<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_0118244</id>
	<title>Ubuntu Moves To Yahoo For Default Firefox Search</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264598160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Starting in Ubuntu's Lucid Lynx release, <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-January/030065.html">Firefox's default search engine will be switched from Google to Yahoo</a>. The switch was made after Canonical 'negotiated a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo.' Google will still be available as a choice. Since Yahoo search is now powered by Microsoft's Bing, this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Starting in Ubuntu 's Lucid Lynx release , Firefox 's default search engine will be switched from Google to Yahoo .
The switch was made after Canonical 'negotiated a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo .
' Google will still be available as a choice .
Since Yahoo search is now powered by Microsoft 's Bing , this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Starting in Ubuntu's Lucid Lynx release, Firefox's default search engine will be switched from Google to Yahoo.
The switch was made after Canonical 'negotiated a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo.
' Google will still be available as a choice.
Since Yahoo search is now powered by Microsoft's Bing, this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919084</id>
	<title>Re:Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264614480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Microsoft have left it a bit late to dominate the internet, never mind engulfing or extinguishing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Microsoft have left it a bit late to dominate the internet , never mind engulfing or extinguishing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Microsoft have left it a bit late to dominate the internet, never mind engulfing or extinguishing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919992</id>
	<title>Re:open source funded by closed source</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1264618020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>nah, if open source ran 90\% of the worlds computers, peer possibilities would solve distribution issues. As for improvements, there would be too many incoming patches to manage in most of the current ways. <br>
And if every corporate IT department managed open source programs, feature requests would be *more* common as users would know they had a good chance of being heard. <br>
maybe</htmltext>
<tokenext>nah , if open source ran 90 \ % of the worlds computers , peer possibilities would solve distribution issues .
As for improvements , there would be too many incoming patches to manage in most of the current ways .
And if every corporate IT department managed open source programs , feature requests would be * more * common as users would know they had a good chance of being heard .
maybe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nah, if open source ran 90\% of the worlds computers, peer possibilities would solve distribution issues.
As for improvements, there would be too many incoming patches to manage in most of the current ways.
And if every corporate IT department managed open source programs, feature requests would be *more* common as users would know they had a good chance of being heard.
maybe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916554</id>
	<title>Go ahead,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264604400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nobody gives a fuck what you do. Also if you're one of those weenies who constantly act smug and superior about using linux, I'd say its an upgrade of the Ubuntu community when you leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nobody gives a fuck what you do .
Also if you 're one of those weenies who constantly act smug and superior about using linux , I 'd say its an upgrade of the Ubuntu community when you leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nobody gives a fuck what you do.
Also if you're one of those weenies who constantly act smug and superior about using linux, I'd say its an upgrade of the Ubuntu community when you leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264605480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite.  It was actually more like this:

</p><ul>
<li> <b>Mozilla</b>: Hey, dudes, all you have to do is to ask "<a href="http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Can we use your trademarks on our modified distribution?</a> [mozilla.org].  It'll totally won't be a problem for you guys, we're cool with you.  Love your work!</li>
<li> <b>Debianz</b>: Graaaaaaaaaaaaaah!</li>
<li> <b>Mozilla</b>: Errr....?</li>
<li> <b>Debianz</b>: RAAAAAAH  GRAAARRRRRR!  AAAARRGH! <b>RRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRR!</b></li>
</ul><p>You know, just so we're clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite .
It was actually more like this : Mozilla : Hey , dudes , all you have to do is to ask " Can we use your trademarks on our modified distribution ?
[ mozilla.org ] . It 'll totally wo n't be a problem for you guys , we 're cool with you .
Love your work !
Debianz : Graaaaaaaaaaaaaah !
Mozilla : Errr.... ?
Debianz : RAAAAAAH GRAAARRRRRR !
AAAARRGH ! RRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRR !
You know , just so we 're clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.
It was actually more like this:


 Mozilla: Hey, dudes, all you have to do is to ask "Can we use your trademarks on our modified distribution?
[mozilla.org].  It'll totally won't be a problem for you guys, we're cool with you.
Love your work!
Debianz: Graaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Mozilla: Errr....?
Debianz: RAAAAAAH  GRAAARRRRRR!
AAAARRGH! RRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRR!
You know, just so we're clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919842</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264617300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user.</p></div><p>No, Debian goal is to be pure Free Software <em>in the core system</em>. This doesn't necessarily mean GNU - BSDL is also Free, for example, but some GNU licenses (such as GFLD) aren't Free enough for Debian. Furthermore, there's also the official non-free repository, where such stuff can (and does) go. It just can't be present in the default, out-of-the-box install.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user.No , Debian goal is to be pure Free Software in the core system .
This does n't necessarily mean GNU - BSDL is also Free , for example , but some GNU licenses ( such as GFLD ) are n't Free enough for Debian .
Furthermore , there 's also the official non-free repository , where such stuff can ( and does ) go .
It just ca n't be present in the default , out-of-the-box install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user.No, Debian goal is to be pure Free Software in the core system.
This doesn't necessarily mean GNU - BSDL is also Free, for example, but some GNU licenses (such as GFLD) aren't Free enough for Debian.
Furthermore, there's also the official non-free repository, where such stuff can (and does) go.
It just can't be present in the default, out-of-the-box install.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916576</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1264604460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It takes two additional clicks. That's another 30 seconds of system setup time or n hours of maintaining own firefox packages with correct defaults.

They are wasting admin's time by pushing unwanted changes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine .
It takes two additional clicks .
That 's another 30 seconds of system setup time or n hours of maintaining own firefox packages with correct defaults .
They are wasting admin 's time by pushing unwanted changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine.
It takes two additional clicks.
That's another 30 seconds of system setup time or n hours of maintaining own firefox packages with correct defaults.
They are wasting admin's time by pushing unwanted changes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30922354</id>
	<title>Re:Why this is a problem</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1264624260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Or as has been said here many times before: the enemy of my enemy is my friend."</p></div> </blockquote><p>But if two of your enemies fight, which of them you align with? (I'm not saying that it is the case here.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or as has been said here many times before : the enemy of my enemy is my friend .
" But if two of your enemies fight , which of them you align with ?
( I 'm not saying that it is the case here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Or as has been said here many times before: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
" But if two of your enemies fight, which of them you align with?
(I'm not saying that it is the case here.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916366</id>
	<title>might be good, I guess...</title>
	<author>correnos</author>
	<datestamp>1264603440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realize that Canonical needs money and this deal would get them some, but this is still sort of sad in that it's giving M$, the biggest competitor of... any OS really, more money. Also, Google has served Firefox and Ubuntu quite well in the past, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how this serves Canonical well in the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize that Canonical needs money and this deal would get them some , but this is still sort of sad in that it 's giving M $ , the biggest competitor of... any OS really , more money .
Also , Google has served Firefox and Ubuntu quite well in the past , so I 'm having a hard time figuring out how this serves Canonical well in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize that Canonical needs money and this deal would get them some, but this is still sort of sad in that it's giving M$, the biggest competitor of... any OS really, more money.
Also, Google has served Firefox and Ubuntu quite well in the past, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how this serves Canonical well in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916156</id>
	<title>Semantics</title>
	<author>Bicx</author>
	<datestamp>1264602360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So by "revenue sharing," this guy really means "Yahoo! is shoveling over the cash for a minor feature change on Ubuntu."</htmltext>
<tokenext>So by " revenue sharing , " this guy really means " Yahoo !
is shoveling over the cash for a minor feature change on Ubuntu .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by "revenue sharing," this guy really means "Yahoo!
is shoveling over the cash for a minor feature change on Ubuntu.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916254</id>
	<title>open source funded by closed source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Products don't magically sell themselves and make their creators wealthy or even put bread on the table - the lesson of open source.</p><p>But if the ultimate goal of the open source movement is to eventually overtake closed source software, this is damning evidence such a scenario will never happen. At the end of the day, closed source is funding much of the open source initiatives. One could say this also includes those of us working closed source jobs by day and open source projects by night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Products do n't magically sell themselves and make their creators wealthy or even put bread on the table - the lesson of open source.But if the ultimate goal of the open source movement is to eventually overtake closed source software , this is damning evidence such a scenario will never happen .
At the end of the day , closed source is funding much of the open source initiatives .
One could say this also includes those of us working closed source jobs by day and open source projects by night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Products don't magically sell themselves and make their creators wealthy or even put bread on the table - the lesson of open source.But if the ultimate goal of the open source movement is to eventually overtake closed source software, this is damning evidence such a scenario will never happen.
At the end of the day, closed source is funding much of the open source initiatives.
One could say this also includes those of us working closed source jobs by day and open source projects by night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920562</id>
	<title>This Marks the End</title>
	<author>NReitzel</author>
	<datestamp>1264620000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, that marks my last Ubuntu install.</p><p>There are other fish in the sea, and Yahoo is a boat anchor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , that marks my last Ubuntu install.There are other fish in the sea , and Yahoo is a boat anchor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, that marks my last Ubuntu install.There are other fish in the sea, and Yahoo is a boat anchor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917298</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Steve Max</author>
	<datestamp>1264607760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny.</p><p>Novell makes a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, one that doesn't affect their users in any way, shape or form and gives benefits to both companies, then everybody and their dog says they won't touch OpenSuse with a 5-meter pole anymore and that only Microsoft shills will ever see a Suse desktop anymore.</p><p>Canonical makes an advertising deal with Yahoo/Microsoft, making ALL their users use a Microsoft product by default, and possibly giving more benefit to Microsoft/Yahoo (in marketshare) than to Canonical (they already got a cut from Google results), then someone saying they won't use or advocate Ubuntu gets modded as flamebait?</p><p>Which way is it? In every respect, this deal is as bad as Novell's; and in some ways, it's worse, because Linux users will be increasing Microsoft's cash reserves, reserves which can be used to buy governments to support a MS-only environment, to run anti-FLOSS FUD, etc. Besides this deal actually changes something for the users, unlike Novell's. And ideologically, it gives more legitimacy to Bing on FLOSS circles, which can be as much of a trojan horse (or better, the beginning of a slippery slope where "just one more" Microsoft product won't matter until we're fucked).</p><p>I can see someone saying neither deal matters that much, and neither impacts their companies' image. But I really can't see someone saying this deal is better for the FLOSS community than Novell's. Could someone who modded the parent as flamebait explain their reasonimg, please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny.Novell makes a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft , one that does n't affect their users in any way , shape or form and gives benefits to both companies , then everybody and their dog says they wo n't touch OpenSuse with a 5-meter pole anymore and that only Microsoft shills will ever see a Suse desktop anymore.Canonical makes an advertising deal with Yahoo/Microsoft , making ALL their users use a Microsoft product by default , and possibly giving more benefit to Microsoft/Yahoo ( in marketshare ) than to Canonical ( they already got a cut from Google results ) , then someone saying they wo n't use or advocate Ubuntu gets modded as flamebait ? Which way is it ?
In every respect , this deal is as bad as Novell 's ; and in some ways , it 's worse , because Linux users will be increasing Microsoft 's cash reserves , reserves which can be used to buy governments to support a MS-only environment , to run anti-FLOSS FUD , etc .
Besides this deal actually changes something for the users , unlike Novell 's .
And ideologically , it gives more legitimacy to Bing on FLOSS circles , which can be as much of a trojan horse ( or better , the beginning of a slippery slope where " just one more " Microsoft product wo n't matter until we 're fucked ) .I can see someone saying neither deal matters that much , and neither impacts their companies ' image .
But I really ca n't see someone saying this deal is better for the FLOSS community than Novell 's .
Could someone who modded the parent as flamebait explain their reasonimg , please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny.Novell makes a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, one that doesn't affect their users in any way, shape or form and gives benefits to both companies, then everybody and their dog says they won't touch OpenSuse with a 5-meter pole anymore and that only Microsoft shills will ever see a Suse desktop anymore.Canonical makes an advertising deal with Yahoo/Microsoft, making ALL their users use a Microsoft product by default, and possibly giving more benefit to Microsoft/Yahoo (in marketshare) than to Canonical (they already got a cut from Google results), then someone saying they won't use or advocate Ubuntu gets modded as flamebait?Which way is it?
In every respect, this deal is as bad as Novell's; and in some ways, it's worse, because Linux users will be increasing Microsoft's cash reserves, reserves which can be used to buy governments to support a MS-only environment, to run anti-FLOSS FUD, etc.
Besides this deal actually changes something for the users, unlike Novell's.
And ideologically, it gives more legitimacy to Bing on FLOSS circles, which can be as much of a trojan horse (or better, the beginning of a slippery slope where "just one more" Microsoft product won't matter until we're fucked).I can see someone saying neither deal matters that much, and neither impacts their companies' image.
But I really can't see someone saying this deal is better for the FLOSS community than Novell's.
Could someone who modded the parent as flamebait explain their reasonimg, please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916468</id>
	<title>But bing sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the recent google CEO privacy statement fiasco I actually made a concentrated effort to avoid google search and use bing instead.</p><p>After two weeks I was pretty much ready to sell all my private information to google just to have a working search engine again.</p><p>The search results from bing were irrelevant rubbish (if not just plain wrong) and it was the same thing whether I searched using English terms or those of my native language.</p><p>Bing sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the recent google CEO privacy statement fiasco I actually made a concentrated effort to avoid google search and use bing instead.After two weeks I was pretty much ready to sell all my private information to google just to have a working search engine again.The search results from bing were irrelevant rubbish ( if not just plain wrong ) and it was the same thing whether I searched using English terms or those of my native language.Bing sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the recent google CEO privacy statement fiasco I actually made a concentrated effort to avoid google search and use bing instead.After two weeks I was pretty much ready to sell all my private information to google just to have a working search engine again.The search results from bing were irrelevant rubbish (if not just plain wrong) and it was the same thing whether I searched using English terms or those of my native language.Bing sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916652</id>
	<title>Thank Goodness For</title>
	<author>shock1970</author>
	<datestamp>1264604820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tools -&gt; Options -&gt; Main -&gt; Homepage</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tools - &gt; Options - &gt; Main - &gt; Homepage</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tools -&gt; Options -&gt; Main -&gt; Homepage</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917012</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264606500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user.  That is why they made the Iceweasel name.  As they feel because the trademark firefox name makes it unpure.</p><p>Ubutnu is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its users, and less on being Pure... Hence it allows you to install off of apt the "Non-Free" code, after giving a scary lecture to make people who say yes feel like evil criminals. But in terms of Firefox they are ok with using the trademark.  Changing the defualt search is a configuration change not changing firefox so I dont think they would have a real issue with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user .
That is why they made the Iceweasel name .
As they feel because the trademark firefox name makes it unpure.Ubutnu is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its users , and less on being Pure... Hence it allows you to install off of apt the " Non-Free " code , after giving a scary lecture to make people who say yes feel like evil criminals .
But in terms of Firefox they are ok with using the trademark .
Changing the defualt search is a configuration change not changing firefox so I dont think they would have a real issue with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user.
That is why they made the Iceweasel name.
As they feel because the trademark firefox name makes it unpure.Ubutnu is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its users, and less on being Pure... Hence it allows you to install off of apt the "Non-Free" code, after giving a scary lecture to make people who say yes feel like evil criminals.
But in terms of Firefox they are ok with using the trademark.
Changing the defualt search is a configuration change not changing firefox so I dont think they would have a real issue with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918924</id>
	<title>Not a big deal</title>
	<author>motang</author>
	<datestamp>1264613820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really a big deal for me as you can easily change it. I say if it helps fund Ubuntu then it's a minor change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really a big deal for me as you can easily change it .
I say if it helps fund Ubuntu then it 's a minor change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really a big deal for me as you can easily change it.
I say if it helps fund Ubuntu then it's a minor change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1264603560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm confused.  I thought it was named Iceweasel because Mozilla told Debian that they couldn't redistribute a non-official binary and use the logo and name it Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused .
I thought it was named Iceweasel because Mozilla told Debian that they could n't redistribute a non-official binary and use the logo and name it Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.
I thought it was named Iceweasel because Mozilla told Debian that they couldn't redistribute a non-official binary and use the logo and name it Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916234</id>
	<title>The search box in Mozilla is named "Chrome"?!</title>
	<author>MustardAndPizza</author>
	<datestamp>1264602780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.
<br>
<br>
----
<br>
<i>My signature fell down and can't get up.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder whose brilliant idea that was .
---- My signature fell down and ca n't get up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.
----

My signature fell down and can't get up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918646</id>
	<title>supporting Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I go to the new yahoo mail on my Ubuntu box, I'm told "your operating system has not been tested..."</p><p>So, are they actually going to start supporting Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I go to the new yahoo mail on my Ubuntu box , I 'm told " your operating system has not been tested... " So , are they actually going to start supporting Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I go to the new yahoo mail on my Ubuntu box, I'm told "your operating system has not been tested..."So, are they actually going to start supporting Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30922694</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the most important part. That goes, my friend is a lawyer. She check this out and it's all legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the most important part .
That goes , my friend is a lawyer .
She check this out and it 's all legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the most important part.
That goes, my friend is a lawyer.
She check this out and it's all legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917536</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is that, while you can do so with permission, Debian policy is to use only "free software" and the requirement of getting a (revokable) permission is deemed (by the same policy) "non-free" - perhaps reasonably, perhaps not.</p><p>Ultimately, though, who really cares?  Typing "firefox" still works, "iceweasel" is kinda cute, everyone understands that it's still the same web browser, and my computer gains a Matt Groening reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is that , while you can do so with permission , Debian policy is to use only " free software " and the requirement of getting a ( revokable ) permission is deemed ( by the same policy ) " non-free " - perhaps reasonably , perhaps not.Ultimately , though , who really cares ?
Typing " firefox " still works , " iceweasel " is kinda cute , everyone understands that it 's still the same web browser , and my computer gains a Matt Groening reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is that, while you can do so with permission, Debian policy is to use only "free software" and the requirement of getting a (revokable) permission is deemed (by the same policy) "non-free" - perhaps reasonably, perhaps not.Ultimately, though, who really cares?
Typing "firefox" still works, "iceweasel" is kinda cute, everyone understands that it's still the same web browser, and my computer gains a Matt Groening reference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30921162</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>stfu</htmltext>
<tokenext>stfu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stfu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's literally a couple of clicks, ie. two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo. Even if they did change it on every upgrade it wouldn't be a big deal (though annoying).</p><p>Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google, ie. if you are using the 10.04 default provider. In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default. Once you are using a custom search provider, it supposedly won't touch it later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's literally a couple of clicks , ie .
two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo .
Even if they did change it on every upgrade it would n't be a big deal ( though annoying ) .Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google , ie .
if you are using the 10.04 default provider .
In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default .
Once you are using a custom search provider , it supposedly wo n't touch it later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's literally a couple of clicks, ie.
two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo.
Even if they did change it on every upgrade it wouldn't be a big deal (though annoying).Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google, ie.
if you are using the 10.04 default provider.
In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default.
Once you are using a custom search provider, it supposedly won't touch it later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918586</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>dylan\_-</author>
	<datestamp>1264612500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, this means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning ONE SECOND (0.000012 days) of lost time overall.</p><p>They don't change the setting one at a time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting , meaning nearly TWO MONTHS ( 66.8 days ) of lost time overall .
No , this means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting , meaning ONE SECOND ( 0.000012 days ) of lost time overall.They do n't change the setting one at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.
No, this means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning ONE SECOND (0.000012 days) of lost time overall.They don't change the setting one at a time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919258</id>
	<title>Re:It was nice while it lasted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264615080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of spending a few seconds to change the default search engine in Firefox, you're going to spend hours installed a new distribution.  That makes a lot of sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of spending a few seconds to change the default search engine in Firefox , you 're going to spend hours installed a new distribution .
That makes a lot of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of spending a few seconds to change the default search engine in Firefox, you're going to spend hours installed a new distribution.
That makes a lot of sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954</id>
	<title>Canonical?</title>
	<author>Chelloveck</author>
	<datestamp>1264606260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one reading this and asking, "WTF is Canonical?" Neither TFS nor TFA give much of a clue here. Ubuntu's corporate overlord, maybe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one reading this and asking , " WTF is Canonical ?
" Neither TFS nor TFA give much of a clue here .
Ubuntu 's corporate overlord , maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one reading this and asking, "WTF is Canonical?
" Neither TFS nor TFA give much of a clue here.
Ubuntu's corporate overlord, maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918762</id>
	<title>Just switch back</title>
	<author>defaria</author>
	<datestamp>1264613100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many people will simply switch it back to Google? (Raises hand...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people will simply switch it back to Google ?
( Raises hand... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people will simply switch it back to Google?
(Raises hand...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916304</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>NorbrookC</author>
	<datestamp>1264603140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt it.  Firefox has always given users the ability to change the default search engine.  While Google was paying Mozilla to make Google the default search on those products, it doesn't necessarily affect other deals made.  </p><p>This is interesting, but I don't think it's all that big a problem.  Although it's fun to get all paranoid about Microsoft - with some justification - I don't see this as an attempt to "take over" Ubuntu.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it .
Firefox has always given users the ability to change the default search engine .
While Google was paying Mozilla to make Google the default search on those products , it does n't necessarily affect other deals made .
This is interesting , but I do n't think it 's all that big a problem .
Although it 's fun to get all paranoid about Microsoft - with some justification - I do n't see this as an attempt to " take over " Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it.
Firefox has always given users the ability to change the default search engine.
While Google was paying Mozilla to make Google the default search on those products, it doesn't necessarily affect other deals made.
This is interesting, but I don't think it's all that big a problem.
Although it's fun to get all paranoid about Microsoft - with some justification - I don't see this as an attempt to "take over" Ubuntu.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264601940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine. Hopefully they won't do anything cute and change it back everytime I upgrade (I'm looking at you Microsoft).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine .
Hopefully they wo n't do anything cute and change it back everytime I upgrade ( I 'm looking at you Microsoft ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine.
Hopefully they won't do anything cute and change it back everytime I upgrade (I'm looking at you Microsoft).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917894</id>
	<title>or perhaps Ubuntu users giving money to Microsoft?</title>
	<author>dirac3000</author>
	<datestamp>1264610100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Yahoo has a deal with Microsoft, and Ubuntu uses Yahoo as default search engine in their default browser. So Ubuntu users by default will be contribuiting to the income of Microsoft. Where's the part of "or perhaps Ubuntu users giving money to Microsoft" that I don't get?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Yahoo has a deal with Microsoft , and Ubuntu uses Yahoo as default search engine in their default browser .
So Ubuntu users by default will be contribuiting to the income of Microsoft .
Where 's the part of " or perhaps Ubuntu users giving money to Microsoft " that I do n't get ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Yahoo has a deal with Microsoft, and Ubuntu uses Yahoo as default search engine in their default browser.
So Ubuntu users by default will be contribuiting to the income of Microsoft.
Where's the part of "or perhaps Ubuntu users giving money to Microsoft" that I don't get?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this affect the Ubuntu - Firefox deal? Debian's version of Firefox is named Iceweasel because Debian legal felt that the Firefox branding was too encumbered to users wishing to redistribute, but Ubuntu reached some sort of compromise that allowed them to keep the Firefox branding.</p><p>Will screwing with Firefox's default search affect Ubuntu's relationship with Firefox? I'm expecting "no" but wondering if anyone is able to explain why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this affect the Ubuntu - Firefox deal ?
Debian 's version of Firefox is named Iceweasel because Debian legal felt that the Firefox branding was too encumbered to users wishing to redistribute , but Ubuntu reached some sort of compromise that allowed them to keep the Firefox branding.Will screwing with Firefox 's default search affect Ubuntu 's relationship with Firefox ?
I 'm expecting " no " but wondering if anyone is able to explain why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this affect the Ubuntu - Firefox deal?
Debian's version of Firefox is named Iceweasel because Debian legal felt that the Firefox branding was too encumbered to users wishing to redistribute, but Ubuntu reached some sort of compromise that allowed them to keep the Firefox branding.Will screwing with Firefox's default search affect Ubuntu's relationship with Firefox?
I'm expecting "no" but wondering if anyone is able to explain why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916354</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1264603320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox has a revenue sharing deal with Google. However, I don't know if the searches generated by an Ubuntu Firefox were part of this deal, since Ubuntu ALSO has one (which is now being replaced) and a Google search from the Ubuntu Firefox contains an URL parameter "rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official." If Mozilla didn't get any money from Ubuntu searches in the first place, I don't see why this would affect anything.</p><p>I think the Debian/Iceweasel thing was a Debian issue rather than a Mozilla issue; they could have had the Firefox name, but Debian will not distribute encumbered IP (good for them!). I can't imagine that the deal with Google limits Mozilla in what they can do with their trademarks. On a sidenote, the deal runs out in November 2011, who knows what the default search provider in a stock Firefox will be at that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has a revenue sharing deal with Google .
However , I do n't know if the searches generated by an Ubuntu Firefox were part of this deal , since Ubuntu ALSO has one ( which is now being replaced ) and a Google search from the Ubuntu Firefox contains an URL parameter " rls = com.ubuntu : en-US : official .
" If Mozilla did n't get any money from Ubuntu searches in the first place , I do n't see why this would affect anything.I think the Debian/Iceweasel thing was a Debian issue rather than a Mozilla issue ; they could have had the Firefox name , but Debian will not distribute encumbered IP ( good for them ! ) .
I ca n't imagine that the deal with Google limits Mozilla in what they can do with their trademarks .
On a sidenote , the deal runs out in November 2011 , who knows what the default search provider in a stock Firefox will be at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has a revenue sharing deal with Google.
However, I don't know if the searches generated by an Ubuntu Firefox were part of this deal, since Ubuntu ALSO has one (which is now being replaced) and a Google search from the Ubuntu Firefox contains an URL parameter "rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official.
" If Mozilla didn't get any money from Ubuntu searches in the first place, I don't see why this would affect anything.I think the Debian/Iceweasel thing was a Debian issue rather than a Mozilla issue; they could have had the Firefox name, but Debian will not distribute encumbered IP (good for them!).
I can't imagine that the deal with Google limits Mozilla in what they can do with their trademarks.
On a sidenote, the deal runs out in November 2011, who knows what the default search provider in a stock Firefox will be at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917952</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264610280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.</p></div><p>And creating a new big budget computer game takes 2433 YEARS* (876 000 days) of development time overall.</p><p>What is your point?</p><p><i>(*assuming a normal big budget size game development time of 3 years with a team of 100 people)</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting , meaning nearly TWO MONTHS ( 66.8 days ) of lost time overall.And creating a new big budget computer game takes 2433 YEARS * ( 876 000 days ) of development time overall.What is your point ?
( * assuming a normal big budget size game development time of 3 years with a team of 100 people )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.And creating a new big budget computer game takes 2433 YEARS* (876 000 days) of development time overall.What is your point?
(*assuming a normal big budget size game development time of 3 years with a team of 100 people)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917474</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1264608420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again, it may have gone something like this:
</p><ul> <li> <strong>Mozilla</strong>: Listen carefully, Debian. Mozilla controls everything it rests its eyes upon. It holds a trademark so massive it shakes the ground with its registration, so vast it drinks the coke machine dry.  All the God-King Mozilla requires is this: a simple offering of signing an agreement.  A token of Debian's submission to the trademark on the Firefox name.</li>
<li> <strong>Debian</strong>: Submission.  Well, that's a bit of a problem.  See, rumor has it that signing an agreement with Mozilla means that we would no longer be able to make changes to the version of Firefox we distribute and that clearly violates both <a href="http://www.debian.org/social\_contract" title="debian.org">our Social Contract and the Free Software Guidelines</a> [debian.org].</li>
<li> <strong>Debian</strong>: And of course Debian... has its reputation to consider.</li></ul><p>But I wasn't there so I don't know either.  It's entirely possible that the whole event was just a simple adjustment meant to reconcile two conflicting requirements -- That Debian software remain unquestionably Free and that the Mozilla group retain control over the Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey and SunBird trademarks so as to ensure the high quality of software distributed under their names.  But then it wouldn't be nearly as exciting to watch and people would get bored.
</p><p>It's much more fun to imagine that license discussions were conducted while all parties had their shirts off and were threatening one another with giant Q-Tips while the Star Trek fight music played in the background.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again , it may have gone something like this : Mozilla : Listen carefully , Debian .
Mozilla controls everything it rests its eyes upon .
It holds a trademark so massive it shakes the ground with its registration , so vast it drinks the coke machine dry .
All the God-King Mozilla requires is this : a simple offering of signing an agreement .
A token of Debian 's submission to the trademark on the Firefox name .
Debian : Submission .
Well , that 's a bit of a problem .
See , rumor has it that signing an agreement with Mozilla means that we would no longer be able to make changes to the version of Firefox we distribute and that clearly violates both our Social Contract and the Free Software Guidelines [ debian.org ] .
Debian : And of course Debian... has its reputation to consider.But I was n't there so I do n't know either .
It 's entirely possible that the whole event was just a simple adjustment meant to reconcile two conflicting requirements -- That Debian software remain unquestionably Free and that the Mozilla group retain control over the Firefox , Thunderbird , SeaMonkey and SunBird trademarks so as to ensure the high quality of software distributed under their names .
But then it would n't be nearly as exciting to watch and people would get bored .
It 's much more fun to imagine that license discussions were conducted while all parties had their shirts off and were threatening one another with giant Q-Tips while the Star Trek fight music played in the background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again, it may have gone something like this:
  Mozilla: Listen carefully, Debian.
Mozilla controls everything it rests its eyes upon.
It holds a trademark so massive it shakes the ground with its registration, so vast it drinks the coke machine dry.
All the God-King Mozilla requires is this: a simple offering of signing an agreement.
A token of Debian's submission to the trademark on the Firefox name.
Debian: Submission.
Well, that's a bit of a problem.
See, rumor has it that signing an agreement with Mozilla means that we would no longer be able to make changes to the version of Firefox we distribute and that clearly violates both our Social Contract and the Free Software Guidelines [debian.org].
Debian: And of course Debian... has its reputation to consider.But I wasn't there so I don't know either.
It's entirely possible that the whole event was just a simple adjustment meant to reconcile two conflicting requirements -- That Debian software remain unquestionably Free and that the Mozilla group retain control over the Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey and SunBird trademarks so as to ensure the high quality of software distributed under their names.
But then it wouldn't be nearly as exciting to watch and people would get bored.
It's much more fun to imagine that license discussions were conducted while all parties had their shirts off and were threatening one another with giant Q-Tips while the Star Trek fight music played in the background.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916452</id>
	<title>Terrible.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a HORRIBLE idea. Who the hell uses Yahoo these days anyway!? Or Bing for that matter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a HORRIBLE idea .
Who the hell uses Yahoo these days anyway ! ?
Or Bing for that matter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a HORRIBLE idea.
Who the hell uses Yahoo these days anyway!?
Or Bing for that matter...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917106</id>
	<title>Re:Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264606920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember, at one point in the 90's, Microsoft made the claim that they were entitled to a cut of every transaction that took place on the web - not because they'd done anything to deserve it, but just because they could.   They're getting closer to this every day.   A newer, more insidious, but very, very profitable Microsoft tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , at one point in the 90 's , Microsoft made the claim that they were entitled to a cut of every transaction that took place on the web - not because they 'd done anything to deserve it , but just because they could .
They 're getting closer to this every day .
A newer , more insidious , but very , very profitable Microsoft tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, at one point in the 90's, Microsoft made the claim that they were entitled to a cut of every transaction that took place on the web - not because they'd done anything to deserve it, but just because they could.
They're getting closer to this every day.
A newer, more insidious, but very, very profitable Microsoft tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916330</id>
	<title>Please implement it better than Linux Mint!</title>
	<author>Ezel</author>
	<datestamp>1264603200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope their solution is better than what the Linux Mint distribution does. The Google-results from the Mint-search is really poor compared to Firefox-search. And also the way they have implemented their Mint-search makes it almost as hard to go back to Normal-Firefox-search as deleting spyware in Windows. Just take a look at the instructions below. Might not be that hard for Linux-pros, but it's way harder than what the Firefox-crew meant it to be:<br><a href="http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&amp;t=39623" title="linuxmint.com" rel="nofollow">http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&amp;t=39623</a> [linuxmint.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope their solution is better than what the Linux Mint distribution does .
The Google-results from the Mint-search is really poor compared to Firefox-search .
And also the way they have implemented their Mint-search makes it almost as hard to go back to Normal-Firefox-search as deleting spyware in Windows .
Just take a look at the instructions below .
Might not be that hard for Linux-pros , but it 's way harder than what the Firefox-crew meant it to be : http : //forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php ? f = 42&amp;t = 39623 [ linuxmint.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope their solution is better than what the Linux Mint distribution does.
The Google-results from the Mint-search is really poor compared to Firefox-search.
And also the way they have implemented their Mint-search makes it almost as hard to go back to Normal-Firefox-search as deleting spyware in Windows.
Just take a look at the instructions below.
Might not be that hard for Linux-pros, but it's way harder than what the Firefox-crew meant it to be:http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&amp;t=39623 [linuxmint.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918398</id>
	<title>firefox only</title>
	<author>kel-tor</author>
	<datestamp>1264611840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so this only applies to firefox?  meh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so this only applies to firefox ?
meh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so this only applies to firefox?
meh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30929538</id>
	<title>In the event...</title>
	<author>denmarkw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1264612920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that anyone is upset here, let me set you straight.</p><p>This is actually good, at least in one way: I prefer Google BUT, the G has lately been someone who isn't so concerned with privacy, and anyone bored enough to read my post read the posts about Google's infamous "If you have something to hide you shouldn't be doing it" and the whole story about their data retention policies vs. other providers (notably, Bing moving to what 3 months?)</p><p>So, if I install this Ubuntu version, fresh (as stated above an upgrade includes the ability to preserve your settings), and don't care for Yahoo - I just installed Linux. I know how to change my default settings. Most - not all - Linux users, are aware of the ability to select your search engine in the quick search in the top right - its that familiar favicon that gives it away.</p><p>"Hmm, whats that purple Y thing? Where's my G!?!? Oh f it, I'll go with the B!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that anyone is upset here , let me set you straight.This is actually good , at least in one way : I prefer Google BUT , the G has lately been someone who is n't so concerned with privacy , and anyone bored enough to read my post read the posts about Google 's infamous " If you have something to hide you should n't be doing it " and the whole story about their data retention policies vs. other providers ( notably , Bing moving to what 3 months ?
) So , if I install this Ubuntu version , fresh ( as stated above an upgrade includes the ability to preserve your settings ) , and do n't care for Yahoo - I just installed Linux .
I know how to change my default settings .
Most - not all - Linux users , are aware of the ability to select your search engine in the quick search in the top right - its that familiar favicon that gives it away .
" Hmm , whats that purple Y thing ?
Where 's my G ! ? ! ?
Oh f it , I 'll go with the B !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that anyone is upset here, let me set you straight.This is actually good, at least in one way: I prefer Google BUT, the G has lately been someone who isn't so concerned with privacy, and anyone bored enough to read my post read the posts about Google's infamous "If you have something to hide you shouldn't be doing it" and the whole story about their data retention policies vs. other providers (notably, Bing moving to what 3 months?
)So, if I install this Ubuntu version, fresh (as stated above an upgrade includes the ability to preserve your settings), and don't care for Yahoo - I just installed Linux.
I know how to change my default settings.
Most - not all - Linux users, are aware of the ability to select your search engine in the quick search in the top right - its that familiar favicon that gives it away.
"Hmm, whats that purple Y thing?
Where's my G!?!?
Oh f it, I'll go with the B!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30961880</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt</title>
	<author>gauharjk</author>
	<datestamp>1264864320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Microsoft owes me $1.5 million for all the emails I have forwarded for them since last week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft owes me $ 1.5 million for all the emails I have forwarded for them since last week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Microsoft owes me $1.5 million for all the emails I have forwarded for them since last week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382</id>
	<title>Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1264603560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Friends; Please do not take this for a junk letter. Bill Gates sharing his fortune. If you ignore this, You will repent later. Microsoft and Google are now the largest Internet companies and in an effort to make sure that Bing remains the most widely used internet search engine, Microsoft and Ubuntu are running an e-mail beta test.</p><p>When you forward this e-mail to friends, Microsoft can and will track it (If you are a Ubuntu user) For a two weeks time period.</p><p>For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00 For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, You will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.</p><p>I thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on. Microsoft contacted me for my address and withindays, I receive a check for $24,800.00. You need to respond before the beta testing is over. If anyone can affoard this, Bill gates is the man.</p><p>It's all marketing expense to him. Please forward this to as many people as possible. You are bound to get at least $10,000.00. We're not going to help them out with their e-mail beta test without getting a little something for our time. My brother's girlfriend got in on this a few months ago. When i went to visit him for the Baylor/UT game. She showed me her check. It was for the sum of $4,324.44 and was stamped "Paid in full"</p><p>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Friends ; Please do not take this for a junk letter .
Bill Gates sharing his fortune .
If you ignore this , You will repent later .
Microsoft and Google are now the largest Internet companies and in an effort to make sure that Bing remains the most widely used internet search engine , Microsoft and Ubuntu are running an e-mail beta test.When you forward this e-mail to friends , Microsoft can and will track it ( If you are a Ubuntu user ) For a two weeks time period.For every person that you forward this e-mail to , Microsoft will pay you $ 245.00 For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on , Microsoft will pay you $ 243.00 and for every third person that receives it , You will be paid $ 241.00 .
Within two weeks , Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.I thought this was a scam myself , But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on .
Microsoft contacted me for my address and withindays , I receive a check for $ 24,800.00 .
You need to respond before the beta testing is over .
If anyone can affoard this , Bill gates is the man.It 's all marketing expense to him .
Please forward this to as many people as possible .
You are bound to get at least $ 10,000.00 .
We 're not going to help them out with their e-mail beta test without getting a little something for our time .
My brother 's girlfriend got in on this a few months ago .
When i went to visit him for the Baylor/UT game .
She showed me her check .
It was for the sum of $ 4,324.44 and was stamped " Paid in full " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Friends; Please do not take this for a junk letter.
Bill Gates sharing his fortune.
If you ignore this, You will repent later.
Microsoft and Google are now the largest Internet companies and in an effort to make sure that Bing remains the most widely used internet search engine, Microsoft and Ubuntu are running an e-mail beta test.When you forward this e-mail to friends, Microsoft can and will track it (If you are a Ubuntu user) For a two weeks time period.For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00 For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, You will be paid $241.00.
Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.I thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on.
Microsoft contacted me for my address and withindays, I receive a check for $24,800.00.
You need to respond before the beta testing is over.
If anyone can affoard this, Bill gates is the man.It's all marketing expense to him.
Please forward this to as many people as possible.
You are bound to get at least $10,000.00.
We're not going to help them out with their e-mail beta test without getting a little something for our time.
My brother's girlfriend got in on this a few months ago.
When i went to visit him for the Baylor/UT game.
She showed me her check.
It was for the sum of $4,324.44 and was stamped "Paid in full"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916640</id>
	<title>Sorta...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264604760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu."</p><p>True, but not the end user. Microsoft will be paying Canonical for end users using Linux. The user will see nothing of this for using Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu .
" True , but not the end user .
Microsoft will be paying Canonical for end users using Linux .
The user will see nothing of this for using Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu.
"True, but not the end user.
Microsoft will be paying Canonical for end users using Linux.
The user will see nothing of this for using Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917230</id>
	<title>why is something rational and rightful modded down</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1264607460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahoo</p></div><p>i second that - anyone, with anything, for any reason, changes my already saved settings to something i didnt choose for, is on my blacklist.</p><p>anyone who argues otherwise can go to hell. its MY personal preferences and settings. if, even a free software organization messes with that, and for profit, they can shove their software up their asses. i take up free software to be free in anyway. i cant tolerate small or major interventions to my freedoms for any amount of profit they may receive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahooi second that - anyone , with anything , for any reason , changes my already saved settings to something i didnt choose for , is on my blacklist.anyone who argues otherwise can go to hell .
its MY personal preferences and settings .
if , even a free software organization messes with that , and for profit , they can shove their software up their asses .
i take up free software to be free in anyway .
i cant tolerate small or major interventions to my freedoms for any amount of profit they may receive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahooi second that - anyone, with anything, for any reason, changes my already saved settings to something i didnt choose for, is on my blacklist.anyone who argues otherwise can go to hell.
its MY personal preferences and settings.
if, even a free software organization messes with that, and for profit, they can shove their software up their asses.
i take up free software to be free in anyway.
i cant tolerate small or major interventions to my freedoms for any amount of profit they may receive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916294</id>
	<title>In Soviet Yahoo ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Ubuntu's default browser is Lynx!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Ubuntu 's default browser is Lynx !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Ubuntu's default browser is Lynx!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916572</id>
	<title>Good deal for Microsoft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264604460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Canonical gets some money from Yahoo, and Bing gets search market share from Ubuntu.  Overall, I think this was a smart move on the side of Yahoo/Microsoft that will help increase their market share.  Just as with the Xbox, Microsoft is trying to conquer a market by `giving money away'-- that is something they still have in quite some abundance, after all.<br>If it works out, good for Microsoft.  If it doesn't, Canonical simply won't get a lot of money.</p><p>(Myself, I would have asked Google to match that deal, had I been Canonical.)</p><p>I assume that Apple will be getting some material benefit out of switching to Bing, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Canonical gets some money from Yahoo , and Bing gets search market share from Ubuntu .
Overall , I think this was a smart move on the side of Yahoo/Microsoft that will help increase their market share .
Just as with the Xbox , Microsoft is trying to conquer a market by ` giving money away'-- that is something they still have in quite some abundance , after all.If it works out , good for Microsoft .
If it does n't , Canonical simply wo n't get a lot of money .
( Myself , I would have asked Google to match that deal , had I been Canonical .
) I assume that Apple will be getting some material benefit out of switching to Bing , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Canonical gets some money from Yahoo, and Bing gets search market share from Ubuntu.
Overall, I think this was a smart move on the side of Yahoo/Microsoft that will help increase their market share.
Just as with the Xbox, Microsoft is trying to conquer a market by `giving money away'-- that is something they still have in quite some abundance, after all.If it works out, good for Microsoft.
If it doesn't, Canonical simply won't get a lot of money.
(Myself, I would have asked Google to match that deal, had I been Canonical.
)I assume that Apple will be getting some material benefit out of switching to Bing, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916270</id>
	<title>What a dilemma...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264602960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the way they would have to track this, I suspect Ubuntu only gets money when you actually USE it.</p><p>If you switch the search back to Google, Ubuntu won't get paid.</p><p>If you don't, you have to actually use Bing.</p><p>What a dilemma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the way they would have to track this , I suspect Ubuntu only gets money when you actually USE it.If you switch the search back to Google , Ubuntu wo n't get paid.If you do n't , you have to actually use Bing.What a dilemma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the way they would have to track this, I suspect Ubuntu only gets money when you actually USE it.If you switch the search back to Google, Ubuntu won't get paid.If you don't, you have to actually use Bing.What a dilemma.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917114</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1264606920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debian has had realtively large patchsets for mozilla software for a long time for various reasons. The branding changes are just one more relatively trivial change to forward port (and don't forget that there would have been branding changes before since the combination of firefox name and free icons wasn't supported by the standard build process).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian has had realtively large patchsets for mozilla software for a long time for various reasons .
The branding changes are just one more relatively trivial change to forward port ( and do n't forget that there would have been branding changes before since the combination of firefox name and free icons was n't supported by the standard build process ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian has had realtively large patchsets for mozilla software for a long time for various reasons.
The branding changes are just one more relatively trivial change to forward port (and don't forget that there would have been branding changes before since the combination of firefox name and free icons wasn't supported by the standard build process).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30925644</id>
	<title>Re:open source funded by closed source</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1264589940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually this means advertising is funding open source, which is fine with me.</p><p>If MS/Yahoo offer a service to Ubuntu users, and both parties benefit from that arrangement, than I don't really see a big problem here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this means advertising is funding open source , which is fine with me.If MS/Yahoo offer a service to Ubuntu users , and both parties benefit from that arrangement , than I do n't really see a big problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this means advertising is funding open source, which is fine with me.If MS/Yahoo offer a service to Ubuntu users, and both parties benefit from that arrangement, than I don't really see a big problem here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30976848</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Hyppy</author>
	<datestamp>1264954320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Image this scenario: Five million people are hired for one hour of simultaneous manual labor.  Does it cost you $10, or $50,000,000?
<br> <br>
Man hours are multiplicative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Image this scenario : Five million people are hired for one hour of simultaneous manual labor .
Does it cost you $ 10 , or $ 50,000,000 ?
Man hours are multiplicative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Image this scenario: Five million people are hired for one hour of simultaneous manual labor.
Does it cost you $10, or $50,000,000?
Man hours are multiplicative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917614</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>deadsquid</author>
	<datestamp>1264609020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it will not. Without re-hashing too much, the Debian case was different, in that the changes involved incorporating software patches (code) that had not been reviewed and accepted into the Mozilla code base, and the maintainers wanted to be able to include those patches at their discretion, independent of Mozilla's review and approval process. The Ubuntu change is a configuration change, where the default Yahoo! open search plugin and the default search order will be changed, but the application executable will not. Canonical/Ubuntu, as stated in the comment above, does have a distribution agreement in place with Mozilla. Part of that agreement is that any changes to code and/or config that differs from the default will be reviewed by Mozilla, and will not be included in a Firefox-branded product without Mozilla's permission (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html). Canonical believes this change is in the best interests of sustaining the Ubuntu project, and Mozilla has given permission for that change to be made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it will not .
Without re-hashing too much , the Debian case was different , in that the changes involved incorporating software patches ( code ) that had not been reviewed and accepted into the Mozilla code base , and the maintainers wanted to be able to include those patches at their discretion , independent of Mozilla 's review and approval process .
The Ubuntu change is a configuration change , where the default Yahoo !
open search plugin and the default search order will be changed , but the application executable will not .
Canonical/Ubuntu , as stated in the comment above , does have a distribution agreement in place with Mozilla .
Part of that agreement is that any changes to code and/or config that differs from the default will be reviewed by Mozilla , and will not be included in a Firefox-branded product without Mozilla 's permission ( http : //www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html ) .
Canonical believes this change is in the best interests of sustaining the Ubuntu project , and Mozilla has given permission for that change to be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it will not.
Without re-hashing too much, the Debian case was different, in that the changes involved incorporating software patches (code) that had not been reviewed and accepted into the Mozilla code base, and the maintainers wanted to be able to include those patches at their discretion, independent of Mozilla's review and approval process.
The Ubuntu change is a configuration change, where the default Yahoo!
open search plugin and the default search order will be changed, but the application executable will not.
Canonical/Ubuntu, as stated in the comment above, does have a distribution agreement in place with Mozilla.
Part of that agreement is that any changes to code and/or config that differs from the default will be reviewed by Mozilla, and will not be included in a Firefox-branded product without Mozilla's permission (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html).
Canonical believes this change is in the best interests of sustaining the Ubuntu project, and Mozilla has given permission for that change to be made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916450</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes because it's so much better to get people to use Windows, rather than to get them to use Ubuntu, and spend a couple of clicks changing their browser to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well... some search engine that you prefer.  I was going to say Google, but their founders seem to be selling out, so who knows what will become of Google?</p><p>I think I know what you're saying though: I guess you've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu, and now you feel betrayed?  I guess I can understand that.</p><p>Still Ubuntu is I feel pretty cool, but I guess you could be right that accepting sponsorship indirectly Microsoft seems a little<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... unwise...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because it 's so much better to get people to use Windows , rather than to get them to use Ubuntu , and spend a couple of clicks changing their browser to ... well... some search engine that you prefer .
I was going to say Google , but their founders seem to be selling out , so who knows what will become of Google ? I think I know what you 're saying though : I guess you 've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu , and now you feel betrayed ?
I guess I can understand that.Still Ubuntu is I feel pretty cool , but I guess you could be right that accepting sponsorship indirectly Microsoft seems a little .... unwise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because it's so much better to get people to use Windows, rather than to get them to use Ubuntu, and spend a couple of clicks changing their browser to ... well... some search engine that you prefer.
I was going to say Google, but their founders seem to be selling out, so who knows what will become of Google?I think I know what you're saying though: I guess you've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu, and now you feel betrayed?
I guess I can understand that.Still Ubuntu is I feel pretty cool, but I guess you could be right that accepting sponsorship indirectly Microsoft seems a little .... unwise...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916868</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Known Nutter</author>
	<datestamp>1264605840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are wasting admin's time by pushing unwanted changes.</p></div></blockquote><p>Think of it as job security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are wasting admin 's time by pushing unwanted changes.Think of it as job security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are wasting admin's time by pushing unwanted changes.Think of it as job security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919334</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>PybusJ</author>
	<datestamp>1264615440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes because it's so much better to get people to use Windows, rather than to get them to use Ubuntu...</p></div><p>I'd venture to suggest that the above AC is proposing to advocate for one of the many Linux distributions that don't have a revenue sharing agreement with Bing, not recommending his friends stay on Windows.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think I know what you're saying though: I guess you've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu, and now you feel betrayed?</p></div><p>It is true that Canonical have encouraged an anti-MS attitude within their community.  Unlike other distros, bug No 1 in their bug DB makes reference to MS market share.</p><p>Personally, I am not too bothered about the default search option (I never liked the search box and usually remove it from my browser profile anyway), but I am increasingly concerned about the gradual pressure that Canonical's extra revenue streams puts on their technical decisions.</p><p>They have created their own Ubuntu-branded dropbox-like service (Ubuntu One) and are collecting search share revenue.  These things encourage them to make user interface decisions on the user interface which drive people toward revenue generating services rather than for the best technical reasons/user's best interests.</p><p>Imagine a future release where the open source version of Chromium provides a clearly better browser than Firefox [I'm only speaking hypothetically, here, Mozilla], would Canonical block a change to the default in Ubuntu as it doesn't generate them Bing revenue.  As a user, advocate, and occasional contributor, I'd much prefer these decisions to be entirely technical.</p><p>I am somewhat suspicious of this model of making money from associated services rather than support; it's a slippery slope.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because it 's so much better to get people to use Windows , rather than to get them to use Ubuntu...I 'd venture to suggest that the above AC is proposing to advocate for one of the many Linux distributions that do n't have a revenue sharing agreement with Bing , not recommending his friends stay on Windows.I think I know what you 're saying though : I guess you 've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu , and now you feel betrayed ? It is true that Canonical have encouraged an anti-MS attitude within their community .
Unlike other distros , bug No 1 in their bug DB makes reference to MS market share.Personally , I am not too bothered about the default search option ( I never liked the search box and usually remove it from my browser profile anyway ) , but I am increasingly concerned about the gradual pressure that Canonical 's extra revenue streams puts on their technical decisions.They have created their own Ubuntu-branded dropbox-like service ( Ubuntu One ) and are collecting search share revenue .
These things encourage them to make user interface decisions on the user interface which drive people toward revenue generating services rather than for the best technical reasons/user 's best interests.Imagine a future release where the open source version of Chromium provides a clearly better browser than Firefox [ I 'm only speaking hypothetically , here , Mozilla ] , would Canonical block a change to the default in Ubuntu as it does n't generate them Bing revenue .
As a user , advocate , and occasional contributor , I 'd much prefer these decisions to be entirely technical.I am somewhat suspicious of this model of making money from associated services rather than support ; it 's a slippery slope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because it's so much better to get people to use Windows, rather than to get them to use Ubuntu...I'd venture to suggest that the above AC is proposing to advocate for one of the many Linux distributions that don't have a revenue sharing agreement with Bing, not recommending his friends stay on Windows.I think I know what you're saying though: I guess you've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu, and now you feel betrayed?It is true that Canonical have encouraged an anti-MS attitude within their community.
Unlike other distros, bug No 1 in their bug DB makes reference to MS market share.Personally, I am not too bothered about the default search option (I never liked the search box and usually remove it from my browser profile anyway), but I am increasingly concerned about the gradual pressure that Canonical's extra revenue streams puts on their technical decisions.They have created their own Ubuntu-branded dropbox-like service (Ubuntu One) and are collecting search share revenue.
These things encourage them to make user interface decisions on the user interface which drive people toward revenue generating services rather than for the best technical reasons/user's best interests.Imagine a future release where the open source version of Chromium provides a clearly better browser than Firefox [I'm only speaking hypothetically, here, Mozilla], would Canonical block a change to the default in Ubuntu as it doesn't generate them Bing revenue.
As a user, advocate, and occasional contributor, I'd much prefer these decisions to be entirely technical.I am somewhat suspicious of this model of making money from associated services rather than support; it's a slippery slope.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917294</id>
	<title>Re:use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264607760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after a quick look results are pretty good but...<br>IT'S SLOW!</p><p>and that's not acceptable unfortunately. not waiting 5-10s for page to display, while google/bing are instant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after a quick look results are pretty good but...IT 'S SLOW ! and that 's not acceptable unfortunately .
not waiting 5-10s for page to display , while google/bing are instant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after a quick look results are pretty good but...IT'S SLOW!and that's not acceptable unfortunately.
not waiting 5-10s for page to display, while google/bing are instant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It DOES matter (to me) for two reasons:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahoo<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b) anyone who takes money from Microsoft to push Bing is on my blacklist</p><p>Yes, 'b' is my own personal choice and others are free to disagree but 'a' should never be acceptable.  But due to this, I am abandoning my Ubuntu advocacy efforts.  I won't actively discourage Ubuntu use over just this transgression, but I will no longer use Ubuntu personally nor recommend it to my family, friends, employer, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It DOES matter ( to me ) for two reasons :         a ) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahoo         b ) anyone who takes money from Microsoft to push Bing is on my blacklistYes , 'b ' is my own personal choice and others are free to disagree but 'a ' should never be acceptable .
But due to this , I am abandoning my Ubuntu advocacy efforts .
I wo n't actively discourage Ubuntu use over just this transgression , but I will no longer use Ubuntu personally nor recommend it to my family , friends , employer , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It DOES matter (to me) for two reasons:
        a) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahoo
        b) anyone who takes money from Microsoft to push Bing is on my blacklistYes, 'b' is my own personal choice and others are free to disagree but 'a' should never be acceptable.
But due to this, I am abandoning my Ubuntu advocacy efforts.
I won't actively discourage Ubuntu use over just this transgression, but I will no longer use Ubuntu personally nor recommend it to my family, friends, employer, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916662</id>
	<title>Oh, God. This is getting old - it is old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264604880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes, they are being foolish.</p><p>In 1996, John Markoff said, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it."  Bing and putting Bing everywhere, including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.</p><p>In other words, this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme, somehow come to dominate it.</p></div><p>Do you (and every other Microsoft critic or hater) get tired of posting things about MS trying to take of the internet or [insert technology here]? </p><p>For me it got old in 2001. Apple and others have killed MS in the mobile market, the tablet market is about to be given a boost by Apple today, even on the desktop MS has got its ass kicked. MS tried to nudge into Intuit's turf with MS Accounting (giving away a full functional version for free, btw)  to try to take that huge market for Quickbooks from them. Nope. MS shut down the Accounting the product not too long ago. Search engines? Please. Bing doesn't have much of a chance against Google, unfortunately because as far as I'm concerned, MS has a <i>higher</i> ethical standard than Google has.</p><p>Anyway, this is 2010, and your comments about MS have no validity - you're just bringing up old shit from a bygone era.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes , they are being foolish.In 1996 , John Markoff said , " Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet , the company 's critics now fear , Microsoft intends to engulf it .
" Bing and putting Bing everywhere , including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.In other words , this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme , somehow come to dominate it.Do you ( and every other Microsoft critic or hater ) get tired of posting things about MS trying to take of the internet or [ insert technology here ] ?
For me it got old in 2001 .
Apple and others have killed MS in the mobile market , the tablet market is about to be given a boost by Apple today , even on the desktop MS has got its ass kicked .
MS tried to nudge into Intuit 's turf with MS Accounting ( giving away a full functional version for free , btw ) to try to take that huge market for Quickbooks from them .
Nope. MS shut down the Accounting the product not too long ago .
Search engines ?
Please. Bing does n't have much of a chance against Google , unfortunately because as far as I 'm concerned , MS has a higher ethical standard than Google has.Anyway , this is 2010 , and your comments about MS have no validity - you 're just bringing up old shit from a bygone era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes, they are being foolish.In 1996, John Markoff said, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it.
"  Bing and putting Bing everywhere, including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.In other words, this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme, somehow come to dominate it.Do you (and every other Microsoft critic or hater) get tired of posting things about MS trying to take of the internet or [insert technology here]?
For me it got old in 2001.
Apple and others have killed MS in the mobile market, the tablet market is about to be given a boost by Apple today, even on the desktop MS has got its ass kicked.
MS tried to nudge into Intuit's turf with MS Accounting (giving away a full functional version for free, btw)  to try to take that huge market for Quickbooks from them.
Nope. MS shut down the Accounting the product not too long ago.
Search engines?
Please. Bing doesn't have much of a chance against Google, unfortunately because as far as I'm concerned, MS has a higher ethical standard than Google has.Anyway, this is 2010, and your comments about MS have no validity - you're just bringing up old shit from a bygone era.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920508</id>
	<title>Allow me to elaborate</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well Debian['s] goal is to be <b>Pure GNU</b> at all costs even if it [affects] the end user.</p></div><p>The goal isn't exactly some abstract notion of purity, nor is it to be "The GNU Linux".</p><p>The goal, I believe, is to deliver a high-quality collection of software which is licensed compatibly with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social\_contract).</p><p>I quote: "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component" and "We will be guided by the needs of our users"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[Ubuntu] is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its users</p></div><p>I disagree: Ubuntu isn't more focused on its users.  Ubuntu is more focused on its users' <em>pragmatic</em> needs.  Debian is more focused on its users' <em>ideological</em> needs.</p><p>Note: the key word is <em>more</em>.  It's not all or nothing: "We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. [...] We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. [...] <em>contrib</em> and <em>non-free</em>"</p><p>In the firefox case, the Debian project decided that 1. shipping only free software in the base system; and 2. shipping firefox in the base system was more important than 3. shipping a branded firefox.  Ubuntu decided that 3 and 2 were more important than 1.  Pragmatic vs. Idealistic needs.</p><p>And my personal spin: sacrificing a cute logo and calling the rose an iceflower---really, is it that big a deal?  It still smells like a good web browser, and that's what I want: good software, with good ideals.  I prefer the Debian decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Debian [ 's ] goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it [ affects ] the end user.The goal is n't exactly some abstract notion of purity , nor is it to be " The GNU Linux " .The goal , I believe , is to deliver a high-quality collection of software which is licensed compatibly with the Debian Free Software Guidelines ( http : //www.debian.org/social \ _contract ) .I quote : " We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component " and " We will be guided by the needs of our users " [ Ubuntu ] is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its usersI disagree : Ubuntu is n't more focused on its users .
Ubuntu is more focused on its users ' pragmatic needs .
Debian is more focused on its users ' ideological needs.Note : the key word is more .
It 's not all or nothing : " We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian .
[ ... ] We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines .
[ ... ] contrib and non-free " In the firefox case , the Debian project decided that 1. shipping only free software in the base system ; and 2. shipping firefox in the base system was more important than 3. shipping a branded firefox .
Ubuntu decided that 3 and 2 were more important than 1 .
Pragmatic vs. Idealistic needs.And my personal spin : sacrificing a cute logo and calling the rose an iceflower---really , is it that big a deal ?
It still smells like a good web browser , and that 's what I want : good software , with good ideals .
I prefer the Debian decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Debian['s] goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it [affects] the end user.The goal isn't exactly some abstract notion of purity, nor is it to be "The GNU Linux".The goal, I believe, is to deliver a high-quality collection of software which is licensed compatibly with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social\_contract).I quote: "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component" and "We will be guided by the needs of our users"[Ubuntu] is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its usersI disagree: Ubuntu isn't more focused on its users.
Ubuntu is more focused on its users' pragmatic needs.
Debian is more focused on its users' ideological needs.Note: the key word is more.
It's not all or nothing: "We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian.
[...] We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
[...] contrib and non-free"In the firefox case, the Debian project decided that 1. shipping only free software in the base system; and 2. shipping firefox in the base system was more important than 3. shipping a branded firefox.
Ubuntu decided that 3 and 2 were more important than 1.
Pragmatic vs. Idealistic needs.And my personal spin: sacrificing a cute logo and calling the rose an iceflower---really, is it that big a deal?
It still smells like a good web browser, and that's what I want: good software, with good ideals.
I prefer the Debian decision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920798</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>canonical has made a nice enough job for me to send them a token of appreciation if needed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>canonical has made a nice enough job for me to send them a token of appreciation if needed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>canonical has made a nice enough job for me to send them a token of appreciation if needed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919848</id>
	<title>How about more conservative patching</title>
	<author>Pausanias</author>
	<datestamp>1264617360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the other option of not making so many goddam patches? After the <a href="http://www.links.org/?p=327" title="links.org">Debian OpenSSH debacle</a> [links.org], I lost my faith in the Debian "development model" of letting newbs patch core software like OpenSSH for fun. Who try to one-up Theo on security, for crying out loud?</p><p>Debian had better rethink the necessity of its myriad patches. So many of the frustrating regressions in Ubuntu are due to some useless patch made to the kernel by downstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the other option of not making so many goddam patches ?
After the Debian OpenSSH debacle [ links.org ] , I lost my faith in the Debian " development model " of letting newbs patch core software like OpenSSH for fun .
Who try to one-up Theo on security , for crying out loud ? Debian had better rethink the necessity of its myriad patches .
So many of the frustrating regressions in Ubuntu are due to some useless patch made to the kernel by downstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the other option of not making so many goddam patches?
After the Debian OpenSSH debacle [links.org], I lost my faith in the Debian "development model" of letting newbs patch core software like OpenSSH for fun.
Who try to one-up Theo on security, for crying out loud?Debian had better rethink the necessity of its myriad patches.
So many of the frustrating regressions in Ubuntu are due to some useless patch made to the kernel by downstream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30930590</id>
	<title>My desktop system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will be migrating to plain Debian when it's next released. I've already had about all the shit I could take from Ubuntu, and this is the final straw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will be migrating to plain Debian when it 's next released .
I 've already had about all the shit I could take from Ubuntu , and this is the final straw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will be migrating to plain Debian when it's next released.
I've already had about all the shit I could take from Ubuntu, and this is the final straw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917744</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical doesn't find a way to make money. Besides, there are many, many, many ways to optimise a default Ubuntu install in order to safe users one second. Shaving off a quarter second from the boot time will easily offset the time to change the search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical does n't find a way to make money .
Besides , there are many , many , many ways to optimise a default Ubuntu install in order to safe users one second .
Shaving off a quarter second from the boot time will easily offset the time to change the search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical doesn't find a way to make money.
Besides, there are many, many, many ways to optimise a default Ubuntu install in order to safe users one second.
Shaving off a quarter second from the boot time will easily offset the time to change the search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919824</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>CrazedSanity</author>
	<datestamp>1264617240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, it really doesn't.  I haven't cared about the default search provider for quite some time, thanks to the use of keywords in Firefox: when I want to search for something on Google, I type "gg something" and I get the results page, which is faster than tabbing or clicking to the search box, and I know where the result will go.  Just typing "something" into the browser's URL bar is asking for trouble (assuming you're not being literal.</p><p>FYI: to do keyword searching on google, go to a results page, bookmark it, then change everything after the "q=" to "\%s", and put "gg" into the Keyword field (you may have to click the "more" button to see it).  The URL in my bookmark is "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=\%s&amp;btnG=Search"</p><p>I've done this with a lot of sites I search on.  Dictionary.com (dictionary.reference.com) is "dd", Thesaurus (thesaurus.reference.com) is "tt", Wikipedia is "wiki", and IMDB is "imdb", and AcronymFinder is "ac".   Now I don't have to put in a longer search string for definitions, alternative words, wikipedia articles, and whatever.  Super fast, very simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it really does n't .
I have n't cared about the default search provider for quite some time , thanks to the use of keywords in Firefox : when I want to search for something on Google , I type " gg something " and I get the results page , which is faster than tabbing or clicking to the search box , and I know where the result will go .
Just typing " something " into the browser 's URL bar is asking for trouble ( assuming you 're not being literal.FYI : to do keyword searching on google , go to a results page , bookmark it , then change everything after the " q = " to " \ % s " , and put " gg " into the Keyword field ( you may have to click the " more " button to see it ) .
The URL in my bookmark is " http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;q = \ % s&amp;btnG = Search " I 've done this with a lot of sites I search on .
Dictionary.com ( dictionary.reference.com ) is " dd " , Thesaurus ( thesaurus.reference.com ) is " tt " , Wikipedia is " wiki " , and IMDB is " imdb " , and AcronymFinder is " ac " .
Now I do n't have to put in a longer search string for definitions , alternative words , wikipedia articles , and whatever .
Super fast , very simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it really doesn't.
I haven't cared about the default search provider for quite some time, thanks to the use of keywords in Firefox: when I want to search for something on Google, I type "gg something" and I get the results page, which is faster than tabbing or clicking to the search box, and I know where the result will go.
Just typing "something" into the browser's URL bar is asking for trouble (assuming you're not being literal.FYI: to do keyword searching on google, go to a results page, bookmark it, then change everything after the "q=" to "\%s", and put "gg" into the Keyword field (you may have to click the "more" button to see it).
The URL in my bookmark is "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=\%s&amp;btnG=Search"I've done this with a lot of sites I search on.
Dictionary.com (dictionary.reference.com) is "dd", Thesaurus (thesaurus.reference.com) is "tt", Wikipedia is "wiki", and IMDB is "imdb", and AcronymFinder is "ac".
Now I don't have to put in a longer search string for definitions, alternative words, wikipedia articles, and whatever.
Super fast, very simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917006</id>
	<title>Microsoft paying people for using Ubuntu????</title>
	<author>ivanwyc</author>
	<datestamp>1264606500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on, yahoo and microsoft are still two companies, yahoo's business decision is not made by microsoft's management. Yes, yahoo is using microsoft's engine, but so what? You just think too much...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , yahoo and microsoft are still two companies , yahoo 's business decision is not made by microsoft 's management .
Yes , yahoo is using microsoft 's engine , but so what ?
You just think too much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, yahoo and microsoft are still two companies, yahoo's business decision is not made by microsoft's management.
Yes, yahoo is using microsoft's engine, but so what?
You just think too much...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916292</id>
	<title>It was nice while it lasted</title>
	<author>paulzeye</author>
	<datestamp>1264603080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've used Ubuntu for a few years now and always though it was great.  Using a clearly inferior search engine as a default is pretty bogus.  I guess I'll just go back to using Debian.  Can't say I blame them though they need to make money somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used Ubuntu for a few years now and always though it was great .
Using a clearly inferior search engine as a default is pretty bogus .
I guess I 'll just go back to using Debian .
Ca n't say I blame them though they need to make money somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used Ubuntu for a few years now and always though it was great.
Using a clearly inferior search engine as a default is pretty bogus.
I guess I'll just go back to using Debian.
Can't say I blame them though they need to make money somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919328</id>
	<title>Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264615380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, they sure are, making money off of someone elses work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... thats the true spirit of OSS.</p><p>Fortunately for Ubuntu, its entirely acceptable from Mozilla's standpoint, but it certainly qualifies them as fucking douche bags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , they sure are , making money off of someone elses work ... thats the true spirit of OSS.Fortunately for Ubuntu , its entirely acceptable from Mozilla 's standpoint , but it certainly qualifies them as fucking douche bags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, they sure are, making money off of someone elses work ... thats the true spirit of OSS.Fortunately for Ubuntu, its entirely acceptable from Mozilla's standpoint, but it certainly qualifies them as fucking douche bags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919778</id>
	<title>Re:Delicious!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264617120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu!</p></div><p>Technically, it would be Yahoo, no?</p><p>In any case, this isn't really new. For example, Opera switched the default search engine from Google to Yahoo a few years ago. To remind, Opera was the company that initiated anti-trust investigation regarding IE in EU, which resulted in record fines for Microsoft...</p><p>I suspect the only thing there is to this is that Yahoo pays more than Google for this kind of exposure. I doubt MS is involved in any way, actually - Yahoo was already paid for switching to Bing backend back when it happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu ! Technically , it would be Yahoo , no ? In any case , this is n't really new .
For example , Opera switched the default search engine from Google to Yahoo a few years ago .
To remind , Opera was the company that initiated anti-trust investigation regarding IE in EU , which resulted in record fines for Microsoft...I suspect the only thing there is to this is that Yahoo pays more than Google for this kind of exposure .
I doubt MS is involved in any way , actually - Yahoo was already paid for switching to Bing backend back when it happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu!Technically, it would be Yahoo, no?In any case, this isn't really new.
For example, Opera switched the default search engine from Google to Yahoo a few years ago.
To remind, Opera was the company that initiated anti-trust investigation regarding IE in EU, which resulted in record fines for Microsoft...I suspect the only thing there is to this is that Yahoo pays more than Google for this kind of exposure.
I doubt MS is involved in any way, actually - Yahoo was already paid for switching to Bing backend back when it happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30927564</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264597020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem with all of this is that Mozilla doesn't approve every patch that goes in to make Firefox work on a system. FreeBSD has many patches that are needed to make Firefox work as intended and there are no such Trademark issues.</p><p>The problem was specifically that Debian was changing/adding features, which opens the door for Mozilla to get bug reports for things which are specifically not in their product. Mozilla simply said, if it's not our product, you cannot brand it as such. Debian balked, obfuscated the issue behind the "social contract". It really just came down to doing things the right way, push new features upstream during the development cycle instead of bolting it onto a release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem with all of this is that Mozilla does n't approve every patch that goes in to make Firefox work on a system .
FreeBSD has many patches that are needed to make Firefox work as intended and there are no such Trademark issues.The problem was specifically that Debian was changing/adding features , which opens the door for Mozilla to get bug reports for things which are specifically not in their product .
Mozilla simply said , if it 's not our product , you can not brand it as such .
Debian balked , obfuscated the issue behind the " social contract " .
It really just came down to doing things the right way , push new features upstream during the development cycle instead of bolting it onto a release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem with all of this is that Mozilla doesn't approve every patch that goes in to make Firefox work on a system.
FreeBSD has many patches that are needed to make Firefox work as intended and there are no such Trademark issues.The problem was specifically that Debian was changing/adding features, which opens the door for Mozilla to get bug reports for things which are specifically not in their product.
Mozilla simply said, if it's not our product, you cannot brand it as such.
Debian balked, obfuscated the issue behind the "social contract".
It really just came down to doing things the right way, push new features upstream during the development cycle instead of bolting it onto a release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917050</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264606680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it doesn't (this question was also asked on the Ubuntu developer mailing lists, which I subscribe to).</p><p>Mozilla was aware that this change was going to occur before it did and seems to be fine with it.  Ubuntu is still very beneficial for Firefox (simply by having it as the default browser).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it does n't ( this question was also asked on the Ubuntu developer mailing lists , which I subscribe to ) .Mozilla was aware that this change was going to occur before it did and seems to be fine with it .
Ubuntu is still very beneficial for Firefox ( simply by having it as the default browser ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it doesn't (this question was also asked on the Ubuntu developer mailing lists, which I subscribe to).Mozilla was aware that this change was going to occur before it did and seems to be fine with it.
Ubuntu is still very beneficial for Firefox (simply by having it as the default browser).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30942590</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1264678140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at it on the bright side: Canonical will be making more money they hopefully "give" back to the community in the form of more development and better support, and MS just keeps doing its business, also gaining some revenue for whatever they're doing.</p><p>Both "parties" are making money here, and for some reason that pisses the Linux only/Windows only advocates off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it on the bright side : Canonical will be making more money they hopefully " give " back to the community in the form of more development and better support , and MS just keeps doing its business , also gaining some revenue for whatever they 're doing.Both " parties " are making money here , and for some reason that pisses the Linux only/Windows only advocates off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it on the bright side: Canonical will be making more money they hopefully "give" back to the community in the form of more development and better support, and MS just keeps doing its business, also gaining some revenue for whatever they're doing.Both "parties" are making money here, and for some reason that pisses the Linux only/Windows only advocates off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916496</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1264604100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>iirc Debian changed the name and icon of firefox to iceweasel, because Mozilla told people to not change the icon when redistributing altered versions... Debian is quite strict about free software and that demand violates the 4 essential freedoms (even if it violates them only peripherally), so they forked firefox...<br> <br>

otoh they keep up with the versions - it seems they fork every version again or so - i don't know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>iirc Debian changed the name and icon of firefox to iceweasel , because Mozilla told people to not change the icon when redistributing altered versions... Debian is quite strict about free software and that demand violates the 4 essential freedoms ( even if it violates them only peripherally ) , so they forked firefox.. . otoh they keep up with the versions - it seems they fork every version again or so - i do n't know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iirc Debian changed the name and icon of firefox to iceweasel, because Mozilla told people to not change the icon when redistributing altered versions... Debian is quite strict about free software and that demand violates the 4 essential freedoms (even if it violates them only peripherally), so they forked firefox... 

otoh they keep up with the versions - it seems they fork every version again or so - i don't know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30933260</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their patching is a little aggressive for my tastes. I tried plait on Ubuntu 9.10, and it failed with a SYNTAX ERROR! Seriously, did no one actually run the stinking thing after their merry little trip to patch city?</p><p>Now, plait is happy, but come on people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their patching is a little aggressive for my tastes .
I tried plait on Ubuntu 9.10 , and it failed with a SYNTAX ERROR !
Seriously , did no one actually run the stinking thing after their merry little trip to patch city ? Now , plait is happy , but come on people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their patching is a little aggressive for my tastes.
I tried plait on Ubuntu 9.10, and it failed with a SYNTAX ERROR!
Seriously, did no one actually run the stinking thing after their merry little trip to patch city?Now, plait is happy, but come on people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916282</id>
	<title>wrong summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell, I'd install Ubuntu in a fucking VM and let it spin overnight if it won me a check from Microsoft the next morning.  What, I can't do that?</p><p>No, Microsoft is paying Canonical for people using Yahoo.  End users don't see any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , I 'd install Ubuntu in a fucking VM and let it spin overnight if it won me a check from Microsoft the next morning .
What , I ca n't do that ? No , Microsoft is paying Canonical for people using Yahoo .
End users do n't see any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, I'd install Ubuntu in a fucking VM and let it spin overnight if it won me a check from Microsoft the next morning.
What, I can't do that?No, Microsoft is paying Canonical for people using Yahoo.
End users don't see any money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916094</id>
	<title>Even More Money</title>
	<author>syntap</author>
	<datestamp>1264601940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if one uses Bing Cashback, one is being paid by Microsoft to use Ubuntu and giving them money to shop online using it, perhaps to buy a Linux-friendly netbook and the cycle continues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if one uses Bing Cashback , one is being paid by Microsoft to use Ubuntu and giving them money to shop online using it , perhaps to buy a Linux-friendly netbook and the cycle continues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if one uses Bing Cashback, one is being paid by Microsoft to use Ubuntu and giving them money to shop online using it, perhaps to buy a Linux-friendly netbook and the cycle continues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919552</id>
	<title>Bad summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264616220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu</i></p><p>Despite how much you'd like such an irony to be true, you have no capacity for reading comprehension.  They're paying people to use their search engine.  Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using UbuntuDespite how much you 'd like such an irony to be true , you have no capacity for reading comprehension .
They 're paying people to use their search engine .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using UbuntuDespite how much you'd like such an irony to be true, you have no capacity for reading comprehension.
They're paying people to use their search engine.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916486</id>
	<title>A couple months later....</title>
	<author>Bicx</author>
	<datestamp>1264604040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All -

I am writing to apprise you of two small but important changes coming to Lucid.<br> I have asked the desktop team to start preparing<br>
these changes to make them available in Lucid as soon as reasonably<br>
possible. Probably on the order of weeks.<br> <br>

Change #1
In Lucid, the desktop background will now feature Google AdSense.<br> This will aid users in finding sites closely related to the personal information harvested from their home directory.
<br> <br>
Change #2<br>
Change #1 will be unoptional.
<br> <br>
Why?<br>
I am pursuing this change because Canonical has negotiated a revenue<br>
sharing deal with Google and this revenue will help Canonical to provide<br>
developers and resources to continue the open development of Ubuntu and<br>
the Ubuntu Platform. This change will help provide these resources as<br>
well as continuing to respect our user's default settings, except in the case of the AdSense.<br> <br>

Cheers</htmltext>
<tokenext>All - I am writing to apprise you of two small but important changes coming to Lucid .
I have asked the desktop team to start preparing these changes to make them available in Lucid as soon as reasonably possible .
Probably on the order of weeks .
Change # 1 In Lucid , the desktop background will now feature Google AdSense .
This will aid users in finding sites closely related to the personal information harvested from their home directory .
Change # 2 Change # 1 will be unoptional .
Why ? I am pursuing this change because Canonical has negotiated a revenue sharing deal with Google and this revenue will help Canonical to provide developers and resources to continue the open development of Ubuntu and the Ubuntu Platform .
This change will help provide these resources as well as continuing to respect our user 's default settings , except in the case of the AdSense .
Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All -

I am writing to apprise you of two small but important changes coming to Lucid.
I have asked the desktop team to start preparing
these changes to make them available in Lucid as soon as reasonably
possible.
Probably on the order of weeks.
Change #1
In Lucid, the desktop background will now feature Google AdSense.
This will aid users in finding sites closely related to the personal information harvested from their home directory.
Change #2
Change #1 will be unoptional.
Why?
I am pursuing this change because Canonical has negotiated a revenue
sharing deal with Google and this revenue will help Canonical to provide
developers and resources to continue the open development of Ubuntu and
the Ubuntu Platform.
This change will help provide these resources as
well as continuing to respect our user's default settings, except in the case of the AdSense.
Cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916648</id>
	<title>REPENT!</title>
	<author>6-tew</author>
	<datestamp>1264604820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The End is nigh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The End is nigh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The End is nigh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917888</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>i\_ate\_god</author>
	<datestamp>1264610100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, there is absolutely nothing wrong here. It's amazing how many people feel that their principles have been compromised when really, there is only Google, or Bing, and the rest is just fluff. Besides, it's not as if Ubuntu doesn't empower you to change anything you want.</p><p>So really, stop the hyperbole and scaremongering already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , there is absolutely nothing wrong here .
It 's amazing how many people feel that their principles have been compromised when really , there is only Google , or Bing , and the rest is just fluff .
Besides , it 's not as if Ubuntu does n't empower you to change anything you want.So really , stop the hyperbole and scaremongering already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, there is absolutely nothing wrong here.
It's amazing how many people feel that their principles have been compromised when really, there is only Google, or Bing, and the rest is just fluff.
Besides, it's not as if Ubuntu doesn't empower you to change anything you want.So really, stop the hyperbole and scaremongering already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916900</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1264605960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's literally a couple of clicks, ie. two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo. Even if they did change it on every upgrade it wouldn't be a big deal (though annoying).</p><p>Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google, ie. if you are using the 10.04 default provider. In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default. Once you are using a custom search provider, it supposedly won't touch it later.</p></div><p>How technically savvy can these nerds be if they are up in arms with this change?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's literally a couple of clicks , ie .
two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo .
Even if they did change it on every upgrade it would n't be a big deal ( though annoying ) .Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google , ie .
if you are using the 10.04 default provider .
In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default .
Once you are using a custom search provider , it supposedly wo n't touch it later.How technically savvy can these nerds be if they are up in arms with this change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's literally a couple of clicks, ie.
two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo.
Even if they did change it on every upgrade it wouldn't be a big deal (though annoying).Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google, ie.
if you are using the 10.04 default provider.
In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default.
Once you are using a custom search provider, it supposedly won't touch it later.How technically savvy can these nerds be if they are up in arms with this change?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917864</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1264609920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An admin who is worrying about what search engine people are using has too much time on their hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An admin who is worrying about what search engine people are using has too much time on their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An admin who is worrying about what search engine people are using has too much time on their hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917554</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>rcarroll215</author>
	<datestamp>1264608780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>5 minutes later and I'm still laughing at this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 minutes later and I 'm still laughing at this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 minutes later and I'm still laughing at this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916922</id>
	<title>Now.. if Ubuntu can just get</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264606080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yahoo to code Yahoo! Messenger for Linux. Well, they once did but that effort has fallen into disrepair and neglect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo to code Yahoo !
Messenger for Linux .
Well , they once did but that effort has fallen into disrepair and neglect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo to code Yahoo!
Messenger for Linux.
Well, they once did but that effort has fallen into disrepair and neglect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918090</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1264610700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debian actually wanted to: 1) use the trademarked name; but 2) not use the logo. Mozilla said yes to that some years back, but under new management gave a flat no: it was use the whole branding package or not at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian actually wanted to : 1 ) use the trademarked name ; but 2 ) not use the logo .
Mozilla said yes to that some years back , but under new management gave a flat no : it was use the whole branding package or not at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian actually wanted to: 1) use the trademarked name; but 2) not use the logo.
Mozilla said yes to that some years back, but under new management gave a flat no: it was use the whole branding package or not at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916146</id>
	<title>Delicious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu!  Oooooh, my morning just became deliciously enriched.  *Thank you* slashdot, these are the moments I know why I come here! =D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu !
Oooooh , my morning just became deliciously enriched .
* Thank you * slashdot , these are the moments I know why I come here !
= D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu!
Oooooh, my morning just became deliciously enriched.
*Thank you* slashdot, these are the moments I know why I come here!
=D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30945232</id>
	<title>who is earning from Yahoo search (which uses BING)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does not mean Microsoft is paying anything: Microsoft is EARNING from this deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not mean Microsoft is paying anything : Microsoft is EARNING from this deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not mean Microsoft is paying anything: Microsoft is EARNING from this deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30931686</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264682340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall. </i></p><p>You're making the invalid assumption that all those users actually use the 'search box' at all. Many people just have google set as their home page, and click on 'home' on the current or a new tab when they want to search; they will be totally unaffected by this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting , meaning nearly TWO MONTHS ( 66.8 days ) of lost time overall .
You 're making the invalid assumption that all those users actually use the 'search box ' at all .
Many people just have google set as their home page , and click on 'home ' on the current or a new tab when they want to search ; they will be totally unaffected by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.
You're making the invalid assumption that all those users actually use the 'search box' at all.
Many people just have google set as their home page, and click on 'home' on the current or a new tab when they want to search; they will be totally unaffected by this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916412</id>
	<title>ok short term money for long term pain!</title>
	<author>daveb1</author>
	<datestamp>1264603680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok short term money for long term pain!
Google is better than Bing. Yahoo is dying please ignore them. This is only going to harm the users of ubuntu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok short term money for long term pain !
Google is better than Bing .
Yahoo is dying please ignore them .
This is only going to harm the users of ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok short term money for long term pain!
Google is better than Bing.
Yahoo is dying please ignore them.
This is only going to harm the users of ubuntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917520</id>
	<title>Re:Canonical?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264608600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  Canonical is the organization that supports and distributes Ubuntu.</p><p>Please tear up your geek card and mail it in.  Thanks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Canonical is the organization that supports and distributes Ubuntu.Please tear up your geek card and mail it in .
Thanks. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Canonical is the organization that supports and distributes Ubuntu.Please tear up your geek card and mail it in.
Thanks. :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916336</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is some seriously fucked up shit. The beginning of the end. Before you know it they will start shipping "IE for Ubuntu". Ridiculous. Canonical should be truly ashamed. I understand people have to eat, but this is crossing the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is some seriously fucked up shit .
The beginning of the end .
Before you know it they will start shipping " IE for Ubuntu " .
Ridiculous. Canonical should be truly ashamed .
I understand people have to eat , but this is crossing the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is some seriously fucked up shit.
The beginning of the end.
Before you know it they will start shipping "IE for Ubuntu".
Ridiculous. Canonical should be truly ashamed.
I understand people have to eat, but this is crossing the line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917592</id>
	<title>They should just...</title>
	<author>Cytlid</author>
	<datestamp>1264608960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... all combine into one company:

Yahooglebinguntu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... all combine into one company : Yahooglebinguntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... all combine into one company:

Yahooglebinguntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30971130</id>
	<title>reply from anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Google stiffed mozilla I decided to change search engines.  In addition, I canned Chrome on the XP dual boot.  Bling was MS, Yahoo is now MS, I thought about AltaVista (which was my first search engine), but ended up with DogPile which apparently is a compilation or amalgamation of them all.  Still open to better suggestion.  Same with email.  I've used yahoo for so many years that I am not quite sure how to make a change without all the muss of correcting all the contacts.  Open for solid suggestions here too.  I'm not opposed to successful companies and folks earning a living, but when we head down the road of hegemony and monopolies that purposefully 'kill' off other options through underhanded and less than scrupulous means, count me out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Google stiffed mozilla I decided to change search engines .
In addition , I canned Chrome on the XP dual boot .
Bling was MS , Yahoo is now MS , I thought about AltaVista ( which was my first search engine ) , but ended up with DogPile which apparently is a compilation or amalgamation of them all .
Still open to better suggestion .
Same with email .
I 've used yahoo for so many years that I am not quite sure how to make a change without all the muss of correcting all the contacts .
Open for solid suggestions here too .
I 'm not opposed to successful companies and folks earning a living , but when we head down the road of hegemony and monopolies that purposefully 'kill ' off other options through underhanded and less than scrupulous means , count me out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Google stiffed mozilla I decided to change search engines.
In addition, I canned Chrome on the XP dual boot.
Bling was MS, Yahoo is now MS, I thought about AltaVista (which was my first search engine), but ended up with DogPile which apparently is a compilation or amalgamation of them all.
Still open to better suggestion.
Same with email.
I've used yahoo for so many years that I am not quite sure how to make a change without all the muss of correcting all the contacts.
Open for solid suggestions here too.
I'm not opposed to successful companies and folks earning a living, but when we head down the road of hegemony and monopolies that purposefully 'kill' off other options through underhanded and less than scrupulous means, count me out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919344</id>
	<title>Re:use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264615440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heres an even better idea, you could not give a shit that your searchs are logged and realize they don't give a damn what you do.</p><p>Paranoia is costing you more than you realize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heres an even better idea , you could not give a shit that your searchs are logged and realize they do n't give a damn what you do.Paranoia is costing you more than you realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heres an even better idea, you could not give a shit that your searchs are logged and realize they don't give a damn what you do.Paranoia is costing you more than you realize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918436</id>
	<title>Why this is a problem</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1264612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a subtle negative feedback loop here, and I think it's a bit short sighted for Canonical to contribute to it.</p><p>Google is a huge advocate and supporter of Linux.  Google helps to make Linux happen.  Google helps to make the non-Microsoft ecosystem happen.  By sending Ubuntu users to Yahoo search (which, as has been mentioned, is actually Bing), Canonical is helping Microsoft to chip away at Google's market share.  This is not good!  Google is the non-Microsoft world's single biggest chance of finally taking down the monopolist.  If Google falls, Microsoft will make sure that the Web becomes a Windows-only experience.  Do we really want that to happen?</p><p>Actually, I think that after Google finishes polishing up the Linux version of Chrome, they should pony up a few bucks to make Chrome (and Google search) the default web browser in Ubuntu.  What's good for Google is good for Linux, and vice versa.   Or as has been said here many times before: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a subtle negative feedback loop here , and I think it 's a bit short sighted for Canonical to contribute to it.Google is a huge advocate and supporter of Linux .
Google helps to make Linux happen .
Google helps to make the non-Microsoft ecosystem happen .
By sending Ubuntu users to Yahoo search ( which , as has been mentioned , is actually Bing ) , Canonical is helping Microsoft to chip away at Google 's market share .
This is not good !
Google is the non-Microsoft world 's single biggest chance of finally taking down the monopolist .
If Google falls , Microsoft will make sure that the Web becomes a Windows-only experience .
Do we really want that to happen ? Actually , I think that after Google finishes polishing up the Linux version of Chrome , they should pony up a few bucks to make Chrome ( and Google search ) the default web browser in Ubuntu .
What 's good for Google is good for Linux , and vice versa .
Or as has been said here many times before : the enemy of my enemy is my friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a subtle negative feedback loop here, and I think it's a bit short sighted for Canonical to contribute to it.Google is a huge advocate and supporter of Linux.
Google helps to make Linux happen.
Google helps to make the non-Microsoft ecosystem happen.
By sending Ubuntu users to Yahoo search (which, as has been mentioned, is actually Bing), Canonical is helping Microsoft to chip away at Google's market share.
This is not good!
Google is the non-Microsoft world's single biggest chance of finally taking down the monopolist.
If Google falls, Microsoft will make sure that the Web becomes a Windows-only experience.
Do we really want that to happen?Actually, I think that after Google finishes polishing up the Linux version of Chrome, they should pony up a few bucks to make Chrome (and Google search) the default web browser in Ubuntu.
What's good for Google is good for Linux, and vice versa.
Or as has been said here many times before: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264604640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>about a change that takes a single second to undo</p></div><p>There's around <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3780651" title="internetnews.com">8 million Ubuntu users</a> [internetnews.com]. Google has approximately <a href="http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/03/googles-market-share-in-your-country.html" title="blogspot.com">72.1\% (vs 17\% for Bing)</a> [blogspot.com] <br> <br>
This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.
<br> <br>The old way would mean about 15 days of lost time</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>about a change that takes a single second to undoThere 's around 8 million Ubuntu users [ internetnews.com ] .
Google has approximately 72.1 \ % ( vs 17 \ % for Bing ) [ blogspot.com ] This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting , meaning nearly TWO MONTHS ( 66.8 days ) of lost time overall .
The old way would mean about 15 days of lost time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about a change that takes a single second to undoThere's around 8 million Ubuntu users [internetnews.com].
Google has approximately 72.1\% (vs 17\% for Bing) [blogspot.com]  
This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.
The old way would mean about 15 days of lost time
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30930340</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1264708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yep, they sure are, making money off of someone elses work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... thats the true spirit of OSS.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Nope. That's a spirit of capitalist bastards doing business on OSS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , they sure are , making money off of someone elses work ... thats the true spirit of OSS .
Nope. That 's a spirit of capitalist bastards doing business on OSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, they sure are, making money off of someone elses work ... thats the true spirit of OSS.
Nope. That's a spirit of capitalist bastards doing business on OSS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916958</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264606320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OHNOES, an anonymous coward on slashdot is going to "stop using Ubuntu" and "stop recommending it to family, friends, employer, etc."  Looks like Ubuntu is done for.</p><p>Just when I was starting to believe that 2010 was the year of the Linux desktop, too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OHNOES , an anonymous coward on slashdot is going to " stop using Ubuntu " and " stop recommending it to family , friends , employer , etc .
" Looks like Ubuntu is done for.Just when I was starting to believe that 2010 was the year of the Linux desktop , too .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OHNOES, an anonymous coward on slashdot is going to "stop using Ubuntu" and "stop recommending it to family, friends, employer, etc.
"  Looks like Ubuntu is done for.Just when I was starting to believe that 2010 was the year of the Linux desktop, too.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30925308</id>
	<title>Ubuntu's Microsoftization - tick tock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264588980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The clock is ticking..</p><p>I hoped Mark Shuttleworth would never leave his position with Canonical/Ubuntu. His involvement with Ubuntu may exist now but for how long and how strongly will he maintain any cautiousness with Microsoft's potentialized future involvement?</p><p>IMO the clock is tick tick ticking. With the news of Shuttleworth leaving, I'm counting the days before another goldfish (this time, Ubuntu) is swallowed up by some deal from Microsoft, or at least shackled by some binding agreement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The clock is ticking..I hoped Mark Shuttleworth would never leave his position with Canonical/Ubuntu .
His involvement with Ubuntu may exist now but for how long and how strongly will he maintain any cautiousness with Microsoft 's potentialized future involvement ? IMO the clock is tick tick ticking .
With the news of Shuttleworth leaving , I 'm counting the days before another goldfish ( this time , Ubuntu ) is swallowed up by some deal from Microsoft , or at least shackled by some binding agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The clock is ticking..I hoped Mark Shuttleworth would never leave his position with Canonical/Ubuntu.
His involvement with Ubuntu may exist now but for how long and how strongly will he maintain any cautiousness with Microsoft's potentialized future involvement?IMO the clock is tick tick ticking.
With the news of Shuttleworth leaving, I'm counting the days before another goldfish (this time, Ubuntu) is swallowed up by some deal from Microsoft, or at least shackled by some binding agreement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918566</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of Debian's tenets is that anyone should be able to take Debian, modify it, and re-distribute it under the same terms as Debian itself.  This makes things like the Ubuntu project possible.</p><p>Mozilla won't grant them a license to use their trademarks under these terms -- they will let Debian use the trademarks for Debian itself, but won't allow it to pass on those rights to users.  As a result, Debian was forced to change the branding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of Debian 's tenets is that anyone should be able to take Debian , modify it , and re-distribute it under the same terms as Debian itself .
This makes things like the Ubuntu project possible.Mozilla wo n't grant them a license to use their trademarks under these terms -- they will let Debian use the trademarks for Debian itself , but wo n't allow it to pass on those rights to users .
As a result , Debian was forced to change the branding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of Debian's tenets is that anyone should be able to take Debian, modify it, and re-distribute it under the same terms as Debian itself.
This makes things like the Ubuntu project possible.Mozilla won't grant them a license to use their trademarks under these terms -- they will let Debian use the trademarks for Debian itself, but won't allow it to pass on those rights to users.
As a result, Debian was forced to change the branding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1264612140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, but for anyone who wants to really understand the issue, it's much more nuanced and more sensible than that.

</p><p>Mozilla told Debian that Debian could not distributed modified versions of Firefox with the Mozilla trademarked names and images.  Debian developers habitually patch upstream software in various ways to make it fit into the Debian system better, to fix bugs, etc.  One solution would have been for Debian to ship only the exact versions released by Mozilla.  Another solution would have been for Debian to get Mozilla to approve each modified version that Debian wanted to release.  A pain, but doable.

</p><p>However, the discussion highlighted another, deeper problem:  If Debian can't modify FF and redistribute the result without infringing on Mozilla's trademarks, that means neither can anyone else.  Under Debian's Free Software guidelines, it must be possible for users of Debian to modify and redistribute software at will, [i]without[/i] needing to acquire any additional permissions, or else the software is non-free.  That meant that FF is non-free software.

</p><p>That's not a huge problem; Debian distributes lots of non-free software.  So a solution to the problem might have been to get Mozilla's permission to distribute the modifications, and then put FF in the non-free repository.  Per the Debian Social Contract, however, non-free software cannot be essential to the operation of the system.  So FF couldn't be the default browser on the system.

</p><p>But Debian [i]wanted[/i] FF to be the default browser, and so did Mozilla.  It's a fine browser, perhaps even the best around, free, non-free or proprietary.  And Debian really didn't have another good option -- Seamonkey is in the same boat, Dillo sucked, Konqueror is tied to KDE, etc.

</p><p>Debian's other option, obviously, was to simply ignore their own rules, and ship non-free software as a core system component.  That would have been a huge compromise to their principles, and would have opened up all sorts of questions about why *other* non-free software couldn't be in the base system as well.  Big can of worms there.

</p><p>So, what Debian did was to recognize that it was only the trademarked names and artwork which were non-free.  The code was under the MPL, which is a Free Software license.  Their best option, then, was to distributed the code without the trademarks.  Iceweasel, Icedove, etc. are Free Software, per Debian's guidelines, but they have all the functionality of the Mozilla products, and are fully compatible with them.

</p><p>It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was the best available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , but for anyone who wants to really understand the issue , it 's much more nuanced and more sensible than that .
Mozilla told Debian that Debian could not distributed modified versions of Firefox with the Mozilla trademarked names and images .
Debian developers habitually patch upstream software in various ways to make it fit into the Debian system better , to fix bugs , etc .
One solution would have been for Debian to ship only the exact versions released by Mozilla .
Another solution would have been for Debian to get Mozilla to approve each modified version that Debian wanted to release .
A pain , but doable .
However , the discussion highlighted another , deeper problem : If Debian ca n't modify FF and redistribute the result without infringing on Mozilla 's trademarks , that means neither can anyone else .
Under Debian 's Free Software guidelines , it must be possible for users of Debian to modify and redistribute software at will , [ i ] without [ /i ] needing to acquire any additional permissions , or else the software is non-free .
That meant that FF is non-free software .
That 's not a huge problem ; Debian distributes lots of non-free software .
So a solution to the problem might have been to get Mozilla 's permission to distribute the modifications , and then put FF in the non-free repository .
Per the Debian Social Contract , however , non-free software can not be essential to the operation of the system .
So FF could n't be the default browser on the system .
But Debian [ i ] wanted [ /i ] FF to be the default browser , and so did Mozilla .
It 's a fine browser , perhaps even the best around , free , non-free or proprietary .
And Debian really did n't have another good option -- Seamonkey is in the same boat , Dillo sucked , Konqueror is tied to KDE , etc .
Debian 's other option , obviously , was to simply ignore their own rules , and ship non-free software as a core system component .
That would have been a huge compromise to their principles , and would have opened up all sorts of questions about why * other * non-free software could n't be in the base system as well .
Big can of worms there .
So , what Debian did was to recognize that it was only the trademarked names and artwork which were non-free .
The code was under the MPL , which is a Free Software license .
Their best option , then , was to distributed the code without the trademarks .
Iceweasel , Icedove , etc .
are Free Software , per Debian 's guidelines , but they have all the functionality of the Mozilla products , and are fully compatible with them .
It was n't a perfect solution , but it was the best available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, but for anyone who wants to really understand the issue, it's much more nuanced and more sensible than that.
Mozilla told Debian that Debian could not distributed modified versions of Firefox with the Mozilla trademarked names and images.
Debian developers habitually patch upstream software in various ways to make it fit into the Debian system better, to fix bugs, etc.
One solution would have been for Debian to ship only the exact versions released by Mozilla.
Another solution would have been for Debian to get Mozilla to approve each modified version that Debian wanted to release.
A pain, but doable.
However, the discussion highlighted another, deeper problem:  If Debian can't modify FF and redistribute the result without infringing on Mozilla's trademarks, that means neither can anyone else.
Under Debian's Free Software guidelines, it must be possible for users of Debian to modify and redistribute software at will, [i]without[/i] needing to acquire any additional permissions, or else the software is non-free.
That meant that FF is non-free software.
That's not a huge problem; Debian distributes lots of non-free software.
So a solution to the problem might have been to get Mozilla's permission to distribute the modifications, and then put FF in the non-free repository.
Per the Debian Social Contract, however, non-free software cannot be essential to the operation of the system.
So FF couldn't be the default browser on the system.
But Debian [i]wanted[/i] FF to be the default browser, and so did Mozilla.
It's a fine browser, perhaps even the best around, free, non-free or proprietary.
And Debian really didn't have another good option -- Seamonkey is in the same boat, Dillo sucked, Konqueror is tied to KDE, etc.
Debian's other option, obviously, was to simply ignore their own rules, and ship non-free software as a core system component.
That would have been a huge compromise to their principles, and would have opened up all sorts of questions about why *other* non-free software couldn't be in the base system as well.
Big can of worms there.
So, what Debian did was to recognize that it was only the trademarked names and artwork which were non-free.
The code was under the MPL, which is a Free Software license.
Their best option, then, was to distributed the code without the trademarks.
Iceweasel, Icedove, etc.
are Free Software, per Debian's guidelines, but they have all the functionality of the Mozilla products, and are fully compatible with them.
It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was the best available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916240</id>
	<title>ick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Selling out a technical decision (which search engine should be the default) to the highest bidder is kind of a shitty move. Does anyone really think Yahoo is the best choice? Probably not. So they've slightly worsened their user experience in exchange for some cash. Not a great precedent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selling out a technical decision ( which search engine should be the default ) to the highest bidder is kind of a shitty move .
Does anyone really think Yahoo is the best choice ?
Probably not .
So they 've slightly worsened their user experience in exchange for some cash .
Not a great precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selling out a technical decision (which search engine should be the default) to the highest bidder is kind of a shitty move.
Does anyone really think Yahoo is the best choice?
Probably not.
So they've slightly worsened their user experience in exchange for some cash.
Not a great precedent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190</id>
	<title>Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes, they are being foolish.</p><p>In 1996, John Markoff said, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it."  Bing and putting Bing everywhere, including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.</p><p>In other words, this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme, somehow come to dominate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes , they are being foolish.In 1996 , John Markoff said , " Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet , the company 's critics now fear , Microsoft intends to engulf it .
" Bing and putting Bing everywhere , including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.In other words , this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme , somehow come to dominate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes, they are being foolish.In 1996, John Markoff said, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it.
"  Bing and putting Bing everywhere, including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.In other words, this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme, somehow come to dominate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917174</id>
	<title>Re:But bing sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264607220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I find Bing to be superior in one, but critical, area: searching for porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I find Bing to be superior in one , but critical , area : searching for porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I find Bing to be superior in one, but critical, area: searching for porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919834</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical doesn't find a way to make money.</p></div><p>So?  Let them switch to other community-driven distributions, most of which are also able to put out less-buggy releases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical does n't find a way to make money.So ?
Let them switch to other community-driven distributions , most of which are also able to put out less-buggy releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical doesn't find a way to make money.So?
Let them switch to other community-driven distributions, most of which are also able to put out less-buggy releases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920180</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30921020</id>
	<title>Near-monoculture of search engines</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1264621320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How comes we're so dependent on two major search engines? Isn't that unhealthy on the long run? Wasn't there a project in the past to build our own distributed crawler and indexer? Why won't we "open source" Google... I mean why don't we have a community-driven open search engine? This (hypothetical) open search engine could (or should?) be the default in OSS distributions, IMHO, instead of a closed-source provider (yes, even Google's indexing algorithm is closed-source).</htmltext>
<tokenext>How comes we 're so dependent on two major search engines ?
Is n't that unhealthy on the long run ?
Was n't there a project in the past to build our own distributed crawler and indexer ?
Why wo n't we " open source " Google... I mean why do n't we have a community-driven open search engine ?
This ( hypothetical ) open search engine could ( or should ?
) be the default in OSS distributions , IMHO , instead of a closed-source provider ( yes , even Google 's indexing algorithm is closed-source ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How comes we're so dependent on two major search engines?
Isn't that unhealthy on the long run?
Wasn't there a project in the past to build our own distributed crawler and indexer?
Why won't we "open source" Google... I mean why don't we have a community-driven open search engine?
This (hypothetical) open search engine could (or should?
) be the default in OSS distributions, IMHO, instead of a closed-source provider (yes, even Google's indexing algorithm is closed-source).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916320</id>
	<title>Re:Next step:</title>
	<author>miknix</author>
	<datestamp>1264603200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Yahoo scans for "Ubuntu|Linux" in the user-agent.<br>2) Ubuntu user's internet experience is "improved" by presenting Microsoft solutions first, in the search results.<br>3) ??<br>4) Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Yahoo scans for " Ubuntu | Linux " in the user-agent.2 ) Ubuntu user 's internet experience is " improved " by presenting Microsoft solutions first , in the search results.3 ) ?
? 4 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Yahoo scans for "Ubuntu|Linux" in the user-agent.2) Ubuntu user's internet experience is "improved" by presenting Microsoft solutions first, in the search results.3) ?
?4) Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918260</id>
	<title>Re:Canonical?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264611240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you only on Slashdot to post stupid catchphrases or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you only on Slashdot to post stupid catchphrases or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you only on Slashdot to post stupid catchphrases or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916090</id>
	<title>first  post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264601940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft paying people to use other Operating Systems?  That's about right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft paying people to use other Operating Systems ?
That 's about right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft paying people to use other Operating Systems?
That's about right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916914</id>
	<title>Re:It was nice while it lasted</title>
	<author>InEnacWeTrust</author>
	<datestamp>1264606020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... instead of which you could juste as easily make those 2 clicks and change the default back to google.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or maybe you believe it easier to install Debian than to click twice ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... instead of which you could juste as easily make those 2 clicks and change the default back to google .
... or maybe you believe it easier to install Debian than to click twice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... instead of which you could juste as easily make those 2 clicks and change the default back to google.
... or maybe you believe it easier to install Debian than to click twice ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916528</id>
	<title>use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1264604280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've switched to using</p><ul> <li> <a href="http://ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com">http://ixquick.com</a> [ixquick.com] </li></ul><p>It's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches.  On the technical side, it's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.</p><p>Here's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/12389" title="mozilla.org">Ixquick</a> [mozilla.org], or the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/sv-SE/firefox/addon/12781" title="mozilla.org">https version</a> [mozilla.org] (which I haven't tried, but I guess is the same to users).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've switched to using http : //ixquick.com [ ixquick.com ] It 's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches .
On the technical side , it 's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.Here 's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox : Ixquick [ mozilla.org ] , or the https version [ mozilla.org ] ( which I have n't tried , but I guess is the same to users ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've switched to using  http://ixquick.com [ixquick.com] It's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches.
On the technical side, it's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.Here's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox: Ixquick [mozilla.org], or the https version [mozilla.org] (which I haven't tried, but I guess is the same to users).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30924724</id>
	<title>Navigates to Distrowatch...</title>
	<author>fatalGlory</author>
	<datestamp>1264587120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... after considering switching back to vanilla debian for some time, this might be the straw that broke the camels back.  Where free software meets the corporate world, trust is everything.  And trust is not something I have for yahoo/bing search.  I don't trust them to provide good, comprehensive search results (I DO trust google to do that), and I don't trust them not to screw the Ubuntu community (tests on google doing that are inconclusive thus far, but fairly promising).</htmltext>
<tokenext>... after considering switching back to vanilla debian for some time , this might be the straw that broke the camels back .
Where free software meets the corporate world , trust is everything .
And trust is not something I have for yahoo/bing search .
I do n't trust them to provide good , comprehensive search results ( I DO trust google to do that ) , and I do n't trust them not to screw the Ubuntu community ( tests on google doing that are inconclusive thus far , but fairly promising ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... after considering switching back to vanilla debian for some time, this might be the straw that broke the camels back.
Where free software meets the corporate world, trust is everything.
And trust is not something I have for yahoo/bing search.
I don't trust them to provide good, comprehensive search results (I DO trust google to do that), and I don't trust them not to screw the Ubuntu community (tests on google doing that are inconclusive thus far, but fairly promising).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30923214</id>
	<title>Bing highjacking - who is the cause?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264583040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This annoys me but at least it's been announced and I will switch however I've had two Firefox machines that had their keyword search and default searches set to Bing.
<br> <br>
I don't know if it's Mozilla or MS doing it. I know Mozilla told people to switch but never said they would do it and apparently I'm not the only one. <a href="http://support.mozilla.com/tiki-view\_forum\_thread.php?locale=tr&amp;comments\_parentId=361018&amp;forumId=1#threadId368122" title="mozilla.com">http://support.mozilla.com/tiki-view\_forum\_thread.php?locale=tr&amp;comments\_parentId=361018&amp;forumId=1#threadId368122</a> [mozilla.com]
<br> <br>
Does anyone know who's responsible for going ahead and changing Firefox's search from Google to Bing? I'm not impressed either way. I would not be impressed if it was the other way around too.
<br> <br>
It feels like it's an underhanded tactic to try and force Bing on people and I don't think most people will be happy. If it is Microsoft doing this, they won't make people fans of Bing by forcing it on them behind their back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This annoys me but at least it 's been announced and I will switch however I 've had two Firefox machines that had their keyword search and default searches set to Bing .
I do n't know if it 's Mozilla or MS doing it .
I know Mozilla told people to switch but never said they would do it and apparently I 'm not the only one .
http : //support.mozilla.com/tiki-view \ _forum \ _thread.php ? locale = tr&amp;comments \ _parentId = 361018&amp;forumId = 1 # threadId368122 [ mozilla.com ] Does anyone know who 's responsible for going ahead and changing Firefox 's search from Google to Bing ?
I 'm not impressed either way .
I would not be impressed if it was the other way around too .
It feels like it 's an underhanded tactic to try and force Bing on people and I do n't think most people will be happy .
If it is Microsoft doing this , they wo n't make people fans of Bing by forcing it on them behind their back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This annoys me but at least it's been announced and I will switch however I've had two Firefox machines that had their keyword search and default searches set to Bing.
I don't know if it's Mozilla or MS doing it.
I know Mozilla told people to switch but never said they would do it and apparently I'm not the only one.
http://support.mozilla.com/tiki-view\_forum\_thread.php?locale=tr&amp;comments\_parentId=361018&amp;forumId=1#threadId368122 [mozilla.com]
 
Does anyone know who's responsible for going ahead and changing Firefox's search from Google to Bing?
I'm not impressed either way.
I would not be impressed if it was the other way around too.
It feels like it's an underhanded tactic to try and force Bing on people and I don't think most people will be happy.
If it is Microsoft doing this, they won't make people fans of Bing by forcing it on them behind their back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916482</id>
	<title>so</title>
	<author>charliemopps11</author>
	<datestamp>1264604040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>could they also install, by default, the addblock plus plugin?</htmltext>
<tokenext>could they also install , by default , the addblock plus plugin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could they also install, by default, the addblock plus plugin?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30942590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30922354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30976848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30961880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30925644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30922694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30930340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30921162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30933260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30927564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30931686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0118244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30925644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30922694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30921162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30961880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30931686
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917744
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920798
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918586
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30976848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30942590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916450
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30930340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30922354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0118244.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30920508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30916784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918480
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30919848
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30933260
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30927564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30918566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0118244.30917614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
