bunch of existing things all together, for which they certainly deserve praise, but all in all it seems like a great evolutionary work, hardly a revolutionary one.-Em</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848936</id>
	<title>Are they ahead of the market?</title>
	<author>trafic\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1264102560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article

&ldquo;For its part, Asus has netbooks and smartbooks running on Android and Chrome OS in its R&amp;D labs, according to Shih, but is waiting until conditions are right to release them.&rdquo;

&ldquo;Prototypes of tablet or slate PCs - touchscreen machines with no keyboards suited to watching media, reading e-books and web browsing - are sitting in Asus labs but Shih said the company is holding back on releasing any devices.&rdquo;


There may also be a product cycle from a hacked prototype in the R&amp;D lab to full consumer release. The article makes it seem like they have the things in boxes ready to ship, its just that the Chairman Jonney Shih is waiting for the right time to slam his hand on the easy button and get them to market.


What bothers me about this is it seems these comments are aimed at confusing investors into believing Asus is leading the way with these technologies like they did with the Eee PC. That does not seem to be the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article    For its part , Asus has netbooks and smartbooks running on Android and Chrome OS in its R&amp;D labs , according to Shih , but is waiting until conditions are right to release them.       Prototypes of tablet or slate PCs - touchscreen machines with no keyboards suited to watching media , reading e-books and web browsing - are sitting in Asus labs but Shih said the company is holding back on releasing any devices.    There may also be a product cycle from a hacked prototype in the R&amp;D lab to full consumer release .
The article makes it seem like they have the things in boxes ready to ship , its just that the Chairman Jonney Shih is waiting for the right time to slam his hand on the easy button and get them to market .
What bothers me about this is it seems these comments are aimed at confusing investors into believing Asus is leading the way with these technologies like they did with the Eee PC .
That does not seem to be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article

“For its part, Asus has netbooks and smartbooks running on Android and Chrome OS in its R&amp;D labs, according to Shih, but is waiting until conditions are right to release them.”

“Prototypes of tablet or slate PCs - touchscreen machines with no keyboards suited to watching media, reading e-books and web browsing - are sitting in Asus labs but Shih said the company is holding back on releasing any devices.”


There may also be a product cycle from a hacked prototype in the R&amp;D lab to full consumer release.
The article makes it seem like they have the things in boxes ready to ship, its just that the Chairman Jonney Shih is waiting for the right time to slam his hand on the easy button and get them to market.
What bothers me about this is it seems these comments are aimed at confusing investors into believing Asus is leading the way with these technologies like they did with the Eee PC.
That does not seem to be the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849782</id>
	<title>Re:...and another thing.</title>
	<author>nabsltd</author>
	<datestamp>1264106100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different. The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done. The UI CHANGES to suit the task.</p></div><p>For a device as small as the iPhone with a limited OS, a modal interface that changes with the mode is really the only way to go.</p><p>The reason the "desktop" metaphor works for computers is because they have larger screens and multitask.</p><p>So, regardless of how amazing an Apple tablet might be, if it can't compete significantly with portable computers of the same size, then it will be a niche product.  It still might sell millions, but with netbook/laptop sales in the <b>billions</b>, it will still be a drop in the bucket.</p><p>Basically, if Apple compromises frame rate by using e-Ink to extend battery life, then it won't have any of the video features of an iPhone.  If they use a display that updates quickly, then the battery life will make this a poor eBook reader (especially at 2x-3x the price of existing ones).  Last, if they lock in to an "app store" concept, then there will probably be a lot less useful software (like nothing to compete with any Apple products).</p><p>So, it's likely this will be a big announcement and the product might be good, and will almost certainly make Apple a great deal of money, but it's going to compete with too many markets to be more than a minor player in the grand scheme of things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different .
The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done .
The UI CHANGES to suit the task.For a device as small as the iPhone with a limited OS , a modal interface that changes with the mode is really the only way to go.The reason the " desktop " metaphor works for computers is because they have larger screens and multitask.So , regardless of how amazing an Apple tablet might be , if it ca n't compete significantly with portable computers of the same size , then it will be a niche product .
It still might sell millions , but with netbook/laptop sales in the billions , it will still be a drop in the bucket.Basically , if Apple compromises frame rate by using e-Ink to extend battery life , then it wo n't have any of the video features of an iPhone .
If they use a display that updates quickly , then the battery life will make this a poor eBook reader ( especially at 2x-3x the price of existing ones ) .
Last , if they lock in to an " app store " concept , then there will probably be a lot less useful software ( like nothing to compete with any Apple products ) .So , it 's likely this will be a big announcement and the product might be good , and will almost certainly make Apple a great deal of money , but it 's going to compete with too many markets to be more than a minor player in the grand scheme of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different.
The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done.
The UI CHANGES to suit the task.For a device as small as the iPhone with a limited OS, a modal interface that changes with the mode is really the only way to go.The reason the "desktop" metaphor works for computers is because they have larger screens and multitask.So, regardless of how amazing an Apple tablet might be, if it can't compete significantly with portable computers of the same size, then it will be a niche product.
It still might sell millions, but with netbook/laptop sales in the billions, it will still be a drop in the bucket.Basically, if Apple compromises frame rate by using e-Ink to extend battery life, then it won't have any of the video features of an iPhone.
If they use a display that updates quickly, then the battery life will make this a poor eBook reader (especially at 2x-3x the price of existing ones).
Last, if they lock in to an "app store" concept, then there will probably be a lot less useful software (like nothing to compete with any Apple products).So, it's likely this will be a big announcement and the product might be good, and will almost certainly make Apple a great deal of money, but it's going to compete with too many markets to be more than a minor player in the grand scheme of things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851648</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but it isn't a story at all until a product is released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but it is n't a story at all until a product is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but it isn't a story at all until a product is released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851952</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1264070220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface?</p></div><p>A five year old can use it, but it doesn't feel or look childish.</p><p>That's it in a nutshell. The interface is pure interface design sweetness. It's a bit like a great music piece - you can't analyse why it's so great because the greatness isn't in the individual notes or pitches or tempo changes, it's in the sum total and how everything fits together just perfectly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please ) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface ? A five year old can use it , but it does n't feel or look childish.That 's it in a nutshell .
The interface is pure interface design sweetness .
It 's a bit like a great music piece - you ca n't analyse why it 's so great because the greatness is n't in the individual notes or pitches or tempo changes , it 's in the sum total and how everything fits together just perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface?A five year old can use it, but it doesn't feel or look childish.That's it in a nutshell.
The interface is pure interface design sweetness.
It's a bit like a great music piece - you can't analyse why it's so great because the greatness isn't in the individual notes or pitches or tempo changes, it's in the sum total and how everything fits together just perfectly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849384</id>
	<title>Silly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are the facts - if Apple releases what is just a big iPhone it will be boring. If they do something really new, it will be buggy, and if they use OSX, then it will be more of the same. And no matter what they release, it will cost too much for anyone to spend too much time caring about...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are the facts - if Apple releases what is just a big iPhone it will be boring .
If they do something really new , it will be buggy , and if they use OSX , then it will be more of the same .
And no matter what they release , it will cost too much for anyone to spend too much time caring about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are the facts - if Apple releases what is just a big iPhone it will be boring.
If they do something really new, it will be buggy, and if they use OSX, then it will be more of the same.
And no matter what they release, it will cost too much for anyone to spend too much time caring about...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849560</id>
	<title>Slashvertising in full effect</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1264105200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the <b>sixth</b> article <b>this month</b> on Slashdot directly relating to a <b>apple</b> {vaporware} <b>tablet</b>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the sixth article this month on Slashdot directly relating to a apple { vaporware } tablet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the sixth article this month on Slashdot directly relating to a apple {vaporware} tablet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850352</id>
	<title>Finger friendly development is the revolution</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264065240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having endured through tons of interfaces that required a stylus to properly operate, the iPhone was the first that combined a "finger friendly" environment with sleek hardware and the ability to plug into the apple ecosystem.</p><p>I lived through various early versions of Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Windows Mobile on Palm, blackberry, and Good Technology (exchange connectivity many years ago before Microsoft built it into the product).</p><p>At the time they were all great since that was the best we had.  Once iPhone came out, all those other solutions felt like ancient technology.</p><p>A similar phenomenon happened with the iPod.  MP3 players were around long before iPod, and they were cool, since that is all we had.  Once iPod came out, all prior MP3 players looked clunky and old.</p><p>Apple has a habit of setting the bar for design, and a couple of years later, once everyone else catches up, people think that the state of the art always used to be this way.  In reality, many technologies did exist before Apple did their version, but Apple has a way of raising the design standard, and forcing others to raise theirs.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having endured through tons of interfaces that required a stylus to properly operate , the iPhone was the first that combined a " finger friendly " environment with sleek hardware and the ability to plug into the apple ecosystem.I lived through various early versions of Windows Mobile , Palm OS , Windows Mobile on Palm , blackberry , and Good Technology ( exchange connectivity many years ago before Microsoft built it into the product ) .At the time they were all great since that was the best we had .
Once iPhone came out , all those other solutions felt like ancient technology.A similar phenomenon happened with the iPod .
MP3 players were around long before iPod , and they were cool , since that is all we had .
Once iPod came out , all prior MP3 players looked clunky and old.Apple has a habit of setting the bar for design , and a couple of years later , once everyone else catches up , people think that the state of the art always used to be this way .
In reality , many technologies did exist before Apple did their version , but Apple has a way of raising the design standard , and forcing others to raise theirs.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having endured through tons of interfaces that required a stylus to properly operate, the iPhone was the first that combined a "finger friendly" environment with sleek hardware and the ability to plug into the apple ecosystem.I lived through various early versions of Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Windows Mobile on Palm, blackberry, and Good Technology (exchange connectivity many years ago before Microsoft built it into the product).At the time they were all great since that was the best we had.
Once iPhone came out, all those other solutions felt like ancient technology.A similar phenomenon happened with the iPod.
MP3 players were around long before iPod, and they were cool, since that is all we had.
Once iPod came out, all prior MP3 players looked clunky and old.Apple has a habit of setting the bar for design, and a couple of years later, once everyone else catches up, people think that the state of the art always used to be this way.
In reality, many technologies did exist before Apple did their version, but Apple has a way of raising the design standard, and forcing others to raise theirs.-ted</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853104</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>jedwidz</author>
	<datestamp>1264073940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my perspective, the iPhone really is a revolution in easy-to-use, intuitive user interface design.</p><p>At 20 months old my son could pick up an iPhone, unlock it, start apps, browse videos and play games.</p><p>Six months later, I'm still trying to explain to him the relationship between the touchpad and a little arrow on the screen - before we even get to clicking things, opening the 'Start' menu, etc, etc, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective , the iPhone really is a revolution in easy-to-use , intuitive user interface design.At 20 months old my son could pick up an iPhone , unlock it , start apps , browse videos and play games.Six months later , I 'm still trying to explain to him the relationship between the touchpad and a little arrow on the screen - before we even get to clicking things , opening the 'Start ' menu , etc , etc , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective, the iPhone really is a revolution in easy-to-use, intuitive user interface design.At 20 months old my son could pick up an iPhone, unlock it, start apps, browse videos and play games.Six months later, I'm still trying to explain to him the relationship between the touchpad and a little arrow on the screen - before we even get to clicking things, opening the 'Start' menu, etc, etc, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857642</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264157340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're looking too closely.</p><p>Assume the perfect interface is one that can read your intent directly from your mind.</p><p>Can you think of any other interface that comes as close to this as the IPhone's?</p><p>Never has it been more natural to express your intent to a device, or even close to as natural.</p><p>So it is the shortest path to your mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're looking too closely.Assume the perfect interface is one that can read your intent directly from your mind.Can you think of any other interface that comes as close to this as the IPhone 's ? Never has it been more natural to express your intent to a device , or even close to as natural.So it is the shortest path to your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're looking too closely.Assume the perfect interface is one that can read your intent directly from your mind.Can you think of any other interface that comes as close to this as the IPhone's?Never has it been more natural to express your intent to a device, or even close to as natural.So it is the shortest path to your mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850686</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1264066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I mean, there's speculation about it showing up on gaming blogs.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Gosh, the successor to one of the most prolific gaming devices ever released is 7 days away from announcement and someone wants to talk about it on a gaming blog?  The horror!  Seriously, all the game titles released for all the other current platforms put together equal the amount of titles released for the iPhone OS.  Sure, a lot of them are free indie toys of questionable quantity, but it's still a must-have device for any gaming enthusiast.  And a tablet strikes me as something that could easily become a critical aspect of much tabletop gaming in the near future.</p><p>Criticisms on excessive speculation on specs, form factors, operating systems, and manufacturers of the tablet seem warranted-- the gaming one is one of the few that actually DOES make sense to me, along with publishing and input devices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , there 's speculation about it showing up on gaming blogs .
Gosh , the successor to one of the most prolific gaming devices ever released is 7 days away from announcement and someone wants to talk about it on a gaming blog ?
The horror !
Seriously , all the game titles released for all the other current platforms put together equal the amount of titles released for the iPhone OS .
Sure , a lot of them are free indie toys of questionable quantity , but it 's still a must-have device for any gaming enthusiast .
And a tablet strikes me as something that could easily become a critical aspect of much tabletop gaming in the near future.Criticisms on excessive speculation on specs , form factors , operating systems , and manufacturers of the tablet seem warranted-- the gaming one is one of the few that actually DOES make sense to me , along with publishing and input devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, there's speculation about it showing up on gaming blogs.
Gosh, the successor to one of the most prolific gaming devices ever released is 7 days away from announcement and someone wants to talk about it on a gaming blog?
The horror!
Seriously, all the game titles released for all the other current platforms put together equal the amount of titles released for the iPhone OS.
Sure, a lot of them are free indie toys of questionable quantity, but it's still a must-have device for any gaming enthusiast.
And a tablet strikes me as something that could easily become a critical aspect of much tabletop gaming in the near future.Criticisms on excessive speculation on specs, form factors, operating systems, and manufacturers of the tablet seem warranted-- the gaming one is one of the few that actually DOES make sense to me, along with publishing and input devices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853258</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>7Prime</author>
	<datestamp>1264074480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Desktop" and "File" and "Folder" metaphores are arbitrary, yes, but the basic concept of "hierarchies" is incredibly important, and undeniably required for larger-scale work. Unless we suggest that larger-scale project management is simply not going to occur (which is idiotic), than hierarchies are inevitable. Weather or not we call a sub section of a hierarchy a "file" or a "widget" or a "twig" is quite irrelivant.</p><p>The problem is that it's "hierarchies" that people have problem with it, but on the flip side it's "hierarchies" that are exactly what's required. People may not enjoy taking responsibility for their own organization, but to do sophisticated work on a computer, it is absolutely essential.</p><p>Fuck the "desktop", I really could care less one way or the other. Long ago I stopped thinking about it having anything to do with the hard wood covering of a piece office furniture. The basic premise, is that people are sick of hierarchies. But hey, we're also sick of cleaning and organizing our bedrooms too... that's not going to change anytime soon. I suggest we just get used to it, or allow our lives to become completely disorganized altogether.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Desktop " and " File " and " Folder " metaphores are arbitrary , yes , but the basic concept of " hierarchies " is incredibly important , and undeniably required for larger-scale work .
Unless we suggest that larger-scale project management is simply not going to occur ( which is idiotic ) , than hierarchies are inevitable .
Weather or not we call a sub section of a hierarchy a " file " or a " widget " or a " twig " is quite irrelivant.The problem is that it 's " hierarchies " that people have problem with it , but on the flip side it 's " hierarchies " that are exactly what 's required .
People may not enjoy taking responsibility for their own organization , but to do sophisticated work on a computer , it is absolutely essential.Fuck the " desktop " , I really could care less one way or the other .
Long ago I stopped thinking about it having anything to do with the hard wood covering of a piece office furniture .
The basic premise , is that people are sick of hierarchies .
But hey , we 're also sick of cleaning and organizing our bedrooms too... that 's not going to change anytime soon .
I suggest we just get used to it , or allow our lives to become completely disorganized altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Desktop" and "File" and "Folder" metaphores are arbitrary, yes, but the basic concept of "hierarchies" is incredibly important, and undeniably required for larger-scale work.
Unless we suggest that larger-scale project management is simply not going to occur (which is idiotic), than hierarchies are inevitable.
Weather or not we call a sub section of a hierarchy a "file" or a "widget" or a "twig" is quite irrelivant.The problem is that it's "hierarchies" that people have problem with it, but on the flip side it's "hierarchies" that are exactly what's required.
People may not enjoy taking responsibility for their own organization, but to do sophisticated work on a computer, it is absolutely essential.Fuck the "desktop", I really could care less one way or the other.
Long ago I stopped thinking about it having anything to do with the hard wood covering of a piece office furniture.
The basic premise, is that people are sick of hierarchies.
But hey, we're also sick of cleaning and organizing our bedrooms too... that's not going to change anytime soon.
I suggest we just get used to it, or allow our lives to become completely disorganized altogether.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154</id>
	<title>Desktop going away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article author seems to think that the iPhone interface is going to take over everything.  That the app-that-takes-over-the-whole-screen paradigm is the universal solution to all computing.</p><p>We did that, twenty years ago.  As soon as we developed computers powerful enough to multitask, we did.  And I don't mean playing music in the background, but running multiple programs at once and interacting with them.  For a small screen mobile device the one app at a time paradigm is pretty much mandatory.  For larger screens, you want to see multiple things at a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article author seems to think that the iPhone interface is going to take over everything .
That the app-that-takes-over-the-whole-screen paradigm is the universal solution to all computing.We did that , twenty years ago .
As soon as we developed computers powerful enough to multitask , we did .
And I do n't mean playing music in the background , but running multiple programs at once and interacting with them .
For a small screen mobile device the one app at a time paradigm is pretty much mandatory .
For larger screens , you want to see multiple things at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article author seems to think that the iPhone interface is going to take over everything.
That the app-that-takes-over-the-whole-screen paradigm is the universal solution to all computing.We did that, twenty years ago.
As soon as we developed computers powerful enough to multitask, we did.
And I don't mean playing music in the background, but running multiple programs at once and interacting with them.
For a small screen mobile device the one app at a time paradigm is pretty much mandatory.
For larger screens, you want to see multiple things at a time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849416</id>
	<title>Re:...and another thing.</title>
	<author>WilliamBaughman</author>
	<datestamp>1264104600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consistency doesn't necessarily mean "stays the same," it can mean "does the same thing, the same way."  Take OXO Good Grips, for example.  A different tool for every task, but the handles are always black and little squishy so even people who have never cored a pineapple know how to hold the tool.</p><p>If a UI changes to suit a task, that's ok.  The UI in the iPhone is constantly changing, but a button shaped like an arrow pointing to the right always opens a sub-menu.  Selecting a text box always brings up a keyboard.  And it gets more specialized than that, but not more confusing.  If you're typing in a field that expects an email address, you get a ".com" button.  I haven't seen anyone look at the ".com" button and freak out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consistency does n't necessarily mean " stays the same , " it can mean " does the same thing , the same way .
" Take OXO Good Grips , for example .
A different tool for every task , but the handles are always black and little squishy so even people who have never cored a pineapple know how to hold the tool.If a UI changes to suit a task , that 's ok. The UI in the iPhone is constantly changing , but a button shaped like an arrow pointing to the right always opens a sub-menu .
Selecting a text box always brings up a keyboard .
And it gets more specialized than that , but not more confusing .
If you 're typing in a field that expects an email address , you get a " .com " button .
I have n't seen anyone look at the " .com " button and freak out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consistency doesn't necessarily mean "stays the same," it can mean "does the same thing, the same way.
"  Take OXO Good Grips, for example.
A different tool for every task, but the handles are always black and little squishy so even people who have never cored a pineapple know how to hold the tool.If a UI changes to suit a task, that's ok.  The UI in the iPhone is constantly changing, but a button shaped like an arrow pointing to the right always opens a sub-menu.
Selecting a text box always brings up a keyboard.
And it gets more specialized than that, but not more confusing.
If you're typing in a field that expects an email address, you get a ".com" button.
I haven't seen anyone look at the ".com" button and freak out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848922</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264102500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In another camp, there are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff, thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface that nobody can imagine now, one that will bring universal love, world peace and pancakes for everyone</p></div><p>We HAVE 3D interfaces projected onto the 2D space of a multi-touch screen, which makes for some pretty awesome experimental stuff. And who knows, maybe Apple will be the one to do it, maybe it'll be the Open Source Community.</p><p>Just because it seems unfathomable to you doesn't mean it isn't possible. I mean the whole love, peace, and pancakes is probably impossible, but not the interface part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In another camp , there are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff , thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface that nobody can imagine now , one that will bring universal love , world peace and pancakes for everyoneWe HAVE 3D interfaces projected onto the 2D space of a multi-touch screen , which makes for some pretty awesome experimental stuff .
And who knows , maybe Apple will be the one to do it , maybe it 'll be the Open Source Community.Just because it seems unfathomable to you does n't mean it is n't possible .
I mean the whole love , peace , and pancakes is probably impossible , but not the interface part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In another camp, there are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff, thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface that nobody can imagine now, one that will bring universal love, world peace and pancakes for everyoneWe HAVE 3D interfaces projected onto the 2D space of a multi-touch screen, which makes for some pretty awesome experimental stuff.
And who knows, maybe Apple will be the one to do it, maybe it'll be the Open Source Community.Just because it seems unfathomable to you doesn't mean it isn't possible.
I mean the whole love, peace, and pancakes is probably impossible, but not the interface part.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851054</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>NotPeteMcCabe</author>
	<datestamp>1264067640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been reading Apple Tablet stories on slashdot for five years</p></div><p>
Why do you keep reading them? It's not like they're secretly given misleading summaries.</p><p> I don't like hockey but I don't go around on NHLBLOG.COM telling everybody to shut up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading Apple Tablet stories on slashdot for five years Why do you keep reading them ?
It 's not like they 're secretly given misleading summaries .
I do n't like hockey but I do n't go around on NHLBLOG.COM telling everybody to shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading Apple Tablet stories on slashdot for five years
Why do you keep reading them?
It's not like they're secretly given misleading summaries.
I don't like hockey but I don't go around on NHLBLOG.COM telling everybody to shut up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849330</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1264104300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I get that the idea of an Apple tablet is intriguing, but is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world? I mean, there's speculation about it showing up on <em>gaming</em> blogs. Lots of these articles are genuine, but I'm starting to smell a little astroturf too.</p></div><p>It's the biggest story in personal electronics for the next 6 days. After the iPod and the iPhone, Apple coming out with a new product is a major deal - particularly in how it influences the already existing markets of, respectively, music players, smartphones, and tablets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get that the idea of an Apple tablet is intriguing , but is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world ?
I mean , there 's speculation about it showing up on gaming blogs .
Lots of these articles are genuine , but I 'm starting to smell a little astroturf too.It 's the biggest story in personal electronics for the next 6 days .
After the iPod and the iPhone , Apple coming out with a new product is a major deal - particularly in how it influences the already existing markets of , respectively , music players , smartphones , and tablets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get that the idea of an Apple tablet is intriguing, but is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world?
I mean, there's speculation about it showing up on gaming blogs.
Lots of these articles are genuine, but I'm starting to smell a little astroturf too.It's the biggest story in personal electronics for the next 6 days.
After the iPod and the iPhone, Apple coming out with a new product is a major deal - particularly in how it influences the already existing markets of, respectively, music players, smartphones, and tablets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30868530</id>
	<title>Re:but can it</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1264248660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure it will run BSD, so I'm guessing it can run Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure it will run BSD , so I 'm guessing it can run Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure it will run BSD, so I'm guessing it can run Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852684</id>
	<title>No!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>am I still going to be reading Apple Tablet might-have stories on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. in 2015</p></div><p>Of course not!  By then, you'll be reading them on your iPad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>am I still going to be reading Apple Tablet might-have stories on / .
in 2015Of course not !
By then , you 'll be reading them on your iPad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>am I still going to be reading Apple Tablet might-have stories on /.
in 2015Of course not!
By then, you'll be reading them on your iPad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853306</id>
	<title>Re:Data Entry</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1264074720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a thought:<br>You don't use one device for all tasks.</p><p>Heavy data entry: Desktop<br>Pull up the recipe you're trying to make in the kitchen: tablet....especially if it's waterproof.</p><p>Tablets don't have to do everything you'd do with a desktop.  They just have to do some things much, much better than a desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a thought : You do n't use one device for all tasks.Heavy data entry : DesktopPull up the recipe you 're trying to make in the kitchen : tablet....especially if it 's waterproof.Tablets do n't have to do everything you 'd do with a desktop .
They just have to do some things much , much better than a desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a thought:You don't use one device for all tasks.Heavy data entry: DesktopPull up the recipe you're trying to make in the kitchen: tablet....especially if it's waterproof.Tablets don't have to do everything you'd do with a desktop.
They just have to do some things much, much better than a desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854432</id>
	<title>Re:Desktop going away?</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1264079640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do so many people run their Windows apps with maximized windows all the time then? The thing is that most people (I mean most "normal" people) do *not* like to see multiple things at a time. They want to see only one thing at a time and that's the thing they're currently looking at or working with.</p><p>And I have to say in most cases I agree with them. There are cases where it is really useful to see more than one thing at a time, but this mostly limited to real work. In reality the teeming complexity of user interfaces is just a sign of the developers being lazy and thinking "let the user sort out this mess".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do so many people run their Windows apps with maximized windows all the time then ?
The thing is that most people ( I mean most " normal " people ) do * not * like to see multiple things at a time .
They want to see only one thing at a time and that 's the thing they 're currently looking at or working with.And I have to say in most cases I agree with them .
There are cases where it is really useful to see more than one thing at a time , but this mostly limited to real work .
In reality the teeming complexity of user interfaces is just a sign of the developers being lazy and thinking " let the user sort out this mess " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do so many people run their Windows apps with maximized windows all the time then?
The thing is that most people (I mean most "normal" people) do *not* like to see multiple things at a time.
They want to see only one thing at a time and that's the thing they're currently looking at or working with.And I have to say in most cases I agree with them.
There are cases where it is really useful to see more than one thing at a time, but this mostly limited to real work.
In reality the teeming complexity of user interfaces is just a sign of the developers being lazy and thinking "let the user sort out this mess".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856282</id>
	<title>Re:We'll see.</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1264094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our savior from this scenario? The RIAA, MPAA and global affiliates. By holding Apple at arms length from total control over sales of videos and music, Apple was forced to cut their store into Apps and iTunes. In my country the iTunes deal is stalled, not available. Ah well, not that I would buy any of that crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our savior from this scenario ?
The RIAA , MPAA and global affiliates .
By holding Apple at arms length from total control over sales of videos and music , Apple was forced to cut their store into Apps and iTunes .
In my country the iTunes deal is stalled , not available .
Ah well , not that I would buy any of that crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our savior from this scenario?
The RIAA, MPAA and global affiliates.
By holding Apple at arms length from total control over sales of videos and music, Apple was forced to cut their store into Apps and iTunes.
In my country the iTunes deal is stalled, not available.
Ah well, not that I would buy any of that crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30888638</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fail. This subculture now has 1 nominations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail .
This subculture now has 1 nominations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail.
This subculture now has 1 nominations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854068</id>
	<title>Best Interface for the "iPad"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264077720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm the best interface Apple could put in the "iPad" would be the standard MacOS X one, with a nice gesture to bring up the On screen keyboard. The best things for the "App" devs would be OSX as well. best for the consumer(best==most choice) is again OSX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm the best interface Apple could put in the " iPad " would be the standard MacOS X one , with a nice gesture to bring up the On screen keyboard .
The best things for the " App " devs would be OSX as well .
best for the consumer ( best = = most choice ) is again OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm the best interface Apple could put in the "iPad" would be the standard MacOS X one, with a nice gesture to bring up the On screen keyboard.
The best things for the "App" devs would be OSX as well.
best for the consumer(best==most choice) is again OSX.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857270</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1264193760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it might be something like this for the Apple press crowd. Coming up to schristmas - new stuff - umm, well we got the 27" iMac, I mean who would have guessed that Apple would just keep making their flagship all-in-one bigger? and, um, some new CPUs. Oh, and may be a new tablet! Yes lets write about that! Afterall we can print 10 stories that contadict one another and it doesnt matter! And it gets eyeballs on our ads!</p><p>For me, I'm happy using the tablet I bought 4 years ago. What am I expecting from a new tablet? Everything my current HP TC4400 can do, but smaller, lighter, and better batterylife please. What is my use for a tablet - mobile coms and remote desktop console, note taking, and control console for switches when I actually have to go and visit them in a riser. It can run Windows 7, Linux, and at a pinch OS X - but wifi doesnt work on that, have to add a card. I can replace the HDD and memory to keep this aging clunker going along, and surprisingly, Windows 7 gave this a whole new lease of life. XP Tablet was crap, Vista was far too slow, now Linux and Win7 sit happily side by side - Linux boots slightly faster, but the crappy performance of the intel propriatary GMA950 video drivers in linux mean WIn7 feels a little better generally, but is missing many of the tools I use daily.</p><p>So I hope if Apple make a tablet, it is more like the modbook rather than a super-sized iPhone, but I bet I'm going to be dissapointed on that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it might be something like this for the Apple press crowd .
Coming up to schristmas - new stuff - umm , well we got the 27 " iMac , I mean who would have guessed that Apple would just keep making their flagship all-in-one bigger ?
and , um , some new CPUs .
Oh , and may be a new tablet !
Yes lets write about that !
Afterall we can print 10 stories that contadict one another and it doesnt matter !
And it gets eyeballs on our ads ! For me , I 'm happy using the tablet I bought 4 years ago .
What am I expecting from a new tablet ?
Everything my current HP TC4400 can do , but smaller , lighter , and better batterylife please .
What is my use for a tablet - mobile coms and remote desktop console , note taking , and control console for switches when I actually have to go and visit them in a riser .
It can run Windows 7 , Linux , and at a pinch OS X - but wifi doesnt work on that , have to add a card .
I can replace the HDD and memory to keep this aging clunker going along , and surprisingly , Windows 7 gave this a whole new lease of life .
XP Tablet was crap , Vista was far too slow , now Linux and Win7 sit happily side by side - Linux boots slightly faster , but the crappy performance of the intel propriatary GMA950 video drivers in linux mean WIn7 feels a little better generally , but is missing many of the tools I use daily.So I hope if Apple make a tablet , it is more like the modbook rather than a super-sized iPhone , but I bet I 'm going to be dissapointed on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it might be something like this for the Apple press crowd.
Coming up to schristmas - new stuff - umm, well we got the 27" iMac, I mean who would have guessed that Apple would just keep making their flagship all-in-one bigger?
and, um, some new CPUs.
Oh, and may be a new tablet!
Yes lets write about that!
Afterall we can print 10 stories that contadict one another and it doesnt matter!
And it gets eyeballs on our ads!For me, I'm happy using the tablet I bought 4 years ago.
What am I expecting from a new tablet?
Everything my current HP TC4400 can do, but smaller, lighter, and better batterylife please.
What is my use for a tablet - mobile coms and remote desktop console, note taking, and control console for switches when I actually have to go and visit them in a riser.
It can run Windows 7, Linux, and at a pinch OS X - but wifi doesnt work on that, have to add a card.
I can replace the HDD and memory to keep this aging clunker going along, and surprisingly, Windows 7 gave this a whole new lease of life.
XP Tablet was crap, Vista was far too slow, now Linux and Win7 sit happily side by side - Linux boots slightly faster, but the crappy performance of the intel propriatary GMA950 video drivers in linux mean WIn7 feels a little better generally, but is missing many of the tools I use daily.So I hope if Apple make a tablet, it is more like the modbook rather than a super-sized iPhone, but I bet I'm going to be dissapointed on that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849096</id>
	<title>eBook++</title>
	<author>pavon</author>
	<datestamp>1264103220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I see it tablet:eBook as smartphone:cell phone.</p><p>I have been looking more and more into getting an eBook reader for various reasons. The low power consumption and reflective display puts them into a completely different class of devices than laptops or notebooks in my opinion. But then the feature-creep ideas start coming. It would be really nice to be able to take notes on it as well, and keep a calendar, and browse the web, and view maps, etc. An eBook reader that had good touch screen support, and an open development environment would push me from "thinking about it" to "gotta have it". That is why the Nook and and other recent tablet designs that are more inspired by eBook/netbooks have really been catching my eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I see it tablet : eBook as smartphone : cell phone.I have been looking more and more into getting an eBook reader for various reasons .
The low power consumption and reflective display puts them into a completely different class of devices than laptops or notebooks in my opinion .
But then the feature-creep ideas start coming .
It would be really nice to be able to take notes on it as well , and keep a calendar , and browse the web , and view maps , etc .
An eBook reader that had good touch screen support , and an open development environment would push me from " thinking about it " to " got ta have it " .
That is why the Nook and and other recent tablet designs that are more inspired by eBook/netbooks have really been catching my eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I see it tablet:eBook as smartphone:cell phone.I have been looking more and more into getting an eBook reader for various reasons.
The low power consumption and reflective display puts them into a completely different class of devices than laptops or notebooks in my opinion.
But then the feature-creep ideas start coming.
It would be really nice to be able to take notes on it as well, and keep a calendar, and browse the web, and view maps, etc.
An eBook reader that had good touch screen support, and an open development environment would push me from "thinking about it" to "gotta have it".
That is why the Nook and and other recent tablet designs that are more inspired by eBook/netbooks have really been catching my eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850064</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264107300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I look at the common network drive for my company, which holds all the files, folders, procedures, manuals, forms, and references required for company operations, I *certainly* dispair of files/folder hierarchies.  They suck for more than a few files and/or folders.  This kind of organization scales horribly.</p><p>Humans tend to do a lot of things naturally.  Not all of them are good.  They're just easy.  Big difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I look at the common network drive for my company , which holds all the files , folders , procedures , manuals , forms , and references required for company operations , I * certainly * dispair of files/folder hierarchies .
They suck for more than a few files and/or folders .
This kind of organization scales horribly.Humans tend to do a lot of things naturally .
Not all of them are good .
They 're just easy .
Big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I look at the common network drive for my company, which holds all the files, folders, procedures, manuals, forms, and references required for company operations, I *certainly* dispair of files/folder hierarchies.
They suck for more than a few files and/or folders.
This kind of organization scales horribly.Humans tend to do a lot of things naturally.
Not all of them are good.
They're just easy.
Big difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854258</id>
	<title>Keyboard speed, tested</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1264078680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an interesting speed comparison of: A full-size QWERTY keyboard, the Apple iPhone 3G&rsquo;s software QWERTY keyboard (2009), the Palm Treo 650&rsquo;s hardware QWERTY keyboard (2004),  pen and paper, the Apple Newton MessagePad 2100&rsquo;s handwriting recognition (1997), and the Palm Vx&rsquo;s Graffiti (1999).</p><p>The full-size keyboard was fastest, the iPhone keyboard (in portrait orientation) was second (about one third slower), than came the rest (order as above). At least in this test the iPhone keyboard was faster than both the Palm Treo hardware keyboard *and* pen and paper.</p><p><a href="http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2010/01/18/input.php" title="gyford.com">http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2010/01/18/input.php</a> [gyford.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an interesting speed comparison of : A full-size QWERTY keyboard , the Apple iPhone 3G    s software QWERTY keyboard ( 2009 ) , the Palm Treo 650    s hardware QWERTY keyboard ( 2004 ) , pen and paper , the Apple Newton MessagePad 2100    s handwriting recognition ( 1997 ) , and the Palm Vx    s Graffiti ( 1999 ) .The full-size keyboard was fastest , the iPhone keyboard ( in portrait orientation ) was second ( about one third slower ) , than came the rest ( order as above ) .
At least in this test the iPhone keyboard was faster than both the Palm Treo hardware keyboard * and * pen and paper.http : //www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2010/01/18/input.php [ gyford.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an interesting speed comparison of: A full-size QWERTY keyboard, the Apple iPhone 3G’s software QWERTY keyboard (2009), the Palm Treo 650’s hardware QWERTY keyboard (2004),  pen and paper, the Apple Newton MessagePad 2100’s handwriting recognition (1997), and the Palm Vx’s Graffiti (1999).The full-size keyboard was fastest, the iPhone keyboard (in portrait orientation) was second (about one third slower), than came the rest (order as above).
At least in this test the iPhone keyboard was faster than both the Palm Treo hardware keyboard *and* pen and paper.http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2010/01/18/input.php [gyford.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853126</id>
	<title>Re:We'll see.</title>
	<author>7Prime</author>
	<datestamp>1264074060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Explain to me, then, how, if they're going to get me to buy a tablet to replace my mac, they're going to allow me to operate my recording studio running Digital Performer married with NI Kontakt, with music written in Sibelius notation software, album art created in Photoshop, all organized by project?</p><p>Yes, the iPhone OS is great for simple communcation, but when you get into the serious business of project workflow, and use many different applications communicating with each other in tandum to output one finished product, the "grab bag" organization of the iPhone does not begin to cut it. You don't even have to go to my extreme to reach the level of complexity that the iPhone can't handle it. We're all doing projects and hobbies on the laptop/desktop that require this type of cross application organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain to me , then , how , if they 're going to get me to buy a tablet to replace my mac , they 're going to allow me to operate my recording studio running Digital Performer married with NI Kontakt , with music written in Sibelius notation software , album art created in Photoshop , all organized by project ? Yes , the iPhone OS is great for simple communcation , but when you get into the serious business of project workflow , and use many different applications communicating with each other in tandum to output one finished product , the " grab bag " organization of the iPhone does not begin to cut it .
You do n't even have to go to my extreme to reach the level of complexity that the iPhone ca n't handle it .
We 're all doing projects and hobbies on the laptop/desktop that require this type of cross application organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain to me, then, how, if they're going to get me to buy a tablet to replace my mac, they're going to allow me to operate my recording studio running Digital Performer married with NI Kontakt, with music written in Sibelius notation software, album art created in Photoshop, all organized by project?Yes, the iPhone OS is great for simple communcation, but when you get into the serious business of project workflow, and use many different applications communicating with each other in tandum to output one finished product, the "grab bag" organization of the iPhone does not begin to cut it.
You don't even have to go to my extreme to reach the level of complexity that the iPhone can't handle it.
We're all doing projects and hobbies on the laptop/desktop that require this type of cross application organization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853858</id>
	<title>Re:Desktop going away?</title>
	<author>7Prime</author>
	<datestamp>1264076760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree. Multipul programs open at the same time is nice, but in actuality, it really isn't that neccessary. As long as one can switch between them seemlessly, you can accomplish all the same tasks. Many people, even power users, only look at one window at a time, and then switch between them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
Multipul programs open at the same time is nice , but in actuality , it really is n't that neccessary .
As long as one can switch between them seemlessly , you can accomplish all the same tasks .
Many people , even power users , only look at one window at a time , and then switch between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
Multipul programs open at the same time is nice, but in actuality, it really isn't that neccessary.
As long as one can switch between them seemlessly, you can accomplish all the same tasks.
Many people, even power users, only look at one window at a time, and then switch between them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851078</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I second this notion.  Most people understand physical file cabinets.  Computer file systems are modeled after real world entities that most everyone understands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I second this notion .
Most people understand physical file cabinets .
Computer file systems are modeled after real world entities that most everyone understands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I second this notion.
Most people understand physical file cabinets.
Computer file systems are modeled after real world entities that most everyone understands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850368</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264065240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface?</i></p><p>It has no buttons and does not use a stylus.  Can't think of another UI like that before the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please ) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface ? It has no buttons and does not use a stylus .
Ca n't think of another UI like that before the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please SERIOUSLY ( no pro or anti apple fanaticism please) explain what exactly is so revolutionary about iPhone interface?It has no buttons and does not use a stylus.
Can't think of another UI like that before the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852816</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1264072920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles, but it's still fed from the strategic "leaks" put out by Apple, with the purpose of generating hype.</p></div><p>What evidence do you have for that claim?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles , but it 's still fed from the strategic " leaks " put out by Apple , with the purpose of generating hype.What evidence do you have for that claim ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles, but it's still fed from the strategic "leaks" put out by Apple, with the purpose of generating hype.What evidence do you have for that claim?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852080</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files and folders are too confusing for the novice.</p></div><p>You've not looked on any novice desktop lately, have you? Most non-techies appear to stuff everything important unto the desktop itself. Doesn't look very much as if they "get" folders.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A "normal" person can navigate Virgin Megastore but they can't do the same thing with the same content in files and folders?</p></div><p>A normal person is very well equipped with spatial perception and orientation since it comes with the wetware. File and folder thinking doesn't. It may appear natural to you, but it <b>is</b> an acquired skill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files and folders are too confusing for the novice.You 've not looked on any novice desktop lately , have you ?
Most non-techies appear to stuff everything important unto the desktop itself .
Does n't look very much as if they " get " folders.A " normal " person can navigate Virgin Megastore but they ca n't do the same thing with the same content in files and folders ? A normal person is very well equipped with spatial perception and orientation since it comes with the wetware .
File and folder thinking does n't .
It may appear natural to you , but it is an acquired skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files and folders are too confusing for the novice.You've not looked on any novice desktop lately, have you?
Most non-techies appear to stuff everything important unto the desktop itself.
Doesn't look very much as if they "get" folders.A "normal" person can navigate Virgin Megastore but they can't do the same thing with the same content in files and folders?A normal person is very well equipped with spatial perception and orientation since it comes with the wetware.
File and folder thinking doesn't.
It may appear natural to you, but it is an acquired skill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856232</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Wayne247</author>
	<datestamp>1264094160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well let's see. Last time we all went nuts over what Apple was possibly going to revolutionize a market with a new innovative gadget or not, was when they were 'about to possibly announce a PHONE'.</p><p>What came next? Oh right, a truly innovative phone that revolutionized not only the entire mobile phone market, but the portable-pocket-computer market as well, and then went on to sell millions and millions of those rectangle boxes.</p><p>So yes, the entire world comprised of people interested in technology is buzzing around like crazy because, as the speculations, chances are good that the same company will do it again with something else that will possibly revolutionize a whole market and change a part of our lives as technology yet again makes a leap forward.</p><p>We're excited because it's exciting.</p><p>If this bores you and you can't be bothered until the product is actually out the door, then don't read the stories and don't comment on them. Just scroll down buddy, more stories about Microsoft's hacking vector software is on the way.</p><p>By the way, this is not just 'tech'. The same thing happens with cars as well. Some company may or may not come up with a new innovative product and we all get giddy about it and post countless blogs and forums threads about it. And we love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well let 's see .
Last time we all went nuts over what Apple was possibly going to revolutionize a market with a new innovative gadget or not , was when they were 'about to possibly announce a PHONE'.What came next ?
Oh right , a truly innovative phone that revolutionized not only the entire mobile phone market , but the portable-pocket-computer market as well , and then went on to sell millions and millions of those rectangle boxes.So yes , the entire world comprised of people interested in technology is buzzing around like crazy because , as the speculations , chances are good that the same company will do it again with something else that will possibly revolutionize a whole market and change a part of our lives as technology yet again makes a leap forward.We 're excited because it 's exciting.If this bores you and you ca n't be bothered until the product is actually out the door , then do n't read the stories and do n't comment on them .
Just scroll down buddy , more stories about Microsoft 's hacking vector software is on the way.By the way , this is not just 'tech' .
The same thing happens with cars as well .
Some company may or may not come up with a new innovative product and we all get giddy about it and post countless blogs and forums threads about it .
And we love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well let's see.
Last time we all went nuts over what Apple was possibly going to revolutionize a market with a new innovative gadget or not, was when they were 'about to possibly announce a PHONE'.What came next?
Oh right, a truly innovative phone that revolutionized not only the entire mobile phone market, but the portable-pocket-computer market as well, and then went on to sell millions and millions of those rectangle boxes.So yes, the entire world comprised of people interested in technology is buzzing around like crazy because, as the speculations, chances are good that the same company will do it again with something else that will possibly revolutionize a whole market and change a part of our lives as technology yet again makes a leap forward.We're excited because it's exciting.If this bores you and you can't be bothered until the product is actually out the door, then don't read the stories and don't comment on them.
Just scroll down buddy, more stories about Microsoft's hacking vector software is on the way.By the way, this is not just 'tech'.
The same thing happens with cars as well.
Some company may or may not come up with a new innovative product and we all get giddy about it and post countless blogs and forums threads about it.
And we love it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</id>
	<title>Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1264102860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files<br>and folders are too confusing for the novice. They are a pretty intuitive<br>metaphor and heirarchical organization is something that humans tend to do<br>naturally. A lot of this seems to be mindless fear mongering and I really<br>don't get what the "self interest" is here.</p><p>A "normal" person can navigate Virgin Megastore but they can't do the same<br>thing with the same content in files and folders?</p><p>Nonsense.</p><p>People are being actively discouraged from exploring the interface and gaining<br>any understanding it. This is limiting even with this "revolutionary new UI"<br>that the iphone is supposed to be.</p><p>Even the "databases" that files get sucked into still end up being simple and<br>relatively flat heirarchies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like filesand folders are too confusing for the novice .
They are a pretty intuitivemetaphor and heirarchical organization is something that humans tend to donaturally .
A lot of this seems to be mindless fear mongering and I reallydo n't get what the " self interest " is here.A " normal " person can navigate Virgin Megastore but they ca n't do the samething with the same content in files and folders ? Nonsense.People are being actively discouraged from exploring the interface and gainingany understanding it .
This is limiting even with this " revolutionary new UI " that the iphone is supposed to be.Even the " databases " that files get sucked into still end up being simple andrelatively flat heirarchies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like filesand folders are too confusing for the novice.
They are a pretty intuitivemetaphor and heirarchical organization is something that humans tend to donaturally.
A lot of this seems to be mindless fear mongering and I reallydon't get what the "self interest" is here.A "normal" person can navigate Virgin Megastore but they can't do the samething with the same content in files and folders?Nonsense.People are being actively discouraged from exploring the interface and gainingany understanding it.
This is limiting even with this "revolutionary new UI"that the iphone is supposed to be.Even the "databases" that files get sucked into still end up being simple andrelatively flat heirarchies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855344</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264085880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it isn't.</p><p>It's up to you to prove otherwise - and if you try, please do so without using circular logic (the problem is that it becomes circular: the coverage in the media is used as evidence for it being important, yet the coverage in the media is justified on the grounds that it's allegedly important).</p><p>Plenty of tablet devices are already on the market, including from major tech companies. Even giving Apple <i>one</i> story, when it's actually released (if "it" even exists), would be more than what most tablet releases got. You see, the problem isn't that an Apple product is getting undue attention - it's that they <i>haven't even released anything</i>, and we're getting "news about there possibly being news in the future".</p><p>It's not the biggest story, because right now <b>there isn't a story</b>. Come back in 6 days or whenever the vaporware prophecy predicts, and tell us the story then.</p><p>(The Iphone the 2nd most important thing in tech? Jesus Christ, get a sense of perspective. Check out market share figures before you reply to me.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it is n't.It 's up to you to prove otherwise - and if you try , please do so without using circular logic ( the problem is that it becomes circular : the coverage in the media is used as evidence for it being important , yet the coverage in the media is justified on the grounds that it 's allegedly important ) .Plenty of tablet devices are already on the market , including from major tech companies .
Even giving Apple one story , when it 's actually released ( if " it " even exists ) , would be more than what most tablet releases got .
You see , the problem is n't that an Apple product is getting undue attention - it 's that they have n't even released anything , and we 're getting " news about there possibly being news in the future " .It 's not the biggest story , because right now there is n't a story .
Come back in 6 days or whenever the vaporware prophecy predicts , and tell us the story then .
( The Iphone the 2nd most important thing in tech ?
Jesus Christ , get a sense of perspective .
Check out market share figures before you reply to me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it isn't.It's up to you to prove otherwise - and if you try, please do so without using circular logic (the problem is that it becomes circular: the coverage in the media is used as evidence for it being important, yet the coverage in the media is justified on the grounds that it's allegedly important).Plenty of tablet devices are already on the market, including from major tech companies.
Even giving Apple one story, when it's actually released (if "it" even exists), would be more than what most tablet releases got.
You see, the problem isn't that an Apple product is getting undue attention - it's that they haven't even released anything, and we're getting "news about there possibly being news in the future".It's not the biggest story, because right now there isn't a story.
Come back in 6 days or whenever the vaporware prophecy predicts, and tell us the story then.
(The Iphone the 2nd most important thing in tech?
Jesus Christ, get a sense of perspective.
Check out market share figures before you reply to me.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849316</id>
	<title>Re:...and another thing.</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1264104240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different, etc. The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done. The UI CHANGES to suit the task.<br> <br>

This sounds remarkably like the EXACT OPPOSITE of the sort of "consistency" that's supposed to be the bedrock of "good interfaces".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Not really.  With a device like an iPhone, the user expects to see a defined set of parts of the interface - buttons, dials, movements.  That's the consistent part.  A button is a certain size, gestures are consistent, the various bits of the output (text, graphics, colors) look similar.

<br> <br>
It is the arrangement of the various pieces parts and specific information encoded on them / within them that gives you the application.  If an iPhone app just sat there and did nothing, expecting the user to whistle a specific series of tones before vibrating then displaying some information in Klingon - that would be confusing and would vary from the UI guidelines.<br> <br>
And probably sell thousands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different , etc .
The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done .
The UI CHANGES to suit the task .
This sounds remarkably like the EXACT OPPOSITE of the sort of " consistency " that 's supposed to be the bedrock of " good interfaces " .
Not really .
With a device like an iPhone , the user expects to see a defined set of parts of the interface - buttons , dials , movements .
That 's the consistent part .
A button is a certain size , gestures are consistent , the various bits of the output ( text , graphics , colors ) look similar .
It is the arrangement of the various pieces parts and specific information encoded on them / within them that gives you the application .
If an iPhone app just sat there and did nothing , expecting the user to whistle a specific series of tones before vibrating then displaying some information in Klingon - that would be confusing and would vary from the UI guidelines .
And probably sell thousands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raskin describes this idea of the interface for every task being different, etc.
The device mutates and models itself on whatever is being done.
The UI CHANGES to suit the task.
This sounds remarkably like the EXACT OPPOSITE of the sort of "consistency" that's supposed to be the bedrock of "good interfaces".
Not really.
With a device like an iPhone, the user expects to see a defined set of parts of the interface - buttons, dials, movements.
That's the consistent part.
A button is a certain size, gestures are consistent, the various bits of the output (text, graphics, colors) look similar.
It is the arrangement of the various pieces parts and specific information encoded on them / within them that gives you the application.
If an iPhone app just sat there and did nothing, expecting the user to whistle a specific series of tones before vibrating then displaying some information in Klingon - that would be confusing and would vary from the UI guidelines.
And probably sell thousands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</id>
	<title>yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855970</id>
	<title>Re:...and another thing.</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1264091400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was also thinking this as I read the article. One of the advantages of the Macintosh over Windows has been a higher level of consistency in the interface (particularly for things like command key shortcuts and UI elements).<br>
I remember when Hypercard was introduced, and it was speculated that the more free-format, anything-a-button interface would water-down the Mac's usability. <br>
Well, we all survived that episode, and now we have the iPhone (and speculated tablet) doing the same thing.
<br> I suppose it hinges upon whether the UI gadgets remain obvious and consistent when put into actual apps by developers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was also thinking this as I read the article .
One of the advantages of the Macintosh over Windows has been a higher level of consistency in the interface ( particularly for things like command key shortcuts and UI elements ) .
I remember when Hypercard was introduced , and it was speculated that the more free-format , anything-a-button interface would water-down the Mac 's usability .
Well , we all survived that episode , and now we have the iPhone ( and speculated tablet ) doing the same thing .
I suppose it hinges upon whether the UI gadgets remain obvious and consistent when put into actual apps by developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was also thinking this as I read the article.
One of the advantages of the Macintosh over Windows has been a higher level of consistency in the interface (particularly for things like command key shortcuts and UI elements).
I remember when Hypercard was introduced, and it was speculated that the more free-format, anything-a-button interface would water-down the Mac's usability.
Well, we all survived that episode, and now we have the iPhone (and speculated tablet) doing the same thing.
I suppose it hinges upon whether the UI gadgets remain obvious and consistent when put into actual apps by developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</id>
	<title>The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get that the idea of an Apple tablet is intriguing, but is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world? I mean, there's speculation about it showing up on <em>gaming</em> blogs. Lots of these articles are genuine, but I'm starting to smell a little astroturf too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get that the idea of an Apple tablet is intriguing , but is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world ?
I mean , there 's speculation about it showing up on gaming blogs .
Lots of these articles are genuine , but I 'm starting to smell a little astroturf too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get that the idea of an Apple tablet is intriguing, but is it worth all the stories popping up in the tech world?
I mean, there's speculation about it showing up on gaming blogs.
Lots of these articles are genuine, but I'm starting to smell a little astroturf too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852522</id>
	<title>Re:cloud UI</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1264071960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, Apple is not known to use controlled leaks to drum up insane levels of publicity for their products, ever. How could we ever have stupidly thought that Apple would want to inflate interest in their products?<br> <br>
If you honestly do not think Apple is behind some of this hype, you are not only eating the spoon-fed pablum, you seem to be enjoying the taste as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Apple is not known to use controlled leaks to drum up insane levels of publicity for their products , ever .
How could we ever have stupidly thought that Apple would want to inflate interest in their products ?
If you honestly do not think Apple is behind some of this hype , you are not only eating the spoon-fed pablum , you seem to be enjoying the taste as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Apple is not known to use controlled leaks to drum up insane levels of publicity for their products, ever.
How could we ever have stupidly thought that Apple would want to inflate interest in their products?
If you honestly do not think Apple is behind some of this hype, you are not only eating the spoon-fed pablum, you seem to be enjoying the taste as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1264104780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles, but it's still fed from the strategic "leaks" put out by Apple, with the purpose of generating hype.  So the genuine people writing their genuine articles are actually Apple's PR strategy for getting people to talk about this without them having to make an official announcement.  Of course, when they actually do make the announcement the hype will be so much that the free media coverage Apple will get out of it will be worth more than they would have ever wanted to spend on a pre-promo campaign for it.</p><p>So yeah, the articles are genuine, and it's also astroturfing, even if the authors don't realize they're astroturfing.  Apple speculation is ridiculous and useless.  It doesn't matter what the speculation is, we'll all found out exactly what Apple plans to do, exactly when Apple wants us to find that out, and it will have all of the features that it would have had if no one had been speculating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles , but it 's still fed from the strategic " leaks " put out by Apple , with the purpose of generating hype .
So the genuine people writing their genuine articles are actually Apple 's PR strategy for getting people to talk about this without them having to make an official announcement .
Of course , when they actually do make the announcement the hype will be so much that the free media coverage Apple will get out of it will be worth more than they would have ever wanted to spend on a pre-promo campaign for it.So yeah , the articles are genuine , and it 's also astroturfing , even if the authors do n't realize they 're astroturfing .
Apple speculation is ridiculous and useless .
It does n't matter what the speculation is , we 'll all found out exactly what Apple plans to do , exactly when Apple wants us to find that out , and it will have all of the features that it would have had if no one had been speculating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles, but it's still fed from the strategic "leaks" put out by Apple, with the purpose of generating hype.
So the genuine people writing their genuine articles are actually Apple's PR strategy for getting people to talk about this without them having to make an official announcement.
Of course, when they actually do make the announcement the hype will be so much that the free media coverage Apple will get out of it will be worth more than they would have ever wanted to spend on a pre-promo campaign for it.So yeah, the articles are genuine, and it's also astroturfing, even if the authors don't realize they're astroturfing.
Apple speculation is ridiculous and useless.
It doesn't matter what the speculation is, we'll all found out exactly what Apple plans to do, exactly when Apple wants us to find that out, and it will have all of the features that it would have had if no one had been speculating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855460</id>
	<title>Now Announcing: The iBrick</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264087020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's true enough that a tablet PC that's essentially just a scaled up iPhone would be pretty cool.</i></p><p>Would it though? I mean, for the last ten years people mocked phones that were "huge", even if they were only a few years old. Yet we're now supposed to praise an increase in size, that's like a throwback to the 80s?</p><p>But indeed, as you say, cost is the point. I can see tablets working if they were cheap, but anything running a phone OS, at the price of a laptop, isn't going to compete as a computer. Like the current tablets (e.g., Fujitsu Flepia), it'll be a niche product for people who want an expensive e-book reader that does colour and video.</p><p><i>I guess it'd appeal to a narrow band of Apple nerds; even fewer than bought into the Macbook Air.</i></p><p>Heh, I remember that (most people don't). Tonnes of hype, because it was 1mm smaller than the smallest laptop (as if anyone cared). Then along came netbooks, much smaller at a tenth of the price, and no one mentioned the Air again.</p><p><i>I can't help but think they're cleverer than that. Whatever is coming is going to have to be bigger (in the sense of appealing to the populace rather than a tiny subset of it) than a mere tablet even if they make it super snazzy.</i></p><p>They're cleverer in their marketing. I mean, they released an expensive phone that didn't even have basic features like 3G, Java, MMS, copy/paste, nor did it have smartphone features like multitasking or running any apps from a 3rd party, and it followed years after when most other bog standard phones could already run apps and access the Internet. But it still got hyped endlessly - and does to this day - with people convinced that it sparked some kind of revolution. Apple's total market share in phones today is just a few percent, yet you have people - even on geek forums like Slashdot (indeed, especially here) - who seriously believe that Apple are the market leader, with only Google for competition.</p><p>We have Iphone stories at least once a day. Even if it's bog standard and nothing special, look forward to having daily istale stories too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true enough that a tablet PC that 's essentially just a scaled up iPhone would be pretty cool.Would it though ?
I mean , for the last ten years people mocked phones that were " huge " , even if they were only a few years old .
Yet we 're now supposed to praise an increase in size , that 's like a throwback to the 80s ? But indeed , as you say , cost is the point .
I can see tablets working if they were cheap , but anything running a phone OS , at the price of a laptop , is n't going to compete as a computer .
Like the current tablets ( e.g. , Fujitsu Flepia ) , it 'll be a niche product for people who want an expensive e-book reader that does colour and video.I guess it 'd appeal to a narrow band of Apple nerds ; even fewer than bought into the Macbook Air.Heh , I remember that ( most people do n't ) .
Tonnes of hype , because it was 1mm smaller than the smallest laptop ( as if anyone cared ) .
Then along came netbooks , much smaller at a tenth of the price , and no one mentioned the Air again.I ca n't help but think they 're cleverer than that .
Whatever is coming is going to have to be bigger ( in the sense of appealing to the populace rather than a tiny subset of it ) than a mere tablet even if they make it super snazzy.They 're cleverer in their marketing .
I mean , they released an expensive phone that did n't even have basic features like 3G , Java , MMS , copy/paste , nor did it have smartphone features like multitasking or running any apps from a 3rd party , and it followed years after when most other bog standard phones could already run apps and access the Internet .
But it still got hyped endlessly - and does to this day - with people convinced that it sparked some kind of revolution .
Apple 's total market share in phones today is just a few percent , yet you have people - even on geek forums like Slashdot ( indeed , especially here ) - who seriously believe that Apple are the market leader , with only Google for competition.We have Iphone stories at least once a day .
Even if it 's bog standard and nothing special , look forward to having daily istale stories too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true enough that a tablet PC that's essentially just a scaled up iPhone would be pretty cool.Would it though?
I mean, for the last ten years people mocked phones that were "huge", even if they were only a few years old.
Yet we're now supposed to praise an increase in size, that's like a throwback to the 80s?But indeed, as you say, cost is the point.
I can see tablets working if they were cheap, but anything running a phone OS, at the price of a laptop, isn't going to compete as a computer.
Like the current tablets (e.g., Fujitsu Flepia), it'll be a niche product for people who want an expensive e-book reader that does colour and video.I guess it'd appeal to a narrow band of Apple nerds; even fewer than bought into the Macbook Air.Heh, I remember that (most people don't).
Tonnes of hype, because it was 1mm smaller than the smallest laptop (as if anyone cared).
Then along came netbooks, much smaller at a tenth of the price, and no one mentioned the Air again.I can't help but think they're cleverer than that.
Whatever is coming is going to have to be bigger (in the sense of appealing to the populace rather than a tiny subset of it) than a mere tablet even if they make it super snazzy.They're cleverer in their marketing.
I mean, they released an expensive phone that didn't even have basic features like 3G, Java, MMS, copy/paste, nor did it have smartphone features like multitasking or running any apps from a 3rd party, and it followed years after when most other bog standard phones could already run apps and access the Internet.
But it still got hyped endlessly - and does to this day - with people convinced that it sparked some kind of revolution.
Apple's total market share in phones today is just a few percent, yet you have people - even on geek forums like Slashdot (indeed, especially here) - who seriously believe that Apple are the market leader, with only Google for competition.We have Iphone stories at least once a day.
Even if it's bog standard and nothing special, look forward to having daily istale stories too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848878</id>
	<title>new?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264102320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...here are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff, thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface...</p></div><p>Been there, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File\_manager#3D\_file\_managers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">done that</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...here are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff , thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface...Been there , done that [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...here are the ones who are dreaming about magic 3D interfaces and other experimental stuff, thinking that Apple would come up with a wondrous new interface...Been there, done that [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849878</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>NotPeteMcCabe</author>
	<datestamp>1264106520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The revolution part lies not in the brand new features etc., but in how many people begin using the new interface in the real world. The original Macintosh was an evolution on Xerox PARC designs, but the Mac spread those ideas to millions of actual people, from whence they spread to Windows (and thus billions of people). Same with the iPod: comparable devices existed, but the iPod is the one that everyone started using. That's the revolution, and it never looks like one to people on the inside of the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The revolution part lies not in the brand new features etc. , but in how many people begin using the new interface in the real world .
The original Macintosh was an evolution on Xerox PARC designs , but the Mac spread those ideas to millions of actual people , from whence they spread to Windows ( and thus billions of people ) .
Same with the iPod : comparable devices existed , but the iPod is the one that everyone started using .
That 's the revolution , and it never looks like one to people on the inside of the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The revolution part lies not in the brand new features etc., but in how many people begin using the new interface in the real world.
The original Macintosh was an evolution on Xerox PARC designs, but the Mac spread those ideas to millions of actual people, from whence they spread to Windows (and thus billions of people).
Same with the iPod: comparable devices existed, but the iPod is the one that everyone started using.
That's the revolution, and it never looks like one to people on the inside of the industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855516</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1264087560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture</i></p><p>What are you talking about? The Apple rumor mill is a thrill-a-minute rollercoaster! You have plot twists, and arch-rivals, and espionage, and companies spilling the beans and facing Steve's vengeance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subcultureWhat are you talking about ?
The Apple rumor mill is a thrill-a-minute rollercoaster !
You have plot twists , and arch-rivals , and espionage , and companies spilling the beans and facing Steve 's vengeance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subcultureWhat are you talking about?
The Apple rumor mill is a thrill-a-minute rollercoaster!
You have plot twists, and arch-rivals, and espionage, and companies spilling the beans and facing Steve's vengeance...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849522</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>starglider29a</author>
	<datestamp>1264105020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To quote^H^H^H^H^Haparaphrase an IBM commercial: "...the greatest thing since sliced bread. But the person who invented sliced bread didn't invent bread. He didn't even invent slicing."<br> <br>
Take all of the "like..." statements you made, which are all over the map, and put it all in one place. "putting bunch of existing things all together"... is the revolution.<br> <br>
Saying there is nothing new here is like saying that you take some rockets, some heat shielding, some wings and make the space shuttle. No biggie.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Haparaphrase an IBM commercial : " ...the greatest thing since sliced bread .
But the person who invented sliced bread did n't invent bread .
He did n't even invent slicing .
" Take all of the " like... " statements you made , which are all over the map , and put it all in one place .
" putting bunch of existing things all together " ... is the revolution .
Saying there is nothing new here is like saying that you take some rockets , some heat shielding , some wings and make the space shuttle .
No biggie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote^H^H^H^H^Haparaphrase an IBM commercial: "...the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But the person who invented sliced bread didn't invent bread.
He didn't even invent slicing.
" 
Take all of the "like..." statements you made, which are all over the map, and put it all in one place.
"putting bunch of existing things all together"... is the revolution.
Saying there is nothing new here is like saying that you take some rockets, some heat shielding, some wings and make the space shuttle.
No biggie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848854</id>
	<title>but can it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> run linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>run linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> run linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853494</id>
	<title>Re:Desktop going away?</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1264075440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For larger screens, you want to see multiple things at a time.</p></div></blockquote><p>You do.  And I do.</p><p>Novice users don't.  They're just doing one thing at a time anyway, so multiple windows are just another way to confuse them.</p><p>And really, the need for multiple tasks depends on what you're using it for.  If I'm working, I'm probably needing to keep track of more than one thing at a time, which yields multiple windows (and multiple monitors now).  But I'm doing lengthy, complex tasks.</p><p>If I'm doing a single, focused task like cooking, multiple windows are bad.  Or if I'm doing a single short task, such as checking the weather, having a bunch of windows just gets in the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For larger screens , you want to see multiple things at a time.You do .
And I do.Novice users do n't .
They 're just doing one thing at a time anyway , so multiple windows are just another way to confuse them.And really , the need for multiple tasks depends on what you 're using it for .
If I 'm working , I 'm probably needing to keep track of more than one thing at a time , which yields multiple windows ( and multiple monitors now ) .
But I 'm doing lengthy , complex tasks.If I 'm doing a single , focused task like cooking , multiple windows are bad .
Or if I 'm doing a single short task , such as checking the weather , having a bunch of windows just gets in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For larger screens, you want to see multiple things at a time.You do.
And I do.Novice users don't.
They're just doing one thing at a time anyway, so multiple windows are just another way to confuse them.And really, the need for multiple tasks depends on what you're using it for.
If I'm working, I'm probably needing to keep track of more than one thing at a time, which yields multiple windows (and multiple monitors now).
But I'm doing lengthy, complex tasks.If I'm doing a single, focused task like cooking, multiple windows are bad.
Or if I'm doing a single short task, such as checking the weather, having a bunch of windows just gets in the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30914364</id>
	<title>Re:This is how it will all play out</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1264623120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What none of the pundits have guessed, is that the Apple tablet will be based on Hypercard.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What none of the pundits have guessed , is that the Apple tablet will be based on Hypercard.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What none of the pundits have guessed, is that the Apple tablet will be based on Hypercard.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852052</id>
	<title>Re:...and another thing.</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1264070520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. Good interface design runs deeper than a few aphorisms.</p><p>You want consistency <b>within the same context</b>, or in other words: All your light switches should work the same way, as should all your doors. But there's no reason that light switches and doors have to work the same way, and quite a few good reasons why they should work differently.</p><p>On a good mutating interface, the <b>general</b> tasks should behave consistently, and Apple is ensuring that with the SDK and UI guidelines as far as possible. e.g. scrolling, clicking, etc. works the same everywhere. But the <b>specific</b> tasks should have their specific input system and interface philosophy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Good interface design runs deeper than a few aphorisms.You want consistency within the same context , or in other words : All your light switches should work the same way , as should all your doors .
But there 's no reason that light switches and doors have to work the same way , and quite a few good reasons why they should work differently.On a good mutating interface , the general tasks should behave consistently , and Apple is ensuring that with the SDK and UI guidelines as far as possible .
e.g. scrolling , clicking , etc .
works the same everywhere .
But the specific tasks should have their specific input system and interface philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Good interface design runs deeper than a few aphorisms.You want consistency within the same context, or in other words: All your light switches should work the same way, as should all your doors.
But there's no reason that light switches and doors have to work the same way, and quite a few good reasons why they should work differently.On a good mutating interface, the general tasks should behave consistently, and Apple is ensuring that with the SDK and UI guidelines as far as possible.
e.g. scrolling, clicking, etc.
works the same everywhere.
But the specific tasks should have their specific input system and interface philosophy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848994</id>
	<title>You think it's like this...</title>
	<author>OglinTatas</author>
	<datestamp>1264102800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/You-Think-Like-This-Really/dp/B00004T8M1" title="amazon.com">...but really it's like this</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but really it 's like this [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but really it's like this [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849512</id>
	<title>Wait a second!!</title>
	<author>billsayswow</author>
	<datestamp>1264104960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean I'm not getting my pancakes?!! Screw this, back to Linux for me...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean I 'm not getting my pancakes ? ! !
Screw this , back to Linux for me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean I'm not getting my pancakes?!!
Screw this, back to Linux for me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853110</id>
	<title>Hold your proverbial horses</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1264074000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know speculating is really fun and I've seen some pretty handy suggestions of what the iWhatever might look like, everything from a big iPhone to something far more exotic. It is a bit ridiculous, though, that so many people are so damned excited over something I don't think has even been admitted to be "in the works" and really is just One More Thing.</p><p>Most companies don't even get half the rave over revolutionary creations that Apple does before the shit's even revolutionary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know speculating is really fun and I 've seen some pretty handy suggestions of what the iWhatever might look like , everything from a big iPhone to something far more exotic .
It is a bit ridiculous , though , that so many people are so damned excited over something I do n't think has even been admitted to be " in the works " and really is just One More Thing.Most companies do n't even get half the rave over revolutionary creations that Apple does before the shit 's even revolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know speculating is really fun and I've seen some pretty handy suggestions of what the iWhatever might look like, everything from a big iPhone to something far more exotic.
It is a bit ridiculous, though, that so many people are so damned excited over something I don't think has even been admitted to be "in the works" and really is just One More Thing.Most companies don't even get half the rave over revolutionary creations that Apple does before the shit's even revolutionary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857344</id>
	<title>Re:RIP Desktop Metaphor</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1264152000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, in Aplpe land, Front Row will show all 500 of my movies an TV shows from my media drive, in one freeking long list, with no alphabetised quick jump, or search feature at all. the remote only has 6 buttons, and half the time thtwo of thm navigate up and down, and the other half change the volume. And how about a little feedback that frontrow is even launching?? I used ot press the menu button, wait, then press it again, then fronrow would launch-then exit, because the same button to launch it also closes it!! If you get really impatient and press and hold menu, your mac sleeps!! Grrrr!!</p><p>The onion article on the Apple click-wheel really shows you can take minmalisim too far for devices that you actually have to use.<br>If Apple were to design a car, it would only have two doors, tha you have to use a specual $60 handle to open, and you need one for each user. There would only be one pedal - the go pedal. Press on it to go, lift off and the brakes automatically apply, based on the speed you lifted off, and the distance to an object you might impact detected by several very expensive sensors. The seats would not be adjustable, and would fit almost no one, (but they doo look nice and are an excellent minimalist fashion statement, and if like iPone earbuds, will be broken in 2 months or atlest, even more unconmfortable)</p><p>You'll be able to get the worlds smallest two seater car, that is pretty slow nad has no storage in the boot, a range of nice, expensive aluminium bodied cars, and one expensive plastic car, only one utility vehicle, but lots of powerful engines, but no large trucks. or sprots cars that can be upgraded.<br>All will have the hoods welded shut, and there will only be one guage, the iSpeed guage, but you can use that to purchase DRMed fuel and other consumeables. After all, Apple Oil wouldnt want you running your "other" cars on the premium AppleGas - runs-for-sure fuel!</p><p>Bu there will eb a large market for thurdparties to provide neat new Garages that are specially designed to park your iCar in, as long as you dont want to retrieve any of your baggage from the iCar unless you are at home in your own iGarage dock-way.</p><p>But they will all be beautiful to look at, and people will say, "didn't Apple make cars easier to use?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , in Aplpe land , Front Row will show all 500 of my movies an TV shows from my media drive , in one freeking long list , with no alphabetised quick jump , or search feature at all .
the remote only has 6 buttons , and half the time thtwo of thm navigate up and down , and the other half change the volume .
And how about a little feedback that frontrow is even launching ? ?
I used ot press the menu button , wait , then press it again , then fronrow would launch-then exit , because the same button to launch it also closes it ! !
If you get really impatient and press and hold menu , your mac sleeps ! !
Grrrr ! ! The onion article on the Apple click-wheel really shows you can take minmalisim too far for devices that you actually have to use.If Apple were to design a car , it would only have two doors , tha you have to use a specual $ 60 handle to open , and you need one for each user .
There would only be one pedal - the go pedal .
Press on it to go , lift off and the brakes automatically apply , based on the speed you lifted off , and the distance to an object you might impact detected by several very expensive sensors .
The seats would not be adjustable , and would fit almost no one , ( but they doo look nice and are an excellent minimalist fashion statement , and if like iPone earbuds , will be broken in 2 months or atlest , even more unconmfortable ) You 'll be able to get the worlds smallest two seater car , that is pretty slow nad has no storage in the boot , a range of nice , expensive aluminium bodied cars , and one expensive plastic car , only one utility vehicle , but lots of powerful engines , but no large trucks .
or sprots cars that can be upgraded.All will have the hoods welded shut , and there will only be one guage , the iSpeed guage , but you can use that to purchase DRMed fuel and other consumeables .
After all , Apple Oil wouldnt want you running your " other " cars on the premium AppleGas - runs-for-sure fuel ! Bu there will eb a large market for thurdparties to provide neat new Garages that are specially designed to park your iCar in , as long as you dont want to retrieve any of your baggage from the iCar unless you are at home in your own iGarage dock-way.But they will all be beautiful to look at , and people will say , " did n't Apple make cars easier to use ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, in Aplpe land, Front Row will show all 500 of my movies an TV shows from my media drive, in one freeking long list, with no alphabetised quick jump, or search feature at all.
the remote only has 6 buttons, and half the time thtwo of thm navigate up and down, and the other half change the volume.
And how about a little feedback that frontrow is even launching??
I used ot press the menu button, wait, then press it again, then fronrow would launch-then exit, because the same button to launch it also closes it!!
If you get really impatient and press and hold menu, your mac sleeps!!
Grrrr!!The onion article on the Apple click-wheel really shows you can take minmalisim too far for devices that you actually have to use.If Apple were to design a car, it would only have two doors, tha you have to use a specual $60 handle to open, and you need one for each user.
There would only be one pedal - the go pedal.
Press on it to go, lift off and the brakes automatically apply, based on the speed you lifted off, and the distance to an object you might impact detected by several very expensive sensors.
The seats would not be adjustable, and would fit almost no one, (but they doo look nice and are an excellent minimalist fashion statement, and if like iPone earbuds, will be broken in 2 months or atlest, even more unconmfortable)You'll be able to get the worlds smallest two seater car, that is pretty slow nad has no storage in the boot, a range of nice, expensive aluminium bodied cars, and one expensive plastic car, only one utility vehicle, but lots of powerful engines, but no large trucks.
or sprots cars that can be upgraded.All will have the hoods welded shut, and there will only be one guage, the iSpeed guage, but you can use that to purchase DRMed fuel and other consumeables.
After all, Apple Oil wouldnt want you running your "other" cars on the premium AppleGas - runs-for-sure fuel!Bu there will eb a large market for thurdparties to provide neat new Garages that are specially designed to park your iCar in, as long as you dont want to retrieve any of your baggage from the iCar unless you are at home in your own iGarage dock-way.But they will all be beautiful to look at, and people will say, "didn't Apple make cars easier to use?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848</id>
	<title>cloud UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for the vapourware age</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for the vapourware age</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the vapourware age</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348</id>
	<title>Re:We'll see.</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1264104360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're overlooking the overall design.  TFA alludes to it well, but I'll be explicit about it:</p><p>Apple is looking into killing the Mac as we know it.</p><p>They have a world in their mind's eye where they control all content through a single iTunes store.  Your phone, your appliance, your workstation - all the same, with all of their users shopping directly from Apple itself.  All applications that the machine will run are vetted and controlled, and Apple gets a cut of everything.  They also get gobs and gobs of data from the purchase habits and the apps themselves.</p><p>If this tablet succeeds, they inch closer to their goal.  Thus, they could well slash the cost, probably beyond any hopes of a profit, towards achieving their goal of getting a cut on all the software.</p><p>And if you like a world where you can download and run free software, this concept probably should frighten you, at least a little.  Because if Apple does it, and does it right, the world will follow behind them.</p><p>At any rate, bookmark this post.  You may want to come back later and compare it to what actually happened...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're overlooking the overall design .
TFA alludes to it well , but I 'll be explicit about it : Apple is looking into killing the Mac as we know it.They have a world in their mind 's eye where they control all content through a single iTunes store .
Your phone , your appliance , your workstation - all the same , with all of their users shopping directly from Apple itself .
All applications that the machine will run are vetted and controlled , and Apple gets a cut of everything .
They also get gobs and gobs of data from the purchase habits and the apps themselves.If this tablet succeeds , they inch closer to their goal .
Thus , they could well slash the cost , probably beyond any hopes of a profit , towards achieving their goal of getting a cut on all the software.And if you like a world where you can download and run free software , this concept probably should frighten you , at least a little .
Because if Apple does it , and does it right , the world will follow behind them.At any rate , bookmark this post .
You may want to come back later and compare it to what actually happened... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're overlooking the overall design.
TFA alludes to it well, but I'll be explicit about it:Apple is looking into killing the Mac as we know it.They have a world in their mind's eye where they control all content through a single iTunes store.
Your phone, your appliance, your workstation - all the same, with all of their users shopping directly from Apple itself.
All applications that the machine will run are vetted and controlled, and Apple gets a cut of everything.
They also get gobs and gobs of data from the purchase habits and the apps themselves.If this tablet succeeds, they inch closer to their goal.
Thus, they could well slash the cost, probably beyond any hopes of a profit, towards achieving their goal of getting a cut on all the software.And if you like a world where you can download and run free software, this concept probably should frighten you, at least a little.
Because if Apple does it, and does it right, the world will follow behind them.At any rate, bookmark this post.
You may want to come back later and compare it to what actually happened... ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848970</id>
	<title>my "stove top" app has been accepted by Apple</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1264102740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It turns the center of iSlate into a heater good for making coffee or heating ramen noodles.  The CPU is right under that spot.  All I do it run a program that counts how much Steve Jobs is making and it heats up real quick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns the center of iSlate into a heater good for making coffee or heating ramen noodles .
The CPU is right under that spot .
All I do it run a program that counts how much Steve Jobs is making and it heats up real quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns the center of iSlate into a heater good for making coffee or heating ramen noodles.
The CPU is right under that spot.
All I do it run a program that counts how much Steve Jobs is making and it heats up real quick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849492</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1264104900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll gladly second that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll gladly second that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll gladly second that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855308</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a market or hidden demand for tablets?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264085520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I generally agree that I can see them becoming more popular in future, but not at today's prices.</p><p>However, netbooks still have a huge advantage over them for video - it's a lot easier (IMO) to simply put it on your lap (or desk) and watch the screen, as it's folded at whatever angle you wish. With a tablet, you've got to hold it all the time. We're used to that with books, but with videos it's nice to sit back and relax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally agree that I can see them becoming more popular in future , but not at today 's prices.However , netbooks still have a huge advantage over them for video - it 's a lot easier ( IMO ) to simply put it on your lap ( or desk ) and watch the screen , as it 's folded at whatever angle you wish .
With a tablet , you 've got to hold it all the time .
We 're used to that with books , but with videos it 's nice to sit back and relax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally agree that I can see them becoming more popular in future, but not at today's prices.However, netbooks still have a huge advantage over them for video - it's a lot easier (IMO) to simply put it on your lap (or desk) and watch the screen, as it's folded at whatever angle you wish.
With a tablet, you've got to hold it all the time.
We're used to that with books, but with videos it's nice to sit back and relax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30858988</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a market or hidden demand for tablets?</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1264173480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, the iPhone's is a great OS, but I find it hard to use when all I get is the stupid "connect to iTunes" message. No iTunes? Sorry!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the iPhone 's is a great OS , but I find it hard to use when all I get is the stupid " connect to iTunes " message .
No iTunes ?
Sorry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the iPhone's is a great OS, but I find it hard to use when all I get is the stupid "connect to iTunes" message.
No iTunes?
Sorry!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855366</id>
	<title>IsLate == DNF</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264086060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree entirely - the Apple IsLate is the new Duke Nukem Forever.</p><p>To be honest I just wish Slashot would get it over with, rename to Appledot. I wouldn't complain about this coverage on an Apple site, it's the pretence that this is still a general geek site (or indeed, one geared towards open source - remember those days?) that's misleading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree entirely - the Apple IsLate is the new Duke Nukem Forever.To be honest I just wish Slashot would get it over with , rename to Appledot .
I would n't complain about this coverage on an Apple site , it 's the pretence that this is still a general geek site ( or indeed , one geared towards open source - remember those days ?
) that 's misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree entirely - the Apple IsLate is the new Duke Nukem Forever.To be honest I just wish Slashot would get it over with, rename to Appledot.
I wouldn't complain about this coverage on an Apple site, it's the pretence that this is still a general geek site (or indeed, one geared towards open source - remember those days?
) that's misleading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854144</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1264078080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles, but it's still fed from the strategic "leaks" put out by Apple, with the purpose of generating hype.  So the genuine people writing their genuine articles are actually Apple's PR strategy for getting people to talk about this without them having to make an official announcement.  Of course, when they actually do make the announcement the hype will be so much that the free media coverage Apple will get out of it will be worth more than they would have ever wanted to spend on a pre-promo campaign for it.</p><p>So yeah, the articles are genuine, and it's also astroturfing, even if the authors don't realize they're astroturfing.  Apple speculation is ridiculous and useless.  It doesn't matter what the speculation is, we'll all found out exactly what Apple plans to do, exactly when Apple wants us to find that out, and it will have all of the features that it would have had if no one had been speculating.</p></div><p>Regardless, I found this specific article quite interesting. Sure, it is speculation on the Apple Tablet interface through a look at things that have been done (mainly by Apple, but also Microsoft and Palm). If that was all I got from the article I'd agree with "ridiculous and useless" completely. However, since I'm not really interested in Apple rumours, and I am extremely interested in device specific application UIs, I found parts of the article fascinating. I admit, I mostly skipped over talk about things like how Expose might or might not be implemented, but I was not aware of Mr. Raskin's work and quite pleased to read that little bit of computing history.</p><p>The unfortunately-named concept of the "information appliance" isn't something I've come across a lot of people writing about, which by itself is interesting if you consider how clearly successful that approach is over the alternative. There's a reason people still buy gaming consoles and commercial DVRs instead of just running a line from PC to TV and getting a couple game controllers and a media remote. Similarly, there's a reason why iPhone owners will use a Facebook or Google Maps App instead of just logging onto the respective website in Safari: it's a better device-specific interface.</p><p>Speculating on just what Apple is going to do may be interesting to some, and boring or annoying to others. IMO, device-specific application design is worth talking about, especially as more and more development moves to the web-browser-as-an-all-encompassing-platform model. The speculative eve of a major Apple release like a Tablet is a good time to talk about it, on the theory that more people are thinking about how things could be, prior to going back to their everyday use of how things currently are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles , but it 's still fed from the strategic " leaks " put out by Apple , with the purpose of generating hype .
So the genuine people writing their genuine articles are actually Apple 's PR strategy for getting people to talk about this without them having to make an official announcement .
Of course , when they actually do make the announcement the hype will be so much that the free media coverage Apple will get out of it will be worth more than they would have ever wanted to spend on a pre-promo campaign for it.So yeah , the articles are genuine , and it 's also astroturfing , even if the authors do n't realize they 're astroturfing .
Apple speculation is ridiculous and useless .
It does n't matter what the speculation is , we 'll all found out exactly what Apple plans to do , exactly when Apple wants us to find that out , and it will have all of the features that it would have had if no one had been speculating.Regardless , I found this specific article quite interesting .
Sure , it is speculation on the Apple Tablet interface through a look at things that have been done ( mainly by Apple , but also Microsoft and Palm ) .
If that was all I got from the article I 'd agree with " ridiculous and useless " completely .
However , since I 'm not really interested in Apple rumours , and I am extremely interested in device specific application UIs , I found parts of the article fascinating .
I admit , I mostly skipped over talk about things like how Expose might or might not be implemented , but I was not aware of Mr. Raskin 's work and quite pleased to read that little bit of computing history.The unfortunately-named concept of the " information appliance " is n't something I 've come across a lot of people writing about , which by itself is interesting if you consider how clearly successful that approach is over the alternative .
There 's a reason people still buy gaming consoles and commercial DVRs instead of just running a line from PC to TV and getting a couple game controllers and a media remote .
Similarly , there 's a reason why iPhone owners will use a Facebook or Google Maps App instead of just logging onto the respective website in Safari : it 's a better device-specific interface.Speculating on just what Apple is going to do may be interesting to some , and boring or annoying to others .
IMO , device-specific application design is worth talking about , especially as more and more development moves to the web-browser-as-an-all-encompassing-platform model .
The speculative eve of a major Apple release like a Tablet is a good time to talk about it , on the theory that more people are thinking about how things could be , prior to going back to their everyday use of how things currently are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be genuine people writing genuine articles, but it's still fed from the strategic "leaks" put out by Apple, with the purpose of generating hype.
So the genuine people writing their genuine articles are actually Apple's PR strategy for getting people to talk about this without them having to make an official announcement.
Of course, when they actually do make the announcement the hype will be so much that the free media coverage Apple will get out of it will be worth more than they would have ever wanted to spend on a pre-promo campaign for it.So yeah, the articles are genuine, and it's also astroturfing, even if the authors don't realize they're astroturfing.
Apple speculation is ridiculous and useless.
It doesn't matter what the speculation is, we'll all found out exactly what Apple plans to do, exactly when Apple wants us to find that out, and it will have all of the features that it would have had if no one had been speculating.Regardless, I found this specific article quite interesting.
Sure, it is speculation on the Apple Tablet interface through a look at things that have been done (mainly by Apple, but also Microsoft and Palm).
If that was all I got from the article I'd agree with "ridiculous and useless" completely.
However, since I'm not really interested in Apple rumours, and I am extremely interested in device specific application UIs, I found parts of the article fascinating.
I admit, I mostly skipped over talk about things like how Expose might or might not be implemented, but I was not aware of Mr. Raskin's work and quite pleased to read that little bit of computing history.The unfortunately-named concept of the "information appliance" isn't something I've come across a lot of people writing about, which by itself is interesting if you consider how clearly successful that approach is over the alternative.
There's a reason people still buy gaming consoles and commercial DVRs instead of just running a line from PC to TV and getting a couple game controllers and a media remote.
Similarly, there's a reason why iPhone owners will use a Facebook or Google Maps App instead of just logging onto the respective website in Safari: it's a better device-specific interface.Speculating on just what Apple is going to do may be interesting to some, and boring or annoying to others.
IMO, device-specific application design is worth talking about, especially as more and more development moves to the web-browser-as-an-all-encompassing-platform model.
The speculative eve of a major Apple release like a Tablet is a good time to talk about it, on the theory that more people are thinking about how things could be, prior to going back to their everyday use of how things currently are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854158</id>
	<title>Re:Data Entry</title>
	<author>narcc</author>
	<datestamp>1264078140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you've thought this all the way through.  In fact, I'm certain you haven't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you 've thought this all the way through .
In fact , I 'm certain you have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
In fact, I'm certain you haven't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849660</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264105560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call it astroturfing-- not exactly.  These things are fed by Apple's leaks, and it's fairly intentional on Apple's part.  It was reported that Apple knew one of their competitors was going to release a tablet (Microsoft?) and leaked information about their own tablet to steal the news cycle.
</p><p>However, Apple doesn't really need to feed these things.  Apple fans do it to themselves to some extent.  Even back in the 90s when Apple was falling apart, Mac fans were tracking the company's progress closely and freaking out about every possible move.  Also, there are various business interests involved.  News sites want views.  There was a video a while back where Jim Cramer talked about starting fake Apple rumors to manipulate stock prices, and surely that sort of stuff plays into all this.  They're maniacs.
</p><p>There's also (sorry, but it needs to be acknowledged) a valid component to Apple hype.  Apple is an innovative company, they release cool products, and they drive technology trends.  You might not think they're *that* innovative, but compared to companies like Dell and HP, they really are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call it astroturfing-- not exactly .
These things are fed by Apple 's leaks , and it 's fairly intentional on Apple 's part .
It was reported that Apple knew one of their competitors was going to release a tablet ( Microsoft ?
) and leaked information about their own tablet to steal the news cycle .
However , Apple does n't really need to feed these things .
Apple fans do it to themselves to some extent .
Even back in the 90s when Apple was falling apart , Mac fans were tracking the company 's progress closely and freaking out about every possible move .
Also , there are various business interests involved .
News sites want views .
There was a video a while back where Jim Cramer talked about starting fake Apple rumors to manipulate stock prices , and surely that sort of stuff plays into all this .
They 're maniacs .
There 's also ( sorry , but it needs to be acknowledged ) a valid component to Apple hype .
Apple is an innovative company , they release cool products , and they drive technology trends .
You might not think they 're * that * innovative , but compared to companies like Dell and HP , they really are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call it astroturfing-- not exactly.
These things are fed by Apple's leaks, and it's fairly intentional on Apple's part.
It was reported that Apple knew one of their competitors was going to release a tablet (Microsoft?
) and leaked information about their own tablet to steal the news cycle.
However, Apple doesn't really need to feed these things.
Apple fans do it to themselves to some extent.
Even back in the 90s when Apple was falling apart, Mac fans were tracking the company's progress closely and freaking out about every possible move.
Also, there are various business interests involved.
News sites want views.
There was a video a while back where Jim Cramer talked about starting fake Apple rumors to manipulate stock prices, and surely that sort of stuff plays into all this.
They're maniacs.
There's also (sorry, but it needs to be acknowledged) a valid component to Apple hype.
Apple is an innovative company, they release cool products, and they drive technology trends.
You might not think they're *that* innovative, but compared to companies like Dell and HP, they really are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849600</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1264105320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you say, it was the combination and the polish. There's no one thing (that I can think of) on the iPhone that you can't find on some previous device/software. But there's also no previous device with all (or even many) of those things, polished to such a high degree. From a feature list point of view it's certainly evolutionary - but I'd certainly say it was revolutionary from an overall user experience point of view.</p><p>As the Gizmodo article points out, the general UI idea of a page of icons which load full screen apps is just like Palm. And I was a big Palm fan back in the day - their problem was that although the UI was fine, it was hampered by the tech to the point where even if the concept worked it was so unattractive to use as to be very niche. Resistive touch screens required stylii, which suck. Early models were monochrome, even color models had nothing like the graphical fidelity of the iPhone. The graphics chips couldn't do things like full screen animations, fades, etc and of course there was no such thing as persistent wireless internet (and yes, I had the Palm III GSM modem, it blew chunks even then!). Apple waited until the tech existed to do what they knew would impress people, rather than try to make something they hoped would sell within the limits of the available tech. In the process they pretty much totally reinvented the highend cellphone market and IMHO brought the PDA concept back from the dead.</p><p>My personal story: I'm not an Apple fan. I do own a Mac, but it's my least used machine and I really don't like it very much. I grew up on Atari, DOS/Windows, Palm, Nokia and later Linux. When the iPhone came out I had no intention of buying one, until I happened to be by the Apple store in a mall on launch weekend and popped in to see what all the fuss was about. Within a couple of minutes of playing with it I was in line to buy one, and several upgrades later I have no regrets. I still detest iTunes, and am officially "meh" on OSX, but nothing is tempting me away from the iPhone. Android has potential, but it's not there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you say , it was the combination and the polish .
There 's no one thing ( that I can think of ) on the iPhone that you ca n't find on some previous device/software .
But there 's also no previous device with all ( or even many ) of those things , polished to such a high degree .
From a feature list point of view it 's certainly evolutionary - but I 'd certainly say it was revolutionary from an overall user experience point of view.As the Gizmodo article points out , the general UI idea of a page of icons which load full screen apps is just like Palm .
And I was a big Palm fan back in the day - their problem was that although the UI was fine , it was hampered by the tech to the point where even if the concept worked it was so unattractive to use as to be very niche .
Resistive touch screens required stylii , which suck .
Early models were monochrome , even color models had nothing like the graphical fidelity of the iPhone .
The graphics chips could n't do things like full screen animations , fades , etc and of course there was no such thing as persistent wireless internet ( and yes , I had the Palm III GSM modem , it blew chunks even then ! ) .
Apple waited until the tech existed to do what they knew would impress people , rather than try to make something they hoped would sell within the limits of the available tech .
In the process they pretty much totally reinvented the highend cellphone market and IMHO brought the PDA concept back from the dead.My personal story : I 'm not an Apple fan .
I do own a Mac , but it 's my least used machine and I really do n't like it very much .
I grew up on Atari , DOS/Windows , Palm , Nokia and later Linux .
When the iPhone came out I had no intention of buying one , until I happened to be by the Apple store in a mall on launch weekend and popped in to see what all the fuss was about .
Within a couple of minutes of playing with it I was in line to buy one , and several upgrades later I have no regrets .
I still detest iTunes , and am officially " meh " on OSX , but nothing is tempting me away from the iPhone .
Android has potential , but it 's not there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you say, it was the combination and the polish.
There's no one thing (that I can think of) on the iPhone that you can't find on some previous device/software.
But there's also no previous device with all (or even many) of those things, polished to such a high degree.
From a feature list point of view it's certainly evolutionary - but I'd certainly say it was revolutionary from an overall user experience point of view.As the Gizmodo article points out, the general UI idea of a page of icons which load full screen apps is just like Palm.
And I was a big Palm fan back in the day - their problem was that although the UI was fine, it was hampered by the tech to the point where even if the concept worked it was so unattractive to use as to be very niche.
Resistive touch screens required stylii, which suck.
Early models were monochrome, even color models had nothing like the graphical fidelity of the iPhone.
The graphics chips couldn't do things like full screen animations, fades, etc and of course there was no such thing as persistent wireless internet (and yes, I had the Palm III GSM modem, it blew chunks even then!).
Apple waited until the tech existed to do what they knew would impress people, rather than try to make something they hoped would sell within the limits of the available tech.
In the process they pretty much totally reinvented the highend cellphone market and IMHO brought the PDA concept back from the dead.My personal story: I'm not an Apple fan.
I do own a Mac, but it's my least used machine and I really don't like it very much.
I grew up on Atari, DOS/Windows, Palm, Nokia and later Linux.
When the iPhone came out I had no intention of buying one, until I happened to be by the Apple store in a mall on launch weekend and popped in to see what all the fuss was about.
Within a couple of minutes of playing with it I was in line to buy one, and several upgrades later I have no regrets.
I still detest iTunes, and am officially "meh" on OSX, but nothing is tempting me away from the iPhone.
Android has potential, but it's not there yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286</id>
	<title>Re:cloud UI</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264104120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, the apple hype on this is disgusting. I'll wait until something is actually out and solid instead of a deliberate leak designed to get people interested. There's actually nothing substantive in the article or the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , the apple hype on this is disgusting .
I 'll wait until something is actually out and solid instead of a deliberate leak designed to get people interested .
There 's actually nothing substantive in the article or the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, the apple hype on this is disgusting.
I'll wait until something is actually out and solid instead of a deliberate leak designed to get people interested.
There's actually nothing substantive in the article or the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854556</id>
	<title>To short the stock or not...</title>
	<author>Gavin Scott</author>
	<datestamp>1264080420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So here we are a week in advance of the announcement, and I'm starting to wish I had the guts to short Apple's stock based on the way all the rumors are starting to converge.</p><p>The device Apple can sell zillions of will be one that professionals and students will want to have with them every moment of every day. It will *not* be some sort of family shared assistant, since this is an incredibly hard market to sell to. In fact it's a market that doesn't actually exist as quite a few people have discovered over the years (can you say "Audrey"?). Apple has to do better than, say, Segway in terms of having a cool product *and* actually selling them to someone.</p><p>I just don't see a "big iPhone" as appealing to enough people for Apple to make any profit on it. It's probably going to be expensive and maybe will require another $100/month to AT&amp;T on top of the iPhone you have now? A very clever route would have been if the slate would tether to your existing iPhone (via bluetooth perhaps) and AT&amp;T would allow unlimited data tethering with the device.</p><p>Today's iPhone is the worst smartphone ever invented except for all other smartphones that have ever been invented. It's just not that revolutionary, and will not be as effective when scaled up to a non-pocket-sized device.</p><p>The iSlate probably won't run Windows apps and it probably won't run MacOS desktop apps. Well, guess what, after their phone, people are going to want something that runs standard commercial desktop applications if they are going to carry another physical device around. Or at least something that provides all the functionality and connectivity to their existing systems, and that's asking an awful lot out of the AppStore I think.</p><p>Could make a cool VNC/Remote Desktop client, but again that's not a market that will sell millions.</p><p>If you think back to the original 128KB Mac, it was basically an antique iPhone. A sealed proprietary box that only ran software from Apple and a few blessed 3rd party developers. Steve Jobs has a long history of thinking he knows everything the users need and how they're going to like doing everything only the way he imagines them being used. This sort of logic works ok for a phone, but for a general purpose computer I think it will cause them problems.</p><p>Apple's stock is at about $208 now. I predict that in 6-9 months it will be lower than this. We'll see whether I have to eat my words or not.</p><p>Or maybe I'll be lining up with everyone else to pre-order one on Wednesday. Who knows.</p><p>But I sure hope they have something more to show than a big iPhone with scaled up iPhone apps. I don't need another AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!! moment in technology marketing (the way General Magic, Transmeta, and a few other were) where it's instantly obvious that the entire thing is going to be a complete disaster.</p><p>G.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So here we are a week in advance of the announcement , and I 'm starting to wish I had the guts to short Apple 's stock based on the way all the rumors are starting to converge.The device Apple can sell zillions of will be one that professionals and students will want to have with them every moment of every day .
It will * not * be some sort of family shared assistant , since this is an incredibly hard market to sell to .
In fact it 's a market that does n't actually exist as quite a few people have discovered over the years ( can you say " Audrey " ? ) .
Apple has to do better than , say , Segway in terms of having a cool product * and * actually selling them to someone.I just do n't see a " big iPhone " as appealing to enough people for Apple to make any profit on it .
It 's probably going to be expensive and maybe will require another $ 100/month to AT&amp;T on top of the iPhone you have now ?
A very clever route would have been if the slate would tether to your existing iPhone ( via bluetooth perhaps ) and AT&amp;T would allow unlimited data tethering with the device.Today 's iPhone is the worst smartphone ever invented except for all other smartphones that have ever been invented .
It 's just not that revolutionary , and will not be as effective when scaled up to a non-pocket-sized device.The iSlate probably wo n't run Windows apps and it probably wo n't run MacOS desktop apps .
Well , guess what , after their phone , people are going to want something that runs standard commercial desktop applications if they are going to carry another physical device around .
Or at least something that provides all the functionality and connectivity to their existing systems , and that 's asking an awful lot out of the AppStore I think.Could make a cool VNC/Remote Desktop client , but again that 's not a market that will sell millions.If you think back to the original 128KB Mac , it was basically an antique iPhone .
A sealed proprietary box that only ran software from Apple and a few blessed 3rd party developers .
Steve Jobs has a long history of thinking he knows everything the users need and how they 're going to like doing everything only the way he imagines them being used .
This sort of logic works ok for a phone , but for a general purpose computer I think it will cause them problems.Apple 's stock is at about $ 208 now .
I predict that in 6-9 months it will be lower than this .
We 'll see whether I have to eat my words or not.Or maybe I 'll be lining up with everyone else to pre-order one on Wednesday .
Who knows.But I sure hope they have something more to show than a big iPhone with scaled up iPhone apps .
I do n't need another AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH ! ! ! !
moment in technology marketing ( the way General Magic , Transmeta , and a few other were ) where it 's instantly obvious that the entire thing is going to be a complete disaster.G .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So here we are a week in advance of the announcement, and I'm starting to wish I had the guts to short Apple's stock based on the way all the rumors are starting to converge.The device Apple can sell zillions of will be one that professionals and students will want to have with them every moment of every day.
It will *not* be some sort of family shared assistant, since this is an incredibly hard market to sell to.
In fact it's a market that doesn't actually exist as quite a few people have discovered over the years (can you say "Audrey"?).
Apple has to do better than, say, Segway in terms of having a cool product *and* actually selling them to someone.I just don't see a "big iPhone" as appealing to enough people for Apple to make any profit on it.
It's probably going to be expensive and maybe will require another $100/month to AT&amp;T on top of the iPhone you have now?
A very clever route would have been if the slate would tether to your existing iPhone (via bluetooth perhaps) and AT&amp;T would allow unlimited data tethering with the device.Today's iPhone is the worst smartphone ever invented except for all other smartphones that have ever been invented.
It's just not that revolutionary, and will not be as effective when scaled up to a non-pocket-sized device.The iSlate probably won't run Windows apps and it probably won't run MacOS desktop apps.
Well, guess what, after their phone, people are going to want something that runs standard commercial desktop applications if they are going to carry another physical device around.
Or at least something that provides all the functionality and connectivity to their existing systems, and that's asking an awful lot out of the AppStore I think.Could make a cool VNC/Remote Desktop client, but again that's not a market that will sell millions.If you think back to the original 128KB Mac, it was basically an antique iPhone.
A sealed proprietary box that only ran software from Apple and a few blessed 3rd party developers.
Steve Jobs has a long history of thinking he knows everything the users need and how they're going to like doing everything only the way he imagines them being used.
This sort of logic works ok for a phone, but for a general purpose computer I think it will cause them problems.Apple's stock is at about $208 now.
I predict that in 6-9 months it will be lower than this.
We'll see whether I have to eat my words or not.Or maybe I'll be lining up with everyone else to pre-order one on Wednesday.
Who knows.But I sure hope they have something more to show than a big iPhone with scaled up iPhone apps.
I don't need another AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!
moment in technology marketing (the way General Magic, Transmeta, and a few other were) where it's instantly obvious that the entire thing is going to be a complete disaster.G.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850532</id>
	<title>Re:cloud UI</title>
	<author>Dupple</author>
	<datestamp>1264065840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;&lt;p&gt;yeah, the apple hype on this is disgusting. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>There hasn't been any thing said by apple. As soon as they made an announcement that something was going on at the end of January,  everyone else start hyping something that no on knows anything about.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , the apple hype on this is disgusting .
There has n't been any thing said by apple .
As soon as they made an announcement that something was going on at the end of January , everyone else start hyping something that no on knows anything about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, the apple hype on this is disgusting.
There hasn't been any thing said by apple.
As soon as they made an announcement that something was going on at the end of January,  everyone else start hyping something that no on knows anything about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862</id>
	<title>Is there a market or hidden demand for tablets?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1264102260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think for a tablet with detachable keyboard there might be, like this one from Always Innovating:<br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090302/AI-front\_610x405.png" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090302/AI-front\_610x405.png</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>but I don't see one just for a tablet....  the form factor always seems like one of those "neat-o" ideas until you actually try to make use of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think for a tablet with detachable keyboard there might be , like this one from Always Innovating : http : //news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090302/AI-front \ _610x405.png [ cnet.com ] but I do n't see one just for a tablet.... the form factor always seems like one of those " neat-o " ideas until you actually try to make use of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think for a tablet with detachable keyboard there might be, like this one from Always Innovating:http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090302/AI-front\_610x405.png [cnet.com]but I don't see one just for a tablet....  the form factor always seems like one of those "neat-o" ideas until you actually try to make use of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856850</id>
	<title>Size too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1264101600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files<br>and folders are too confusing for the novice."</p><p>It's not hierarchy that people don't understand. It's that files and folders don't scale well especially in this era of Terabyte drives. It takes an amount of disciple most don't want to invest to make the metaphor work at that level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like filesand folders are too confusing for the novice .
" It 's not hierarchy that people do n't understand .
It 's that files and folders do n't scale well especially in this era of Terabyte drives .
It takes an amount of disciple most do n't want to invest to make the metaphor work at that level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like filesand folders are too confusing for the novice.
"It's not hierarchy that people don't understand.
It's that files and folders don't scale well especially in this era of Terabyte drives.
It takes an amount of disciple most don't want to invest to make the metaphor work at that level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852856</id>
	<title>You can't do major projects on an iPhone...</title>
	<author>7Prime</author>
	<datestamp>1264073040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who are writing that the iPhone OS will do for everyday computer use obviously have a skewed view of "everyday computer use". For basic information repository, communication, and entertainment, the iPhone is ideal, but for production and management of "projects", the iPhone is entirely inadequate, as it should be. But a tablet is essentially a laptop in portability, which means that it needs to take over those responsibilities. A laptop can manage workflow, therefore a tablet must also. The iPhone OS can not do this.</p><p>Conclusion: tablet will not survive on an iPhone OS. It can not compete with the iPhone due to decreased portability, and it will not compete with a laptop due to lack of workflow management.</p><p>Apple isn't blind enough to see past this. Will it run a convention "desktop" style window structure? Possibly not, but it will likely have much more sophisticated content management and workflow than what this article is suggesting. I have a lot more faith in Apple at this point than to think they will release a cool but ultimately pointless device.</p><p>The comment about whether or not people like "files" is entirely irrelevant. People may not like files and folders, but they still use them. No one likes organizing their cabinets, or cleaning the house, but they have to do it anyway because it's necessary to function in a efficient manner. The "grab bag" model only works for so long before things get complicated.</p><p>And for those of you who are saying, "this won't be a business computer," that isn't the point. Even while at home, we all have our projects and hobbies that essentially use similar workflow to those of a professional nature. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't even own a computer. Unless this thing is just for games and entertainment, in which it will have a very tough time competing with the Xbox and Wii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are writing that the iPhone OS will do for everyday computer use obviously have a skewed view of " everyday computer use " .
For basic information repository , communication , and entertainment , the iPhone is ideal , but for production and management of " projects " , the iPhone is entirely inadequate , as it should be .
But a tablet is essentially a laptop in portability , which means that it needs to take over those responsibilities .
A laptop can manage workflow , therefore a tablet must also .
The iPhone OS can not do this.Conclusion : tablet will not survive on an iPhone OS .
It can not compete with the iPhone due to decreased portability , and it will not compete with a laptop due to lack of workflow management.Apple is n't blind enough to see past this .
Will it run a convention " desktop " style window structure ?
Possibly not , but it will likely have much more sophisticated content management and workflow than what this article is suggesting .
I have a lot more faith in Apple at this point than to think they will release a cool but ultimately pointless device.The comment about whether or not people like " files " is entirely irrelevant .
People may not like files and folders , but they still use them .
No one likes organizing their cabinets , or cleaning the house , but they have to do it anyway because it 's necessary to function in a efficient manner .
The " grab bag " model only works for so long before things get complicated.And for those of you who are saying , " this wo n't be a business computer , " that is n't the point .
Even while at home , we all have our projects and hobbies that essentially use similar workflow to those of a professional nature .
If we did n't , we probably would n't even own a computer .
Unless this thing is just for games and entertainment , in which it will have a very tough time competing with the Xbox and Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are writing that the iPhone OS will do for everyday computer use obviously have a skewed view of "everyday computer use".
For basic information repository, communication, and entertainment, the iPhone is ideal, but for production and management of "projects", the iPhone is entirely inadequate, as it should be.
But a tablet is essentially a laptop in portability, which means that it needs to take over those responsibilities.
A laptop can manage workflow, therefore a tablet must also.
The iPhone OS can not do this.Conclusion: tablet will not survive on an iPhone OS.
It can not compete with the iPhone due to decreased portability, and it will not compete with a laptop due to lack of workflow management.Apple isn't blind enough to see past this.
Will it run a convention "desktop" style window structure?
Possibly not, but it will likely have much more sophisticated content management and workflow than what this article is suggesting.
I have a lot more faith in Apple at this point than to think they will release a cool but ultimately pointless device.The comment about whether or not people like "files" is entirely irrelevant.
People may not like files and folders, but they still use them.
No one likes organizing their cabinets, or cleaning the house, but they have to do it anyway because it's necessary to function in a efficient manner.
The "grab bag" model only works for so long before things get complicated.And for those of you who are saying, "this won't be a business computer," that isn't the point.
Even while at home, we all have our projects and hobbies that essentially use similar workflow to those of a professional nature.
If we didn't, we probably wouldn't even own a computer.
Unless this thing is just for games and entertainment, in which it will have a very tough time competing with the Xbox and Wii.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850234</id>
	<title>Re:The world is paved with astroturf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264064880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt it is astroturfing. I think the articles are genuine. It's just everyone wants to be on the Apple rumour bandwagon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it is astroturfing .
I think the articles are genuine .
It 's just everyone wants to be on the Apple rumour bandwagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it is astroturfing.
I think the articles are genuine.
It's just everyone wants to be on the Apple rumour bandwagon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849608</id>
	<title>Re:new?</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1264105380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the '3D interfaces' comment was referring to the concept of hand/finger position detection. That is, 3D INPUT interfaces, not DISPLAY interfaces. You're probably right about the 3D GUI, but 3D input systems have not really been explored too much as far as I know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the '3D interfaces ' comment was referring to the concept of hand/finger position detection .
That is , 3D INPUT interfaces , not DISPLAY interfaces .
You 're probably right about the 3D GUI , but 3D input systems have not really been explored too much as far as I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the '3D interfaces' comment was referring to the concept of hand/finger position detection.
That is, 3D INPUT interfaces, not DISPLAY interfaces.
You're probably right about the 3D GUI, but 3D input systems have not really been explored too much as far as I know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30858112</id>
	<title>Re:cloud UI</title>
	<author>robi5</author>
	<datestamp>1264163700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>YOU generate the hype - you clicked on the article, and even added a comment. (OK so did I.) Your last sentence is also applicable to your post. (OK so it is to mine.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU generate the hype - you clicked on the article , and even added a comment .
( OK so did I .
) Your last sentence is also applicable to your post .
( OK so it is to mine .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU generate the hype - you clicked on the article, and even added a comment.
(OK so did I.
) Your last sentence is also applicable to your post.
(OK so it is to mine.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30881406</id>
	<title>Re:more like a product in search of a market</title>
	<author>porcupine8</author>
	<datestamp>1264366560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh shit, you mean Apple's just using this thing to make money? Alert the tech blogs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh shit , you mean Apple 's just using this thing to make money ?
Alert the tech blogs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh shit, you mean Apple's just using this thing to make money?
Alert the tech blogs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30862048</id>
	<title>Re:Nice, sure, but revolutionary?</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1264189680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, it's not that the interface is really good, is that it is really simple. Even my 3 year old daughter can take my phone swipe through the pages and find the games she likes to play.<br>The biggest thing that you actually dont notice until some time later, is how infrequently you have to reboot the whole phone. OS 2.x was no so hot, but I think I have only powercycled my phone about 3 times since upgradeing to OS 3 when it came out. This is compared to the almost daily reboot of my old Windows Mobile based Treo, or atleast going through and clearing out open applications. And the other is the app store really does make it easy to install apps.<br>Under Palm OS, there were some good sites that had lots of apps, and they all tended to work well. under Windows mobile, you'd find an app that was only for WinCE (I pronounce that as wince) or for Windows Mobile5, or just crashes for some reason on the Winmobile6 platform, or is for a larger screen format, or wasn't really made for touch, as only the top end Win mobiles had touch screens.<br>Then there is calendar synch - I could nearly get good calander and contact sync in Winmobile and Palm, but really only with Windows and outlook. Pumasoft had some good synch software I used to get my Treo to synch, which was much faster than Palms own utlity, but all were poor synch tools with Linux. You even had to run windows binary executables to even install apps on win mobile.<br>My iPhone just synchs perfectly with GMail, calendar and contacts. I then synch everything else with GMail. The only part I dont like about iPhone, is HAVING to use iTunes for synching everything else. It is a crappy application, a huge resource hog, and is designed primarily to make Apple money, not help you organise your media. My favourite music manager is Amarok under KDE3.5 - this is just awesome, it fetches lyrics, cover art, streams radio, burns audio CDs just by picking a dozen tracks and rightclick-burn, not the whole Create playlist, add to playlist, then burn crap in iTunes.<br>Oh and how about a better search engine for the iTunes store? I guess google makes you think that all search engines might use context to rank search results, but itunes - nope, if you search for "science fiction" in podcasts, the top hits are science or fiction 'casts, nothing to do with SyFy at all!<br>Meanwhile Apple seems to be removing features from OS X - I used to like the tool that allowed you to summarise a selected piece of text in 10.5. Seems to be gone in 10.6 . All in the name of simplifying the interface I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , it 's not that the interface is really good , is that it is really simple .
Even my 3 year old daughter can take my phone swipe through the pages and find the games she likes to play.The biggest thing that you actually dont notice until some time later , is how infrequently you have to reboot the whole phone .
OS 2.x was no so hot , but I think I have only powercycled my phone about 3 times since upgradeing to OS 3 when it came out .
This is compared to the almost daily reboot of my old Windows Mobile based Treo , or atleast going through and clearing out open applications .
And the other is the app store really does make it easy to install apps.Under Palm OS , there were some good sites that had lots of apps , and they all tended to work well .
under Windows mobile , you 'd find an app that was only for WinCE ( I pronounce that as wince ) or for Windows Mobile5 , or just crashes for some reason on the Winmobile6 platform , or is for a larger screen format , or was n't really made for touch , as only the top end Win mobiles had touch screens.Then there is calendar synch - I could nearly get good calander and contact sync in Winmobile and Palm , but really only with Windows and outlook .
Pumasoft had some good synch software I used to get my Treo to synch , which was much faster than Palms own utlity , but all were poor synch tools with Linux .
You even had to run windows binary executables to even install apps on win mobile.My iPhone just synchs perfectly with GMail , calendar and contacts .
I then synch everything else with GMail .
The only part I dont like about iPhone , is HAVING to use iTunes for synching everything else .
It is a crappy application , a huge resource hog , and is designed primarily to make Apple money , not help you organise your media .
My favourite music manager is Amarok under KDE3.5 - this is just awesome , it fetches lyrics , cover art , streams radio , burns audio CDs just by picking a dozen tracks and rightclick-burn , not the whole Create playlist , add to playlist , then burn crap in iTunes.Oh and how about a better search engine for the iTunes store ?
I guess google makes you think that all search engines might use context to rank search results , but itunes - nope , if you search for " science fiction " in podcasts , the top hits are science or fiction 'casts , nothing to do with SyFy at all ! Meanwhile Apple seems to be removing features from OS X - I used to like the tool that allowed you to summarise a selected piece of text in 10.5 .
Seems to be gone in 10.6 .
All in the name of simplifying the interface I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, it's not that the interface is really good, is that it is really simple.
Even my 3 year old daughter can take my phone swipe through the pages and find the games she likes to play.The biggest thing that you actually dont notice until some time later, is how infrequently you have to reboot the whole phone.
OS 2.x was no so hot, but I think I have only powercycled my phone about 3 times since upgradeing to OS 3 when it came out.
This is compared to the almost daily reboot of my old Windows Mobile based Treo, or atleast going through and clearing out open applications.
And the other is the app store really does make it easy to install apps.Under Palm OS, there were some good sites that had lots of apps, and they all tended to work well.
under Windows mobile, you'd find an app that was only for WinCE (I pronounce that as wince) or for Windows Mobile5, or just crashes for some reason on the Winmobile6 platform, or is for a larger screen format, or wasn't really made for touch, as only the top end Win mobiles had touch screens.Then there is calendar synch - I could nearly get good calander and contact sync in Winmobile and Palm, but really only with Windows and outlook.
Pumasoft had some good synch software I used to get my Treo to synch, which was much faster than Palms own utlity, but all were poor synch tools with Linux.
You even had to run windows binary executables to even install apps on win mobile.My iPhone just synchs perfectly with GMail, calendar and contacts.
I then synch everything else with GMail.
The only part I dont like about iPhone, is HAVING to use iTunes for synching everything else.
It is a crappy application, a huge resource hog, and is designed primarily to make Apple money, not help you organise your media.
My favourite music manager is Amarok under KDE3.5 - this is just awesome, it fetches lyrics, cover art, streams radio, burns audio CDs just by picking a dozen tracks and rightclick-burn, not the whole Create playlist, add to playlist, then burn crap in iTunes.Oh and how about a better search engine for the iTunes store?
I guess google makes you think that all search engines might use context to rank search results, but itunes - nope, if you search for "science fiction" in podcasts, the top hits are science or fiction 'casts, nothing to do with SyFy at all!Meanwhile Apple seems to be removing features from OS X - I used to like the tool that allowed you to summarise a selected piece of text in 10.5.
Seems to be gone in 10.6 .
All in the name of simplifying the interface I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850410</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a market or hidden demand for tablets?</title>
	<author>multimediavt</author>
	<datestamp>1264065420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh, but where did you try to use it, and for what purpose?  This device will not be a primary computer for someone (well, maybe a few of the less computer literate masses), but will serve as a consumer device/appliance for: media browsing and viewing, gaming, and spot utility computing much like the iPhone and iPod Touch now.</p><p>People seem to be getting stuck on the idea that this thing will be a fully software customizable compute device like a netbook.  It ain't gonna be. It's not even going to run a full version of OS X (latest rumors all pint to a new version of iPhone OS), at least not in the near future, let alone anything like a Linux distro.</p><p>How's about we pass judgement on the utility of a device <b>AFTER</b> it comes out and we have at least 90-days to a year to play with it. Any value judgements before that are, well, as useful as a vaporware product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh , but where did you try to use it , and for what purpose ?
This device will not be a primary computer for someone ( well , maybe a few of the less computer literate masses ) , but will serve as a consumer device/appliance for : media browsing and viewing , gaming , and spot utility computing much like the iPhone and iPod Touch now.People seem to be getting stuck on the idea that this thing will be a fully software customizable compute device like a netbook .
It ai n't gon na be .
It 's not even going to run a full version of OS X ( latest rumors all pint to a new version of iPhone OS ) , at least not in the near future , let alone anything like a Linux distro.How 's about we pass judgement on the utility of a device AFTER it comes out and we have at least 90-days to a year to play with it .
Any value judgements before that are , well , as useful as a vaporware product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh, but where did you try to use it, and for what purpose?
This device will not be a primary computer for someone (well, maybe a few of the less computer literate masses), but will serve as a consumer device/appliance for: media browsing and viewing, gaming, and spot utility computing much like the iPhone and iPod Touch now.People seem to be getting stuck on the idea that this thing will be a fully software customizable compute device like a netbook.
It ain't gonna be.
It's not even going to run a full version of OS X (latest rumors all pint to a new version of iPhone OS), at least not in the near future, let alone anything like a Linux distro.How's about we pass judgement on the utility of a device AFTER it comes out and we have at least 90-days to a year to play with it.
Any value judgements before that are, well, as useful as a vaporware product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992</id>
	<title>We'll see.</title>
	<author>onion2k</author>
	<datestamp>1264102800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true enough that a tablet PC that's essentially just a scaled up iPhone would be pretty cool. If it's based on something similar to iPhone OS it'd be easy for developers to port existing apps too, so the App Store would fill up with software for it relatively quickly too. A tablet scale version of Orbital would be brilliant.</p><p>But...</p><p>It'd cost a lot. It wouldn't be particularly usable for traditional apps like email. It'd be great for watching films and stuff, but not as good as a TV. I guess it'd appeal to a narrow band of Apple nerds; even fewer than bought into the Macbook Air. While I'm sure Apple are capable of releasing something like that, and making a profit out of it, I can't help but think they're cleverer than that. Whatever is coming is going to have to be bigger (in the sense of appealing to the populace rather than a tiny subset of it) than a mere tablet even if they make it super snazzy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true enough that a tablet PC that 's essentially just a scaled up iPhone would be pretty cool .
If it 's based on something similar to iPhone OS it 'd be easy for developers to port existing apps too , so the App Store would fill up with software for it relatively quickly too .
A tablet scale version of Orbital would be brilliant.But...It 'd cost a lot .
It would n't be particularly usable for traditional apps like email .
It 'd be great for watching films and stuff , but not as good as a TV .
I guess it 'd appeal to a narrow band of Apple nerds ; even fewer than bought into the Macbook Air .
While I 'm sure Apple are capable of releasing something like that , and making a profit out of it , I ca n't help but think they 're cleverer than that .
Whatever is coming is going to have to be bigger ( in the sense of appealing to the populace rather than a tiny subset of it ) than a mere tablet even if they make it super snazzy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true enough that a tablet PC that's essentially just a scaled up iPhone would be pretty cool.
If it's based on something similar to iPhone OS it'd be easy for developers to port existing apps too, so the App Store would fill up with software for it relatively quickly too.
A tablet scale version of Orbital would be brilliant.But...It'd cost a lot.
It wouldn't be particularly usable for traditional apps like email.
It'd be great for watching films and stuff, but not as good as a TV.
I guess it'd appeal to a narrow band of Apple nerds; even fewer than bought into the Macbook Air.
While I'm sure Apple are capable of releasing something like that, and making a profit out of it, I can't help but think they're cleverer than that.
Whatever is coming is going to have to be bigger (in the sense of appealing to the populace rather than a tiny subset of it) than a mere tablet even if they make it super snazzy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849092</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture</p></div><p>Wow! Duke Nukem Forever must really be dead<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.......</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subcultureWow !
Duke Nukem Forever must really be dead ...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subcultureWow!
Duke Nukem Forever must really be dead .......
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853878</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>bidule</author>
	<datestamp>1264076880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files and folders are too confusing for the novice.</p></div><p>It never ceases to amaze me how my father is still to this day unable to organize his files. He was an engineer and owned computers for more than 20 years and it's still a whole mess.</p><p>I'm all with you on this, but I have to believe my eyes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files and folders are too confusing for the novice.It never ceases to amaze me how my father is still to this day unable to organize his files .
He was an engineer and owned computers for more than 20 years and it 's still a whole mess.I 'm all with you on this , but I have to believe my eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files and folders are too confusing for the novice.It never ceases to amaze me how my father is still to this day unable to organize his files.
He was an engineer and owned computers for more than 20 years and it's still a whole mess.I'm all with you on this, but I have to believe my eyes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857132</id>
	<title>Re:We'll see.</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1264191780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt very much Apple is interested in killing the Mac as we know it. Rather, I think that they think that for most of what people use their Mac for, the machines are overkill. Most people use their computers now to communicate and to consume media, and they value stability and security over flexibility and power. iPhone and a tablet fit this "appliance" model of computing.</p><p>But for power users and creators, they will always need an open platform: the Mac. Anyone who works with audio, photos, or video much will need a real computer. An appliance won't cut it--not enough power, storage, or flexibility (which is much more important when creating than when consuming).</p><p>I just don't see see what's in it for Apple to kill the Mac. I see the economic value of the closed ecosystem of the iPhone + Tablet + App Store as an appliance play, but killing the Mac line would only lose them money. I therefore predict it will never happen. I won't be surprised if the volume of the appliances continues to overtake Mac sales though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt very much Apple is interested in killing the Mac as we know it .
Rather , I think that they think that for most of what people use their Mac for , the machines are overkill .
Most people use their computers now to communicate and to consume media , and they value stability and security over flexibility and power .
iPhone and a tablet fit this " appliance " model of computing.But for power users and creators , they will always need an open platform : the Mac .
Anyone who works with audio , photos , or video much will need a real computer .
An appliance wo n't cut it--not enough power , storage , or flexibility ( which is much more important when creating than when consuming ) .I just do n't see see what 's in it for Apple to kill the Mac .
I see the economic value of the closed ecosystem of the iPhone + Tablet + App Store as an appliance play , but killing the Mac line would only lose them money .
I therefore predict it will never happen .
I wo n't be surprised if the volume of the appliances continues to overtake Mac sales though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt very much Apple is interested in killing the Mac as we know it.
Rather, I think that they think that for most of what people use their Mac for, the machines are overkill.
Most people use their computers now to communicate and to consume media, and they value stability and security over flexibility and power.
iPhone and a tablet fit this "appliance" model of computing.But for power users and creators, they will always need an open platform: the Mac.
Anyone who works with audio, photos, or video much will need a real computer.
An appliance won't cut it--not enough power, storage, or flexibility (which is much more important when creating than when consuming).I just don't see see what's in it for Apple to kill the Mac.
I see the economic value of the closed ecosystem of the iPhone + Tablet + App Store as an appliance play, but killing the Mac line would only lose them money.
I therefore predict it will never happen.
I won't be surprised if the volume of the appliances continues to overtake Mac sales though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849678</id>
	<title>Sanctifying Raskin, again</title>
	<author>ynotds</author>
	<datestamp>1264105680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate posting negatively, even more so about the dead, but it really is time the legend was buried with the man.</p><p>Back when it was still possible I was in a fortunate position which gave me access to many of the Valley's elite.</p><p>Raskin still sticks out in my mind as far and away the least credible.</p><p>Put simply, he suffered problems I've seen afflict other failed would-be futurists in other places. His ideas were all grounded on a past that had never existed. And when the world didn't turn out to match his dreams, it was everybody else's fault.</p><p>On a more positive note, I'm looking forward to forming an opinion of the tablet next Thursday (my time) but don't have over-inflated expectations. At launch, the Touch was clearly the most important user interface innovation since 1984 and the only product in recent years I both ordered and received on the first possible day. But applying Stuart Kauffman's analysis of navigation strategies for rugged fitness landscapes, there is ever less scope for radical innovation and more likelihood of gain from incremental strategies, the bleedingly obvious double click on a word resolution of the supposed problem of a selection interface being a case in point.</p><p>Leaving aside the media capabilities that we can safely assume, my judgment of the tablet will be based on whether it looks likely that it will eventually run a few litmus test applications well enough: Bento, OmniGraffle, Keynote, TextWrangler and Perl 6. I won't need all of them, but might find it harder to justify without at least a couple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate posting negatively , even more so about the dead , but it really is time the legend was buried with the man.Back when it was still possible I was in a fortunate position which gave me access to many of the Valley 's elite.Raskin still sticks out in my mind as far and away the least credible.Put simply , he suffered problems I 've seen afflict other failed would-be futurists in other places .
His ideas were all grounded on a past that had never existed .
And when the world did n't turn out to match his dreams , it was everybody else 's fault.On a more positive note , I 'm looking forward to forming an opinion of the tablet next Thursday ( my time ) but do n't have over-inflated expectations .
At launch , the Touch was clearly the most important user interface innovation since 1984 and the only product in recent years I both ordered and received on the first possible day .
But applying Stuart Kauffman 's analysis of navigation strategies for rugged fitness landscapes , there is ever less scope for radical innovation and more likelihood of gain from incremental strategies , the bleedingly obvious double click on a word resolution of the supposed problem of a selection interface being a case in point.Leaving aside the media capabilities that we can safely assume , my judgment of the tablet will be based on whether it looks likely that it will eventually run a few litmus test applications well enough : Bento , OmniGraffle , Keynote , TextWrangler and Perl 6 .
I wo n't need all of them , but might find it harder to justify without at least a couple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate posting negatively, even more so about the dead, but it really is time the legend was buried with the man.Back when it was still possible I was in a fortunate position which gave me access to many of the Valley's elite.Raskin still sticks out in my mind as far and away the least credible.Put simply, he suffered problems I've seen afflict other failed would-be futurists in other places.
His ideas were all grounded on a past that had never existed.
And when the world didn't turn out to match his dreams, it was everybody else's fault.On a more positive note, I'm looking forward to forming an opinion of the tablet next Thursday (my time) but don't have over-inflated expectations.
At launch, the Touch was clearly the most important user interface innovation since 1984 and the only product in recent years I both ordered and received on the first possible day.
But applying Stuart Kauffman's analysis of navigation strategies for rugged fitness landscapes, there is ever less scope for radical innovation and more likelihood of gain from incremental strategies, the bleedingly obvious double click on a word resolution of the supposed problem of a selection interface being a case in point.Leaving aside the media capabilities that we can safely assume, my judgment of the tablet will be based on whether it looks likely that it will eventually run a few litmus test applications well enough: Bento, OmniGraffle, Keynote, TextWrangler and Perl 6.
I won't need all of them, but might find it harder to justify without at least a couple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848982</id>
	<title>more like a product in search of a market</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1264102800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>netbooks have crappy margins. building a tablet where you are forced to buy "content" just to use it is a stealth way of increasing average revenue per unit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>netbooks have crappy margins .
building a tablet where you are forced to buy " content " just to use it is a stealth way of increasing average revenue per unit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>netbooks have crappy margins.
building a tablet where you are forced to buy "content" just to use it is a stealth way of increasing average revenue per unit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849136</id>
	<title>Data Entry</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1264103460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a tablet? Not gonna happen. Everyone needs to do data entry.</p><p>Although I suppose if you embed RFID in everything you could do away with data entry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a tablet ?
Not gon na happen .
Everyone needs to do data entry.Although I suppose if you embed RFID in everything you could do away with data entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a tablet?
Not gonna happen.
Everyone needs to do data entry.Although I suppose if you embed RFID in everything you could do away with data entry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852776</id>
	<title>Re:Desktop going away?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264072800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't think the general-purpose desktop computer will go away, but I think it's true that we are starting to see computing a little more distributed among a bunch of single-purpose devices. (not really <i>single</i>-purpose, but limited-purpose devices?)
</p><p>Years ago, people foresaw computers in everything, and each computer being used for pretty much 1 thing.  So you saw things where there was a computer built-in to a refrigerator and everyone laughed at how impractical and silly that was.  It was silly, but on the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if we saw embedded computers in most TVs in the next few years.  We have the technology now to put a small computer with wireless networking and video decoding into our TVs without adding a whole lot of size, weight, or cost, and so it's already happening.
</p><p>Another example of this sort of thing is the Kindle.  It's a little computer that does a few things, but does them better than a desktop would.  It's light, easy to carry around, easy to hold in one hand, and because of the e-paper display it provides a good reading experience.
</p><p>And then of course there's smart phones.  They don't aim to replace desktop computers.  Though lots of people act like they're going to take over, they really only do a few things very well.  For a smartphone to be adequate, you need to be able to get by with slow input, no tactile feedback, small screens, and big UI elements. (GPS devices are another example of single-purpose computers, but they're really being swallowed by smartphones these days)
</p><p>So in this sense, I agree with the author: more computing tasks are probably going to move into being done on limited-purpose devices (i.e. "single-purpose devices" that actually do a handful of things).  There will be a shift in how we interact with computers and how we think of them.  There will still be desktop computers where we sit down to work and multitask, but there may also be a couple of different devices that you carry around and use for communication/entertainment/utility as well as a couple devices in your home, and these devices will be targeted towards mostly doing one thing at a time.
</p><p>Because honestly, when I'm using my phone, I don't generally just sit down and multitask on it unless I'm trying to kill time.  I take it out when I want to make a phone call or when I want to look a particular thing up on the Internet.  I'm sure part of the value of an e-reader to me would be that I would only use it for one thing at a time.  When I sit with my laptop, I read web pages, check email, listen to music, IM people, watch videos, and do all kinds of stuff more or less at the same time.  When I sit down to read a book, I want to just sit down to read a book.  When I talk to someone on the phone, I just want to talk to that person on the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't think the general-purpose desktop computer will go away , but I think it 's true that we are starting to see computing a little more distributed among a bunch of single-purpose devices .
( not really single-purpose , but limited-purpose devices ?
) Years ago , people foresaw computers in everything , and each computer being used for pretty much 1 thing .
So you saw things where there was a computer built-in to a refrigerator and everyone laughed at how impractical and silly that was .
It was silly , but on the other hand I would n't be surprised if we saw embedded computers in most TVs in the next few years .
We have the technology now to put a small computer with wireless networking and video decoding into our TVs without adding a whole lot of size , weight , or cost , and so it 's already happening .
Another example of this sort of thing is the Kindle .
It 's a little computer that does a few things , but does them better than a desktop would .
It 's light , easy to carry around , easy to hold in one hand , and because of the e-paper display it provides a good reading experience .
And then of course there 's smart phones .
They do n't aim to replace desktop computers .
Though lots of people act like they 're going to take over , they really only do a few things very well .
For a smartphone to be adequate , you need to be able to get by with slow input , no tactile feedback , small screens , and big UI elements .
( GPS devices are another example of single-purpose computers , but they 're really being swallowed by smartphones these days ) So in this sense , I agree with the author : more computing tasks are probably going to move into being done on limited-purpose devices ( i.e .
" single-purpose devices " that actually do a handful of things ) .
There will be a shift in how we interact with computers and how we think of them .
There will still be desktop computers where we sit down to work and multitask , but there may also be a couple of different devices that you carry around and use for communication/entertainment/utility as well as a couple devices in your home , and these devices will be targeted towards mostly doing one thing at a time .
Because honestly , when I 'm using my phone , I do n't generally just sit down and multitask on it unless I 'm trying to kill time .
I take it out when I want to make a phone call or when I want to look a particular thing up on the Internet .
I 'm sure part of the value of an e-reader to me would be that I would only use it for one thing at a time .
When I sit with my laptop , I read web pages , check email , listen to music , IM people , watch videos , and do all kinds of stuff more or less at the same time .
When I sit down to read a book , I want to just sit down to read a book .
When I talk to someone on the phone , I just want to talk to that person on the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't think the general-purpose desktop computer will go away, but I think it's true that we are starting to see computing a little more distributed among a bunch of single-purpose devices.
(not really single-purpose, but limited-purpose devices?
)
Years ago, people foresaw computers in everything, and each computer being used for pretty much 1 thing.
So you saw things where there was a computer built-in to a refrigerator and everyone laughed at how impractical and silly that was.
It was silly, but on the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if we saw embedded computers in most TVs in the next few years.
We have the technology now to put a small computer with wireless networking and video decoding into our TVs without adding a whole lot of size, weight, or cost, and so it's already happening.
Another example of this sort of thing is the Kindle.
It's a little computer that does a few things, but does them better than a desktop would.
It's light, easy to carry around, easy to hold in one hand, and because of the e-paper display it provides a good reading experience.
And then of course there's smart phones.
They don't aim to replace desktop computers.
Though lots of people act like they're going to take over, they really only do a few things very well.
For a smartphone to be adequate, you need to be able to get by with slow input, no tactile feedback, small screens, and big UI elements.
(GPS devices are another example of single-purpose computers, but they're really being swallowed by smartphones these days)
So in this sense, I agree with the author: more computing tasks are probably going to move into being done on limited-purpose devices (i.e.
"single-purpose devices" that actually do a handful of things).
There will be a shift in how we interact with computers and how we think of them.
There will still be desktop computers where we sit down to work and multitask, but there may also be a couple of different devices that you carry around and use for communication/entertainment/utility as well as a couple devices in your home, and these devices will be targeted towards mostly doing one thing at a time.
Because honestly, when I'm using my phone, I don't generally just sit down and multitask on it unless I'm trying to kill time.
I take it out when I want to make a phone call or when I want to look a particular thing up on the Internet.
I'm sure part of the value of an e-reader to me would be that I would only use it for one thing at a time.
When I sit with my laptop, I read web pages, check email, listen to music, IM people, watch videos, and do all kinds of stuff more or less at the same time.
When I sit down to read a book, I want to just sit down to read a book.
When I talk to someone on the phone, I just want to talk to that person on the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849234</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>TommydCat</author>
	<datestamp>1264103940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author is all for pancakes, so this is relevant to my interests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author is all for pancakes , so this is relevant to my interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author is all for pancakes, so this is relevant to my interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856340</id>
	<title>Re:Desktop going away?</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1264095120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turns out that when you say multiple, quite often you mean 2. I like the Win7 snap feature, where you drag a window to the side to take up 50\% of the screen - it makes drag and drop easy, and it also makes it easy to see 2 windows side by side, no overlap. I use it often, and have not needed a third window in there (although if i did, i'd be pretty annoyed, since Windows no longer has the ability to tile multiple windows)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out that when you say multiple , quite often you mean 2 .
I like the Win7 snap feature , where you drag a window to the side to take up 50 \ % of the screen - it makes drag and drop easy , and it also makes it easy to see 2 windows side by side , no overlap .
I use it often , and have not needed a third window in there ( although if i did , i 'd be pretty annoyed , since Windows no longer has the ability to tile multiple windows )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out that when you say multiple, quite often you mean 2.
I like the Win7 snap feature, where you drag a window to the side to take up 50\% of the screen - it makes drag and drop easy, and it also makes it easy to see 2 windows side by side, no overlap.
I use it often, and have not needed a third window in there (although if i did, i'd be pretty annoyed, since Windows no longer has the ability to tile multiple windows)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850874</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264067100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files
and folders are too confusing for the novice</p></div><p>I've actually thought sometimes that the "folder" metaphor was a little confusing, but probably not for the reason you're talking about.  I remember trying to teach people about computers back in the command-line days and then teaching people when the directories became "folders", and at first people seemed to have a harder time understanding "folders".
</p><p>It seems that the idea of "files" or "documents" as discrete packets of information is easy enough, and then those files can be sorted into logical containers called "directories".  A directory can hold files and can also hold other directories.  It's pretty straight forward.
</p><p>But then I remember the first few times I tried to teach someone who was computer illiterate about folders, and they seemed to get confused in ways that were hard to wrap my head around.  People asked things like, why are these folders? and why would I want to put folders in other folders?  Do folders get full?  Where's the file cabinet?  How do I put folders into a "hard drive"?
</p><p>I mean, if you think about it, the desktop metaphor is a little bit screwed up.  I go to my computer's "desktop" and on that desktop I have "my computer", which in turn has the "desktop" in it.  And then my real computer is on my real desktop, which is kind of weird.  Like why should their be a graphic representation of the computer inside the computer's GUI?  Do you have a computer in your computer?  It's totally weird, but we've gotten somewhat used to it.
</p><p>The whole thing reminds me of a study a few years back where they found computer novices often had an easier time learning about computers if they learned on a CLI instead of a GUI.  Apparently the interaction of issuing a command and then receiving a response was easier to deal with than being given a symbolic representational little world to navigate around in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files and folders are too confusing for the noviceI 've actually thought sometimes that the " folder " metaphor was a little confusing , but probably not for the reason you 're talking about .
I remember trying to teach people about computers back in the command-line days and then teaching people when the directories became " folders " , and at first people seemed to have a harder time understanding " folders " .
It seems that the idea of " files " or " documents " as discrete packets of information is easy enough , and then those files can be sorted into logical containers called " directories " .
A directory can hold files and can also hold other directories .
It 's pretty straight forward .
But then I remember the first few times I tried to teach someone who was computer illiterate about folders , and they seemed to get confused in ways that were hard to wrap my head around .
People asked things like , why are these folders ?
and why would I want to put folders in other folders ?
Do folders get full ?
Where 's the file cabinet ?
How do I put folders into a " hard drive " ?
I mean , if you think about it , the desktop metaphor is a little bit screwed up .
I go to my computer 's " desktop " and on that desktop I have " my computer " , which in turn has the " desktop " in it .
And then my real computer is on my real desktop , which is kind of weird .
Like why should their be a graphic representation of the computer inside the computer 's GUI ?
Do you have a computer in your computer ?
It 's totally weird , but we 've gotten somewhat used to it .
The whole thing reminds me of a study a few years back where they found computer novices often had an easier time learning about computers if they learned on a CLI instead of a GUI .
Apparently the interaction of issuing a command and then receiving a response was easier to deal with than being given a symbolic representational little world to navigate around in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that things like files
and folders are too confusing for the noviceI've actually thought sometimes that the "folder" metaphor was a little confusing, but probably not for the reason you're talking about.
I remember trying to teach people about computers back in the command-line days and then teaching people when the directories became "folders", and at first people seemed to have a harder time understanding "folders".
It seems that the idea of "files" or "documents" as discrete packets of information is easy enough, and then those files can be sorted into logical containers called "directories".
A directory can hold files and can also hold other directories.
It's pretty straight forward.
But then I remember the first few times I tried to teach someone who was computer illiterate about folders, and they seemed to get confused in ways that were hard to wrap my head around.
People asked things like, why are these folders?
and why would I want to put folders in other folders?
Do folders get full?
Where's the file cabinet?
How do I put folders into a "hard drive"?
I mean, if you think about it, the desktop metaphor is a little bit screwed up.
I go to my computer's "desktop" and on that desktop I have "my computer", which in turn has the "desktop" in it.
And then my real computer is on my real desktop, which is kind of weird.
Like why should their be a graphic representation of the computer inside the computer's GUI?
Do you have a computer in your computer?
It's totally weird, but we've gotten somewhat used to it.
The whole thing reminds me of a study a few years back where they found computer novices often had an easier time learning about computers if they learned on a CLI instead of a GUI.
Apparently the interaction of issuing a command and then receiving a response was easier to deal with than being given a symbolic representational little world to navigate around in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849484</id>
	<title>Re:yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subculture</p><p>With "complaining in forums about what other people enjoy" a close second.</p><p>Seriously--for the hojillionth time, if you don't care about it, <em>don't read it!</em> And FFS, if you don't like it, it boggles my mind why you would <em>take time out of your day</em> to let the world know. OF COURSE you're bored--you've evidently got too much free time and nothing worthwhile to fill it. Might I suggest sitting on a curb and tossing pebbles into a storm drain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subcultureWith " complaining in forums about what other people enjoy " a close second.Seriously--for the hojillionth time , if you do n't care about it , do n't read it !
And FFS , if you do n't like it , it boggles my mind why you would take time out of your day to let the world know .
OF COURSE you 're bored--you 've evidently got too much free time and nothing worthwhile to fill it .
Might I suggest sitting on a curb and tossing pebbles into a storm drain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; i hereby nominate apple speculation as the most boring internet subcultureWith "complaining in forums about what other people enjoy" a close second.Seriously--for the hojillionth time, if you don't care about it, don't read it!
And FFS, if you don't like it, it boggles my mind why you would take time out of your day to let the world know.
OF COURSE you're bored--you've evidently got too much free time and nothing worthwhile to fill it.
Might I suggest sitting on a curb and tossing pebbles into a storm drain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856726</id>
	<title>We'll see, John Connor.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264100100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At any rate, bookmark this post. You may want to come back later and compare it to what actually happened...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)"</p><p>Is Skynet involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At any rate , bookmark this post .
You may want to come back later and compare it to what actually happened... ; ) " Is Skynet involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At any rate, bookmark this post.
You may want to come back later and compare it to what actually happened... ;)"Is Skynet involved?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850056</id>
	<title>Re:Files too much for n00bs...</title>
	<author>Coriolis</author>
	<datestamp>1264107300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised you think this. I've watched friends and family (all smart people, before anyone starts implying anything) graduate from novices to regular users, and some to power users. I remember them being initially utterly perplexed by the file and folder metaphor. I couldn't <em>tell</em> you why, but I could suggest why: the metaphor is imperfect. Files and folders do not behave like paper, and the differences in behaviour can be very confusing. For example, if I file something in a physical folder and go to look for it later, there's usually no chance that I'll have look inside a nested folder that is, apart from the name, practically indistinguishable from the one that contains it. The problem seems (to me) to be that users have trouble establishing a sense of place, of where the documents are stored. Where's my letter? What's this "drive" you keep talking about? When I edit this picture, why doesn't it update in both the letters I was writing?</p><p>Geeks don't have this problem, because we think like this. We <em>prefer</em> to break our information down its atoms.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, the metaphor is better than what came before it, but I don't think it's the best we can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised you think this .
I 've watched friends and family ( all smart people , before anyone starts implying anything ) graduate from novices to regular users , and some to power users .
I remember them being initially utterly perplexed by the file and folder metaphor .
I could n't tell you why , but I could suggest why : the metaphor is imperfect .
Files and folders do not behave like paper , and the differences in behaviour can be very confusing .
For example , if I file something in a physical folder and go to look for it later , there 's usually no chance that I 'll have look inside a nested folder that is , apart from the name , practically indistinguishable from the one that contains it .
The problem seems ( to me ) to be that users have trouble establishing a sense of place , of where the documents are stored .
Where 's my letter ?
What 's this " drive " you keep talking about ?
When I edit this picture , why does n't it update in both the letters I was writing ? Geeks do n't have this problem , because we think like this .
We prefer to break our information down its atoms.Do n't get me wrong , the metaphor is better than what came before it , but I do n't think it 's the best we can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised you think this.
I've watched friends and family (all smart people, before anyone starts implying anything) graduate from novices to regular users, and some to power users.
I remember them being initially utterly perplexed by the file and folder metaphor.
I couldn't tell you why, but I could suggest why: the metaphor is imperfect.
Files and folders do not behave like paper, and the differences in behaviour can be very confusing.
For example, if I file something in a physical folder and go to look for it later, there's usually no chance that I'll have look inside a nested folder that is, apart from the name, practically indistinguishable from the one that contains it.
The problem seems (to me) to be that users have trouble establishing a sense of place, of where the documents are stored.
Where's my letter?
What's this "drive" you keep talking about?
When I edit this picture, why doesn't it update in both the letters I was writing?Geeks don't have this problem, because we think like this.
We prefer to break our information down its atoms.Don't get me wrong, the metaphor is better than what came before it, but I don't think it's the best we can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849460</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Scyber</author>
	<datestamp>1264104780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is so magical about the iPhone interface?  The same people I see struggle with windows or OS X struggle with the iPhone when they get it.  The difference is they tend to use the iphone more  on a daily basis than their desktop and are therefore more proficient at specific tasks.   Ask them to do something they are unfamiliar with and they struggle.  Heck I knew one guy that had an iphone for 3 months and still didn't know how to install an app.

I'd guess its more of a generational thing than anything else.   My experience has shown that anyone over 55 or so is more likely to struggle when it comes to anything computer related.   Under that usually are more proficient with computers (and/or specific programs).    So I believe the "iphone ui revolution" had more to do with the timing being right with a large percentage of the population being more computer friendly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is so magical about the iPhone interface ?
The same people I see struggle with windows or OS X struggle with the iPhone when they get it .
The difference is they tend to use the iphone more on a daily basis than their desktop and are therefore more proficient at specific tasks .
Ask them to do something they are unfamiliar with and they struggle .
Heck I knew one guy that had an iphone for 3 months and still did n't know how to install an app .
I 'd guess its more of a generational thing than anything else .
My experience has shown that anyone over 55 or so is more likely to struggle when it comes to anything computer related .
Under that usually are more proficient with computers ( and/or specific programs ) .
So I believe the " iphone ui revolution " had more to do with the timing being right with a large percentage of the population being more computer friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is so magical about the iPhone interface?
The same people I see struggle with windows or OS X struggle with the iPhone when they get it.
The difference is they tend to use the iphone more  on a daily basis than their desktop and are therefore more proficient at specific tasks.
Ask them to do something they are unfamiliar with and they struggle.
Heck I knew one guy that had an iphone for 3 months and still didn't know how to install an app.
I'd guess its more of a generational thing than anything else.
My experience has shown that anyone over 55 or so is more likely to struggle when it comes to anything computer related.
Under that usually are more proficient with computers (and/or specific programs).
So I believe the "iphone ui revolution" had more to do with the timing being right with a large percentage of the population being more computer friendly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849164</id>
	<title>RIP Desktop Metaphor</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1264103580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always thought that the desktop metaphor was a short sighted misstep in interface design.  It doesn't scale well.  It tries to duplicate a convention that is the result of the realities of storing and managing physical files, and along with that it duplicates all of it's shortcomings.  I have been very pleased to see, through the iPhone and the internet, that it is finally passing away.<br><br>I too hope that the tablet mac follows this trend.  Rest in peace desktop metaphor, may your days on my computer soon be ended.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought that the desktop metaphor was a short sighted misstep in interface design .
It does n't scale well .
It tries to duplicate a convention that is the result of the realities of storing and managing physical files , and along with that it duplicates all of it 's shortcomings .
I have been very pleased to see , through the iPhone and the internet , that it is finally passing away.I too hope that the tablet mac follows this trend .
Rest in peace desktop metaphor , may your days on my computer soon be ended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought that the desktop metaphor was a short sighted misstep in interface design.
It doesn't scale well.
It tries to duplicate a convention that is the result of the realities of storing and managing physical files, and along with that it duplicates all of it's shortcomings.
I have been very pleased to see, through the iPhone and the internet, that it is finally passing away.I too hope that the tablet mac follows this trend.
Rest in peace desktop metaphor, may your days on my computer soon be ended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30868530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30858112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30914364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30858988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30862048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30881406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30872158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30888638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30863416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1616205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30888638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30858112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850532
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30862048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30853104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30851648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30856232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30857924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30854258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30858988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30881406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30850598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30863416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30872158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30855970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30852052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30914364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30849212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1616205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30848854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1616205.30868530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
