<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_1434222</id>
	<title>iPad Is a "Huge Step Backward"</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264692060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"FSF's John Sullivan launches the <a href="http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010012703135NWRLAP">Defective by Design campaign</a> and petition to rain on Steve's parade, barely minutes out of the starting gate. 'This is a huge step backward in the history of computing,' said FSF's Holmes Wilson, 'If the first personal computers required permission from the manufacturer for each new program or new feature, the history of computing would be as dismally totalitarian as the milieu in Apple's famous Super Bowl ad.' The iPad has DRM writ large: you can only install what Apple says you may, and 'computing' goes consumer mainstream &mdash; no more twiddling, just sit back, spend your money, and watch the show &mdash; while we allow you to."</i>  What is clear is that the rise of the App Store removes control of the computer from the user.  It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " FSF 's John Sullivan launches the Defective by Design campaign and petition to rain on Steve 's parade , barely minutes out of the starting gate .
'This is a huge step backward in the history of computing, ' said FSF 's Holmes Wilson , 'If the first personal computers required permission from the manufacturer for each new program or new feature , the history of computing would be as dismally totalitarian as the milieu in Apple 's famous Super Bowl ad .
' The iPad has DRM writ large : you can only install what Apple says you may , and 'computing ' goes consumer mainstream    no more twiddling , just sit back , spend your money , and watch the show    while we allow you to .
" What is clear is that the rise of the App Store removes control of the computer from the user .
It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "FSF's John Sullivan launches the Defective by Design campaign and petition to rain on Steve's parade, barely minutes out of the starting gate.
'This is a huge step backward in the history of computing,' said FSF's Holmes Wilson, 'If the first personal computers required permission from the manufacturer for each new program or new feature, the history of computing would be as dismally totalitarian as the milieu in Apple's famous Super Bowl ad.
' The iPad has DRM writ large: you can only install what Apple says you may, and 'computing' goes consumer mainstream — no more twiddling, just sit back, spend your money, and watch the show — while we allow you to.
"  What is clear is that the rise of the App Store removes control of the computer from the user.
It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934100</id>
	<title>Well what you need is...</title>
	<author>CSHARP123</author>
	<datestamp>1264697400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft Courier but wait that is still a vapour....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Courier but wait that is still a vapour... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Courier but wait that is still a vapour....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936448</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store?  Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"</p></div><p>To be honest, my guess is most people would happily download apps from wherever they could get them.</p><p>An app store is nice, but people who wanted to get them somewhere else would happily do so.</p><p>E.g., since when did people get their software only through a Microsoft store?</p><p>The key thing with the app store (and this goes for the Android Market, etc. too) is that when you're on a phone, it's much easier to click a button or a widget or whatever and browse through apps that way then go through some nonstandard, ever-changing set of websites to find them.</p><p>But that doesn't mean that competition wouldn't be useful. Ideally you should be able to get apps through an app store as well as whatever else you please.</p><p>Please don't start to justify draconian DRM and monopolistic practices in the name of UI simplicity. Simple, efficient UIs can happen without DRM and monopolies. There doesn't have to be a Faustian bargain.</p><p>Apple has, once more, reminded me all over again of why I hated them, and liked Microsoft in the 80s and early 90s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store ?
Would they have the same attitude if they did n't have apple saying " we 've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps wo n't * BLEEP * you up the rear " To be honest , my guess is most people would happily download apps from wherever they could get them.An app store is nice , but people who wanted to get them somewhere else would happily do so.E.g. , since when did people get their software only through a Microsoft store ? The key thing with the app store ( and this goes for the Android Market , etc .
too ) is that when you 're on a phone , it 's much easier to click a button or a widget or whatever and browse through apps that way then go through some nonstandard , ever-changing set of websites to find them.But that does n't mean that competition would n't be useful .
Ideally you should be able to get apps through an app store as well as whatever else you please.Please do n't start to justify draconian DRM and monopolistic practices in the name of UI simplicity .
Simple , efficient UIs can happen without DRM and monopolies .
There does n't have to be a Faustian bargain.Apple has , once more , reminded me all over again of why I hated them , and liked Microsoft in the 80s and early 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store?
Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"To be honest, my guess is most people would happily download apps from wherever they could get them.An app store is nice, but people who wanted to get them somewhere else would happily do so.E.g., since when did people get their software only through a Microsoft store?The key thing with the app store (and this goes for the Android Market, etc.
too) is that when you're on a phone, it's much easier to click a button or a widget or whatever and browse through apps that way then go through some nonstandard, ever-changing set of websites to find them.But that doesn't mean that competition wouldn't be useful.
Ideally you should be able to get apps through an app store as well as whatever else you please.Please don't start to justify draconian DRM and monopolistic practices in the name of UI simplicity.
Simple, efficient UIs can happen without DRM and monopolies.
There doesn't have to be a Faustian bargain.Apple has, once more, reminded me all over again of why I hated them, and liked Microsoft in the 80s and early 90s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935020</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264700040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?"</p></div><p>"Sorry, I can't fix anything. It's locked down to just do what it does."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?"</p></div><p>"It does what the manufacturer made it do, we can't do a damn thing about it"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know."</p></div><p>"It's a closed system. It just does what it does"</p><p>See how those answers could be different for a reasonably open system? (not necessarily Open Source -- even Windows and OSX are open enough to improve those answers).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ca n't you fix it so that I do n't have to worry about that ?
" " Sorry , I ca n't fix anything .
It 's locked down to just do what it does .
" " Why does n't the computer just do that for me ?
" " It does what the manufacturer made it do , we ca n't do a damn thing about it " " Just make it work , I do n't care how , and I do n't want to know .
" " It 's a closed system .
It just does what it does " See how those answers could be different for a reasonably open system ?
( not necessarily Open Source -- even Windows and OSX are open enough to improve those answers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?
""Sorry, I can't fix anything.
It's locked down to just do what it does.
""Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?
""It does what the manufacturer made it do, we can't do a damn thing about it""Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know.
""It's a closed system.
It just does what it does"See how those answers could be different for a reasonably open system?
(not necessarily Open Source -- even Windows and OSX are open enough to improve those answers).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942106</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>adageable</author>
	<datestamp>1264676280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know... I can't believe I'm saying this but...<br>
When I go home at night, after a long day of fixing this, helping unbreak that, designing this, blah blah blah... well, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't mind being a sheep as well.<br> <br>
I don't always want to download the latest Gentoo release and compile from scratch to surf the freaking internet.  Or listen to my completely un-DRM'ed MP3 collection.
<br> <br>
I'm a shepherd at work... but I wouldn't mind a rock-solid browser experience with my morning coffee...<br> <br>
Does that make me a sheep?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know... I ca n't believe I 'm saying this but.. . When I go home at night , after a long day of fixing this , helping unbreak that , designing this , blah blah blah... well , I 'm not so sure that I would n't mind being a sheep as well .
I do n't always want to download the latest Gentoo release and compile from scratch to surf the freaking internet .
Or listen to my completely un-DRM'ed MP3 collection .
I 'm a shepherd at work... but I would n't mind a rock-solid browser experience with my morning coffee.. . Does that make me a sheep ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know... I can't believe I'm saying this but...
When I go home at night, after a long day of fixing this, helping unbreak that, designing this, blah blah blah... well, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't mind being a sheep as well.
I don't always want to download the latest Gentoo release and compile from scratch to surf the freaking internet.
Or listen to my completely un-DRM'ed MP3 collection.
I'm a shepherd at work... but I wouldn't mind a rock-solid browser experience with my morning coffee... 
Does that make me a sheep?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944362</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1264687740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the users must give up the ability to run whatever software they desire in order to avoid all these terrible problems, then how does Apple manage to avoid them with OS X?</p><p>Give your false dichotomy a rest.  This is about Apple controlling the entire platform, not about Windows failures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the users must give up the ability to run whatever software they desire in order to avoid all these terrible problems , then how does Apple manage to avoid them with OS X ? Give your false dichotomy a rest .
This is about Apple controlling the entire platform , not about Windows failures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the users must give up the ability to run whatever software they desire in order to avoid all these terrible problems, then how does Apple manage to avoid them with OS X?Give your false dichotomy a rest.
This is about Apple controlling the entire platform, not about Windows failures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934734</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control. Why should average users have control over their computer?</p></div><p>It's an interesting question. Legally, perhaps, the answer is in the first sale doctrine: what you legally bought should be yours to do with as you see fit. If you bought a book, you don't need the publisher's permission to read it; if you bought a computer, you don't need the manufacturer's permission to install apps on it.</p><p>Philosophically speaking, it's a question of liberty, or, more precisely, of who the onus is on to justify their position. Put another way, you're asking the wrong question: it's not up to users to justify wanting to have the freedom to install apps on their computer, it's up to those not wanting users to have that freedom to justify denying it. Compare, for instance, ther right to vote; as long as you're a citizen over the age of 18 (or whatever), anyway, your right to vote cannot easily be taken away or withheld. Things like poll taxes, requirements you have to meet in order to be granted the right to vote etc. are all unjustifiable, and the reason for that is that the right to vote is not granted by the state in the first place, as a generous gift.</p><p>Similarly, the right to install apps on your computer isn't granted by the manufacturer, just like the right to read a book you bought isn't granted by the publisher: it's already there.</p><p>The government is allowed to strip your right to vote from you under very limited circumstances only (mostly when you're sentenced to prison/jail), and even those circumstances are far from uncontroversial. Do you think that private companies that aren't bound by things like the constitution the way the government is, that aren't elected or otherwise representative, and that do not care for the people, not even in theory, should be allowed to dictate these things, with users being required to justify why they want the freedom to, say, install (unblessed) apps on the computer they purchased?</p><p>Of course, you'll probably say now that in reality, the easiest thing to do is to simply not buy an iPad if you don't agree with this. And that's true, but I'll remind you that you are the one who asked this question in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control .
Why should average users have control over their computer ? It 's an interesting question .
Legally , perhaps , the answer is in the first sale doctrine : what you legally bought should be yours to do with as you see fit .
If you bought a book , you do n't need the publisher 's permission to read it ; if you bought a computer , you do n't need the manufacturer 's permission to install apps on it.Philosophically speaking , it 's a question of liberty , or , more precisely , of who the onus is on to justify their position .
Put another way , you 're asking the wrong question : it 's not up to users to justify wanting to have the freedom to install apps on their computer , it 's up to those not wanting users to have that freedom to justify denying it .
Compare , for instance , ther right to vote ; as long as you 're a citizen over the age of 18 ( or whatever ) , anyway , your right to vote can not easily be taken away or withheld .
Things like poll taxes , requirements you have to meet in order to be granted the right to vote etc .
are all unjustifiable , and the reason for that is that the right to vote is not granted by the state in the first place , as a generous gift.Similarly , the right to install apps on your computer is n't granted by the manufacturer , just like the right to read a book you bought is n't granted by the publisher : it 's already there.The government is allowed to strip your right to vote from you under very limited circumstances only ( mostly when you 're sentenced to prison/jail ) , and even those circumstances are far from uncontroversial .
Do you think that private companies that are n't bound by things like the constitution the way the government is , that are n't elected or otherwise representative , and that do not care for the people , not even in theory , should be allowed to dictate these things , with users being required to justify why they want the freedom to , say , install ( unblessed ) apps on the computer they purchased ? Of course , you 'll probably say now that in reality , the easiest thing to do is to simply not buy an iPad if you do n't agree with this .
And that 's true , but I 'll remind you that you are the one who asked this question in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control.
Why should average users have control over their computer?It's an interesting question.
Legally, perhaps, the answer is in the first sale doctrine: what you legally bought should be yours to do with as you see fit.
If you bought a book, you don't need the publisher's permission to read it; if you bought a computer, you don't need the manufacturer's permission to install apps on it.Philosophically speaking, it's a question of liberty, or, more precisely, of who the onus is on to justify their position.
Put another way, you're asking the wrong question: it's not up to users to justify wanting to have the freedom to install apps on their computer, it's up to those not wanting users to have that freedom to justify denying it.
Compare, for instance, ther right to vote; as long as you're a citizen over the age of 18 (or whatever), anyway, your right to vote cannot easily be taken away or withheld.
Things like poll taxes, requirements you have to meet in order to be granted the right to vote etc.
are all unjustifiable, and the reason for that is that the right to vote is not granted by the state in the first place, as a generous gift.Similarly, the right to install apps on your computer isn't granted by the manufacturer, just like the right to read a book you bought isn't granted by the publisher: it's already there.The government is allowed to strip your right to vote from you under very limited circumstances only (mostly when you're sentenced to prison/jail), and even those circumstances are far from uncontroversial.
Do you think that private companies that aren't bound by things like the constitution the way the government is, that aren't elected or otherwise representative, and that do not care for the people, not even in theory, should be allowed to dictate these things, with users being required to justify why they want the freedom to, say, install (unblessed) apps on the computer they purchased?Of course, you'll probably say now that in reality, the easiest thing to do is to simply not buy an iPad if you don't agree with this.
And that's true, but I'll remind you that you are the one who asked this question in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947084</id>
	<title>The present reality of things.</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1264758420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are almost forced to comply with the decisions that major corporations like apple and google make while developing their products. Of course no one needs to go buy an IPad, but millions will anyway even if it was a horrible decision. I thought we lived in a democracy, and people had a say in the elements that surrond their everyday life and freedoms, even in the IStore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are almost forced to comply with the decisions that major corporations like apple and google make while developing their products .
Of course no one needs to go buy an IPad , but millions will anyway even if it was a horrible decision .
I thought we lived in a democracy , and people had a say in the elements that surrond their everyday life and freedoms , even in the IStore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are almost forced to comply with the decisions that major corporations like apple and google make while developing their products.
Of course no one needs to go buy an IPad, but millions will anyway even if it was a horrible decision.
I thought we lived in a democracy, and people had a say in the elements that surrond their everyday life and freedoms, even in the IStore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800</id>
	<title>Misses the point</title>
	<author>Philotomy</author>
	<datestamp>1264696560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the complaint misses the point of the device.  It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer.  It's supposed to be an iPod for documents (including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore), doing for them what the iPod did for music: let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the complaint misses the point of the device .
It 's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer .
It 's supposed to be an iPod for documents ( including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore ) , doing for them what the iPod did for music : let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the complaint misses the point of the device.
It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer.
It's supposed to be an iPod for documents (including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore), doing for them what the iPod did for music: let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942762</id>
	<title>T-storm in a Slashcup?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does DRM matter in the cloud era? Or does it matter as much? If you develop, run and "live" on the net all you "really" need is a text editor and connection to the intertubz?</p><p>I know I am missing a huge chunk of something or other - but DRM of a device just doesn't seem that important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does DRM matter in the cloud era ?
Or does it matter as much ?
If you develop , run and " live " on the net all you " really " need is a text editor and connection to the intertubz ? I know I am missing a huge chunk of something or other - but DRM of a device just does n't seem that important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does DRM matter in the cloud era?
Or does it matter as much?
If you develop, run and "live" on the net all you "really" need is a text editor and connection to the intertubz?I know I am missing a huge chunk of something or other - but DRM of a device just doesn't seem that important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935700</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store? Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"</p></div><p>As anybody who's ever done tech support for an ignorant user can attest: Yes, they would.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store ?
Would they have the same attitude if they did n't have apple saying " we 've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps wo n't * BLEEP * you up the rear " As anybody who 's ever done tech support for an ignorant user can attest : Yes , they would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store?
Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"As anybody who's ever done tech support for an ignorant user can attest: Yes, they would.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934184</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1264697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows Google doesn't do hardware. Dell, however, is making an Android-based tablet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows Google does n't do hardware .
Dell , however , is making an Android-based tablet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows Google doesn't do hardware.
Dell, however, is making an Android-based tablet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938896</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no market segment.  That's why all of these devices have completely failed in the past.  Who wants a THIRD device to carry around when your smart-phone and slim notebook can take care of all the tasks you need it for.  Niche market, and until they can integrate into a "smart" home, which is also a non-existent market currently, these will all fail to sell in large quantities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no market segment .
That 's why all of these devices have completely failed in the past .
Who wants a THIRD device to carry around when your smart-phone and slim notebook can take care of all the tasks you need it for .
Niche market , and until they can integrate into a " smart " home , which is also a non-existent market currently , these will all fail to sell in large quantities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no market segment.
That's why all of these devices have completely failed in the past.
Who wants a THIRD device to carry around when your smart-phone and slim notebook can take care of all the tasks you need it for.
Niche market, and until they can integrate into a "smart" home, which is also a non-existent market currently, these will all fail to sell in large quantities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934740</id>
	<title>What else is new?</title>
	<author>lostenroute</author>
	<datestamp>1264699260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the telephone was invented, you simply COULD NOT use the device independent of the monopolistic phone company.

When the television was invented, you just COULDN'T stick an antenna out the window and watch your neighbor's 16 mm home movies.  You had to use a BROADCASTING company!

I tried to change my Gillette razor blades the other day - I COULD NOT BELIEVE I had to buy expensive "Gillette" razors only!

The reasons why TV, telephones, and even razors simply work, as opposed to being a consumer nightmare, is because they are based on proprietary models and are consumer goods, not hackers' tools.  Apple has tiny, fragile devices that it does not claim to be PCs (or PCs for the rest of us).

As others have said, if you don't want an iPad/Touch/phone, don't buy one.  Try a Kindle.  Oh, wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the telephone was invented , you simply COULD NOT use the device independent of the monopolistic phone company .
When the television was invented , you just COULD N'T stick an antenna out the window and watch your neighbor 's 16 mm home movies .
You had to use a BROADCASTING company !
I tried to change my Gillette razor blades the other day - I COULD NOT BELIEVE I had to buy expensive " Gillette " razors only !
The reasons why TV , telephones , and even razors simply work , as opposed to being a consumer nightmare , is because they are based on proprietary models and are consumer goods , not hackers ' tools .
Apple has tiny , fragile devices that it does not claim to be PCs ( or PCs for the rest of us ) .
As others have said , if you do n't want an iPad/Touch/phone , do n't buy one .
Try a Kindle .
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the telephone was invented, you simply COULD NOT use the device independent of the monopolistic phone company.
When the television was invented, you just COULDN'T stick an antenna out the window and watch your neighbor's 16 mm home movies.
You had to use a BROADCASTING company!
I tried to change my Gillette razor blades the other day - I COULD NOT BELIEVE I had to buy expensive "Gillette" razors only!
The reasons why TV, telephones, and even razors simply work, as opposed to being a consumer nightmare, is because they are based on proprietary models and are consumer goods, not hackers' tools.
Apple has tiny, fragile devices that it does not claim to be PCs (or PCs for the rest of us).
As others have said, if you don't want an iPad/Touch/phone, don't buy one.
Try a Kindle.
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935194</id>
	<title>It's a free country, FSF can make their own pad</title>
	<author>DustoneGT</author>
	<datestamp>1264700520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, they could make their own Linux version of the iPad, or even make a Linux distro that can install on the iPad. Nobody's stopping them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , they could make their own Linux version of the iPad , or even make a Linux distro that can install on the iPad .
Nobody 's stopping them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, they could make their own Linux version of the iPad, or even make a Linux distro that can install on the iPad.
Nobody's stopping them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937824</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>ArbitraryDescriptor</author>
	<datestamp>1264707420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO</p></div><p>I just want tools that do what I want them to do.  If I want to scrape grout out with my screwdriver, who is Craftsman to tell me I can't?  I accept that I might hurt the screwdriver if using it for things other than driving screws.  I'm a big boy, I think I can handle that responsibility.  This whole rant here:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web. I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there. When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.</p></div><p>Total fabrication or serious, compound, operator error<br>
<br>
Time to update virus definitions: 10-15 seconds, in the background, at boot. That's right, my computer does it for me; with nary an apple in sight. <br> <br> Steps required to surf web safely: click the icon for my browser du jour; or [win],i if I don't have a quarter second to spare.  <br> <br>Steps to install and launch most software: "Accept the EULA"; "Pick a folder"; "Next", "Finish".  <br> <br>Let's see, what other maintenance do I do to keep this incomprehensible and beastly OS running...  Defrag every year or two?  Update my video card driver as a new game may require?  <br> <br>Wow, when I lay it all out like that, it's a wonder I can get anything done.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If not wasting my time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... makes me a sheep, then baa baa baa, guilty as charged.</p></div><p>  I wouldn't say that it does, but that part about "baa baa baa"  comes across a little sheepy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DOI just want tools that do what I want them to do .
If I want to scrape grout out with my screwdriver , who is Craftsman to tell me I ca n't ?
I accept that I might hurt the screwdriver if using it for things other than driving screws .
I 'm a big boy , I think I can handle that responsibility .
This whole rant here : When I want to use a web enabled device , I want to just surf the goddamn web .
I do n't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits , scanning my system , and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I 'm going to do there .
When I want to install an application on my computer I do n't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.Total fabrication or serious , compound , operator error Time to update virus definitions : 10-15 seconds , in the background , at boot .
That 's right , my computer does it for me ; with nary an apple in sight .
Steps required to surf web safely : click the icon for my browser du jour ; or [ win ] ,i if I do n't have a quarter second to spare .
Steps to install and launch most software : " Accept the EULA " ; " Pick a folder " ; " Next " , " Finish " .
Let 's see , what other maintenance do I do to keep this incomprehensible and beastly OS running... Defrag every year or two ?
Update my video card driver as a new game may require ?
Wow , when I lay it all out like that , it 's a wonder I can get anything done.If not wasting my time ... makes me a sheep , then baa baa baa , guilty as charged .
I would n't say that it does , but that part about " baa baa baa " comes across a little sheepy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DOI just want tools that do what I want them to do.
If I want to scrape grout out with my screwdriver, who is Craftsman to tell me I can't?
I accept that I might hurt the screwdriver if using it for things other than driving screws.
I'm a big boy, I think I can handle that responsibility.
This whole rant here:When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web.
I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there.
When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.Total fabrication or serious, compound, operator error

Time to update virus definitions: 10-15 seconds, in the background, at boot.
That's right, my computer does it for me; with nary an apple in sight.
Steps required to surf web safely: click the icon for my browser du jour; or [win],i if I don't have a quarter second to spare.
Steps to install and launch most software: "Accept the EULA"; "Pick a folder"; "Next", "Finish".
Let's see, what other maintenance do I do to keep this incomprehensible and beastly OS running...  Defrag every year or two?
Update my video card driver as a new game may require?
Wow, when I lay it all out like that, it's a wonder I can get anything done.If not wasting my time ... makes me a sheep, then baa baa baa, guilty as charged.
I wouldn't say that it does, but that part about "baa baa baa"  comes across a little sheepy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936366</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be so certain that "Ann" Coulter was actually born with one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be so certain that " Ann " Coulter was actually born with one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be so certain that "Ann" Coulter was actually born with one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934020</id>
	<title>Just shifting control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have gone from Windows which gives any piece of software I install complete control of my computer to iPhone OS which gives Apple complete control of my gadgets.  It would be nice to have a computing device that was truly mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have gone from Windows which gives any piece of software I install complete control of my computer to iPhone OS which gives Apple complete control of my gadgets .
It would be nice to have a computing device that was truly mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have gone from Windows which gives any piece of software I install complete control of my computer to iPhone OS which gives Apple complete control of my gadgets.
It would be nice to have a computing device that was truly mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940470</id>
	<title>SIM Locks and mobile contracts in North America</title>
	<author>derfla8</author>
	<datestamp>1264671300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how North Americans are fine with selling their soul to get a discount on their mobile phones by locking into a contract and having their phones SIM-locked...yet all this noise about the iPad and it's "closed" ecosystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how North Americans are fine with selling their soul to get a discount on their mobile phones by locking into a contract and having their phones SIM-locked...yet all this noise about the iPad and it 's " closed " ecosystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how North Americans are fine with selling their soul to get a discount on their mobile phones by locking into a contract and having their phones SIM-locked...yet all this noise about the iPad and it's "closed" ecosystem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936192</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264703100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?</p></div><p>They're working on it. It'll be running GNU/Hurd...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not create your own open source tablet to compete , and let the marketplace decide ? They 're working on it .
It 'll be running GNU/Hurd.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?They're working on it.
It'll be running GNU/Hurd...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941122</id>
	<title>What, Jobs has produced 100\% hackproof device?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no hope of ever hacking the DRM on this thing?  The world-wide hordes of soldering iron wielders are forever locked out of this thing?</p><p>Sure they are.</p><p>Besides, when people get tired of paying big cake at the Apple Store for DRM Approved Content (TM) that they can easily get elsewhere for nothing or already own in another format, then Apple will  change their policy.  Duh.</p><p>I think its a cool thing.  I'm going to buy one.  If they piss me off, I'll return it.  That'll piss -them- off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no hope of ever hacking the DRM on this thing ?
The world-wide hordes of soldering iron wielders are forever locked out of this thing ? Sure they are.Besides , when people get tired of paying big cake at the Apple Store for DRM Approved Content ( TM ) that they can easily get elsewhere for nothing or already own in another format , then Apple will change their policy .
Duh.I think its a cool thing .
I 'm going to buy one .
If they piss me off , I 'll return it .
That 'll piss -them- off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no hope of ever hacking the DRM on this thing?
The world-wide hordes of soldering iron wielders are forever locked out of this thing?Sure they are.Besides, when people get tired of paying big cake at the Apple Store for DRM Approved Content (TM) that they can easily get elsewhere for nothing or already own in another format, then Apple will  change their policy.
Duh.I think its a cool thing.
I'm going to buy one.
If they piss me off, I'll return it.
That'll piss -them- off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946352</id>
	<title>You All are missing the point ...</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1264707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're missing the point. What you are seeing is not the gizmo itself. You are seeing the future of the Standard User Interface. Apple is going post-GUI here, moving their experience with iPod and iPhone to a larger form. This is a way to bring users around to interfacing with computer (applications) forgoing what we now consider essential: the monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If you think this is about a $500 netbook or laptop, you are missing the entire point: this is a continuation of a paradigm shift happening right in front of you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point .
What you are seeing is not the gizmo itself .
You are seeing the future of the Standard User Interface .
Apple is going post-GUI here , moving their experience with iPod and iPhone to a larger form .
This is a way to bring users around to interfacing with computer ( applications ) forgoing what we now consider essential : the monitor , keyboard , and mouse .
If you think this is about a $ 500 netbook or laptop , you are missing the entire point : this is a continuation of a paradigm shift happening right in front of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point.
What you are seeing is not the gizmo itself.
You are seeing the future of the Standard User Interface.
Apple is going post-GUI here, moving their experience with iPod and iPhone to a larger form.
This is a way to bring users around to interfacing with computer (applications) forgoing what we now consider essential: the monitor, keyboard, and mouse.
If you think this is about a $500 netbook or laptop, you are missing the entire point: this is a continuation of a paradigm shift happening right in front of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936128</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>dorre</author>
	<datestamp>1264702920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree with parents criticism towards gp.<br>
<br>
Not wanting control of how a tool works does not make you a sheep.<br>
<br>
I think you can compare this to the car industry. Who  could fix their brand new car if it's breaks down in the middle of nowhere these days?<br> (Noone! That's who!!)<br>
<br>
So are you a sheep because you dont care about computers/tech, but care about what you can accomplish with them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with parents criticism towards gp .
Not wanting control of how a tool works does not make you a sheep .
I think you can compare this to the car industry .
Who could fix their brand new car if it 's breaks down in the middle of nowhere these days ?
( Noone ! That 's who ! !
) So are you a sheep because you dont care about computers/tech , but care about what you can accomplish with them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree with parents criticism towards gp.
Not wanting control of how a tool works does not make you a sheep.
I think you can compare this to the car industry.
Who  could fix their brand new car if it's breaks down in the middle of nowhere these days?
(Noone! That's who!!
)

So are you a sheep because you dont care about computers/tech, but care about what you can accomplish with them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934054</id>
	<title>The  FSF is misguided.</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1264697280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These FSF "campaigns" are so ugly and so ineffective.  From what I understand, only half a dozen or so showed up at the Apple event; I'm fairly certain they didn't leave people with a positive impression of free software which would have been their main objective.<br> <br>

But the worst thing is how misguided these protests and product-bashing websites are.  It's all about trying to convince people that they really don't want supposedly "locked down" gadgets, when in fact (sadly for the FSF) that's not what people care about at all. They just want something cool, that works, that's easy to use, that's useful, etc.<br> <br>

The FSF is supposed to encourage and promote "freedom" and choice, yet their approach reeks of lecturing people what they should and should not want.  The FSF should be working exclusively on constructive projects that build up free software rather than trying to tear down what other people have created just because they think it's bad.  These sideshows are really not helping the cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These FSF " campaigns " are so ugly and so ineffective .
From what I understand , only half a dozen or so showed up at the Apple event ; I 'm fairly certain they did n't leave people with a positive impression of free software which would have been their main objective .
But the worst thing is how misguided these protests and product-bashing websites are .
It 's all about trying to convince people that they really do n't want supposedly " locked down " gadgets , when in fact ( sadly for the FSF ) that 's not what people care about at all .
They just want something cool , that works , that 's easy to use , that 's useful , etc .
The FSF is supposed to encourage and promote " freedom " and choice , yet their approach reeks of lecturing people what they should and should not want .
The FSF should be working exclusively on constructive projects that build up free software rather than trying to tear down what other people have created just because they think it 's bad .
These sideshows are really not helping the cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These FSF "campaigns" are so ugly and so ineffective.
From what I understand, only half a dozen or so showed up at the Apple event; I'm fairly certain they didn't leave people with a positive impression of free software which would have been their main objective.
But the worst thing is how misguided these protests and product-bashing websites are.
It's all about trying to convince people that they really don't want supposedly "locked down" gadgets, when in fact (sadly for the FSF) that's not what people care about at all.
They just want something cool, that works, that's easy to use, that's useful, etc.
The FSF is supposed to encourage and promote "freedom" and choice, yet their approach reeks of lecturing people what they should and should not want.
The FSF should be working exclusively on constructive projects that build up free software rather than trying to tear down what other people have created just because they think it's bad.
These sideshows are really not helping the cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1264696860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances</p></div><p>Where?  The only company I could see releasing a copy of this thing without getting sued into oblivion is Google and it's Android OS and I've heard no plans of a Google tablet (gPad?).  MS could fight off the lawsuits, but their UI would suck and probably be just as locked down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want open and free , go somewhere else and take your chancesWhere ?
The only company I could see releasing a copy of this thing without getting sued into oblivion is Google and it 's Android OS and I 've heard no plans of a Google tablet ( gPad ? ) .
MS could fight off the lawsuits , but their UI would suck and probably be just as locked down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chancesWhere?
The only company I could see releasing a copy of this thing without getting sued into oblivion is Google and it's Android OS and I've heard no plans of a Google tablet (gPad?).
MS could fight off the lawsuits, but their UI would suck and probably be just as locked down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939134</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>internic</author>
	<datestamp>1264710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That allows you to upload your own code, but can you load on any other software that another person develops? (That's a serious question, not a rhetorical one.)  I think even the programmers among us don't write the lion's share of the programs we use, so it's only equivalent if that $99 buys you the ability to install any non-approved 3rd party software you want, and if those 3rd parties have the ability to distribute said software without lawsuits from Apple.  I just don't know enough about the terms of the user and developer agreements with Apple to have any idea whether this is the case (since I don't own any Apple devices).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That allows you to upload your own code , but can you load on any other software that another person develops ?
( That 's a serious question , not a rhetorical one .
) I think even the programmers among us do n't write the lion 's share of the programs we use , so it 's only equivalent if that $ 99 buys you the ability to install any non-approved 3rd party software you want , and if those 3rd parties have the ability to distribute said software without lawsuits from Apple .
I just do n't know enough about the terms of the user and developer agreements with Apple to have any idea whether this is the case ( since I do n't own any Apple devices ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That allows you to upload your own code, but can you load on any other software that another person develops?
(That's a serious question, not a rhetorical one.
)  I think even the programmers among us don't write the lion's share of the programs we use, so it's only equivalent if that $99 buys you the ability to install any non-approved 3rd party software you want, and if those 3rd parties have the ability to distribute said software without lawsuits from Apple.
I just don't know enough about the terms of the user and developer agreements with Apple to have any idea whether this is the case (since I don't own any Apple devices).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938490</id>
	<title>Re:Not a PC - More like TV + Cable</title>
	<author>cowscows</author>
	<datestamp>1264708980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right on, but you do your argument a disservice by speaking down to the people who want the "comfort of not thinking". When I'm working on this computer I do plenty of thinking, but anytime the machine takes my train of thought away from the building I'm designing and instead makes me worry about RAM or anti-virus or whatever else, it's wasting my time. Not wanting to deal with that kind of distraction on a regular basis doesn't make someone a non-thinker/doer.</p><p>For some people the computer is an end in and of itself, but for most people, computers are tools that help them do other things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right on , but you do your argument a disservice by speaking down to the people who want the " comfort of not thinking " .
When I 'm working on this computer I do plenty of thinking , but anytime the machine takes my train of thought away from the building I 'm designing and instead makes me worry about RAM or anti-virus or whatever else , it 's wasting my time .
Not wanting to deal with that kind of distraction on a regular basis does n't make someone a non-thinker/doer.For some people the computer is an end in and of itself , but for most people , computers are tools that help them do other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right on, but you do your argument a disservice by speaking down to the people who want the "comfort of not thinking".
When I'm working on this computer I do plenty of thinking, but anytime the machine takes my train of thought away from the building I'm designing and instead makes me worry about RAM or anti-virus or whatever else, it's wasting my time.
Not wanting to deal with that kind of distraction on a regular basis doesn't make someone a non-thinker/doer.For some people the computer is an end in and of itself, but for most people, computers are tools that help them do other things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936480</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264704060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have an iphone and I grudgingly accept its limitations...</i></p><p>Can't say I blame you - even some of the people that Moses freed from slavery wanted to go back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an iphone and I grudgingly accept its limitations...Ca n't say I blame you - even some of the people that Moses freed from slavery wanted to go back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an iphone and I grudgingly accept its limitations...Can't say I blame you - even some of the people that Moses freed from slavery wanted to go back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934012</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>ruiner13</author>
	<datestamp>1264697220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please never reference Ann Coulter and vagina in the same sentence unless it takes the form of "Ann Coulter is a big, cavernous vagina full of hot air".

Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please never reference Ann Coulter and vagina in the same sentence unless it takes the form of " Ann Coulter is a big , cavernous vagina full of hot air " .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please never reference Ann Coulter and vagina in the same sentence unless it takes the form of "Ann Coulter is a big, cavernous vagina full of hot air".
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937454</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>evocarti</author>
	<datestamp>1264706640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At that price point and size, I would expect a general computing device...</htmltext>
<tokenext>At that price point and size , I would expect a general computing device.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At that price point and size, I would expect a general computing device...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937230</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>WraithCube</author>
	<datestamp>1264706100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The iPad <b>is not a general-purpose computing device</b>.  It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers.</p></div><p>While this is true that it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer device, that is the market that it is competing with. I can easily find netbooks that are similar in size that have all the functionality and then some for a lower or similar price. I understand that I am not in the target market for this device, but I fail to see how this is not in direct competition to netbooks. Does a touchscreen and being locked down somehow take it into its own market? For the price am I somehow missing how this provides any benefit over a cheaper product?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device .
It can not be compared to , nor can it show the direction of , the market for general-purpose computers.While this is true that it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer device , that is the market that it is competing with .
I can easily find netbooks that are similar in size that have all the functionality and then some for a lower or similar price .
I understand that I am not in the target market for this device , but I fail to see how this is not in direct competition to netbooks .
Does a touchscreen and being locked down somehow take it into its own market ?
For the price am I somehow missing how this provides any benefit over a cheaper product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device.
It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers.While this is true that it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer device, that is the market that it is competing with.
I can easily find netbooks that are similar in size that have all the functionality and then some for a lower or similar price.
I understand that I am not in the target market for this device, but I fail to see how this is not in direct competition to netbooks.
Does a touchscreen and being locked down somehow take it into its own market?
For the price am I somehow missing how this provides any benefit over a cheaper product?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935676</id>
	<title>Not locked down my ass.</title>
	<author>wasabioss</author>
	<datestamp>1264701660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like </i> </p><p>OS X is not locked down BLAH</p></div><p>Yeah. OS X is not locked down until  you try to write a wifi (airport?) driver for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like OS X is not locked down BLAHYeah .
OS X is not locked down until you try to write a wifi ( airport ?
) driver for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like  OS X is not locked down BLAHYeah.
OS X is not locked down until  you try to write a wifi (airport?
) driver for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986</id>
	<title>Kind of a silly argument</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1264697100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you don't like the closed OS. Fair enough. So why not jailbreak and install whatever you want? Or <a href="http://github.com/planetbeing/iphonelinux/" title="github.com">help port an open OS to the device</a> [github.com]? Because Apple won't give you tech support? If you're all about free software you should be used to relying on the community for tech support anyway.</p><p>It's a better world when free and proprietary software compete.  If the FSF doesn't like the iPhone OS, it should make a better one.  If the result is what users actually want (through some combination of openness, price, and quality) then great. But if not, then that's life. Proprietary software sometimes produces better products than free software, and people are sometimes willing to give up free access to the source code in order to get those products.  Who is the FSF to tell people what software they should be (morally, if not technically) allowed to use? Isn't that exactly what they're complaining Apple does?  It's hypocritical.</p><p>I have no problem with arguing that free software is morally or technically superior to proprietary software, but it does bother me when groups like the FSF claim that it's morally <em>wrong</em> to use or sell proprietary software.  If it's immoral to use proprietary software, then it's immoral to eat at a restaurant that won't give you the exact recipe for everything on the menu.  It would likewise be immoral to buy any product whose composition or process of manufacture is a trade secret.  It would be immoral to buy any book not published under an open license.  If free software proponents aren't going to be consistent with their own moral choices, where do they get off demanding that everyone else conform to their value system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do n't like the closed OS .
Fair enough .
So why not jailbreak and install whatever you want ?
Or help port an open OS to the device [ github.com ] ?
Because Apple wo n't give you tech support ?
If you 're all about free software you should be used to relying on the community for tech support anyway.It 's a better world when free and proprietary software compete .
If the FSF does n't like the iPhone OS , it should make a better one .
If the result is what users actually want ( through some combination of openness , price , and quality ) then great .
But if not , then that 's life .
Proprietary software sometimes produces better products than free software , and people are sometimes willing to give up free access to the source code in order to get those products .
Who is the FSF to tell people what software they should be ( morally , if not technically ) allowed to use ?
Is n't that exactly what they 're complaining Apple does ?
It 's hypocritical.I have no problem with arguing that free software is morally or technically superior to proprietary software , but it does bother me when groups like the FSF claim that it 's morally wrong to use or sell proprietary software .
If it 's immoral to use proprietary software , then it 's immoral to eat at a restaurant that wo n't give you the exact recipe for everything on the menu .
It would likewise be immoral to buy any product whose composition or process of manufacture is a trade secret .
It would be immoral to buy any book not published under an open license .
If free software proponents are n't going to be consistent with their own moral choices , where do they get off demanding that everyone else conform to their value system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you don't like the closed OS.
Fair enough.
So why not jailbreak and install whatever you want?
Or help port an open OS to the device [github.com]?
Because Apple won't give you tech support?
If you're all about free software you should be used to relying on the community for tech support anyway.It's a better world when free and proprietary software compete.
If the FSF doesn't like the iPhone OS, it should make a better one.
If the result is what users actually want (through some combination of openness, price, and quality) then great.
But if not, then that's life.
Proprietary software sometimes produces better products than free software, and people are sometimes willing to give up free access to the source code in order to get those products.
Who is the FSF to tell people what software they should be (morally, if not technically) allowed to use?
Isn't that exactly what they're complaining Apple does?
It's hypocritical.I have no problem with arguing that free software is morally or technically superior to proprietary software, but it does bother me when groups like the FSF claim that it's morally wrong to use or sell proprietary software.
If it's immoral to use proprietary software, then it's immoral to eat at a restaurant that won't give you the exact recipe for everything on the menu.
It would likewise be immoral to buy any product whose composition or process of manufacture is a trade secret.
It would be immoral to buy any book not published under an open license.
If free software proponents aren't going to be consistent with their own moral choices, where do they get off demanding that everyone else conform to their value system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935546</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep."</p><p>But many of them often know the value of their dollar, and they're not going to spend their money on something they feel will waste their time, regardless of the product or the manufacturer.</p><p>Your point was very interesting until its final paragraph: whether it reflects your personal view or just hyperbole, it underscores the mindset of geeks (we are smart, they are stupid). Put another way, when you need your car repaired, do you always do it yourself or find someone who will do it for you because you don't want to be the "shepard" of fixing your own car? This has less to do with being a sheep and more in line with what expects in a service-based economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Say what you will , but the masses are sheep and they 're happy as sheep .
" But many of them often know the value of their dollar , and they 're not going to spend their money on something they feel will waste their time , regardless of the product or the manufacturer.Your point was very interesting until its final paragraph : whether it reflects your personal view or just hyperbole , it underscores the mindset of geeks ( we are smart , they are stupid ) .
Put another way , when you need your car repaired , do you always do it yourself or find someone who will do it for you because you do n't want to be the " shepard " of fixing your own car ?
This has less to do with being a sheep and more in line with what expects in a service-based economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep.
"But many of them often know the value of their dollar, and they're not going to spend their money on something they feel will waste their time, regardless of the product or the manufacturer.Your point was very interesting until its final paragraph: whether it reflects your personal view or just hyperbole, it underscores the mindset of geeks (we are smart, they are stupid).
Put another way, when you need your car repaired, do you always do it yourself or find someone who will do it for you because you don't want to be the "shepard" of fixing your own car?
This has less to do with being a sheep and more in line with what expects in a service-based economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934674</id>
	<title>Perfect for Moms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and migrating AOL users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... and migrating AOL users</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .... and migrating AOL users</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935242</id>
	<title>Defective by design</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1264700580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I can see the point of the FSF view on closed systems. I'll counter it by suggesting that FSF position of "fully open" systems is just as "defective by design".</p><p>DRM allows the idiots that want to protect their copyrights the right to protect and earn a living off of it. You might not agree with the whole "profit" motivation, however, if it means the difference between being able to read a book or not being able to read a book, then what the FSF is doing is tantamount to censorship.</p><p>Yes, DRM doesn't work. It is and will be broken. WE understand this. As for APPSTORE restriction, so freakin what? There are many many things in this world where you can only get approved addons from one source.</p><p>What you don't realize is that APPLE's reputation is that of making things that "Just Work". If you want a free and open ecosystem, use Microsoft or Lunux. Both allow you to run whatever you want on their products.</p><p>My wife is a good example of the target market of such a device. She just wants it to work. Her iPod, she wants it to hold and play music. She wants to go and get the music she wants and finds it on iTMS. As for the iPod, she didn't even know what it was when I got it for her. It took her all of few minutes to figure out how to work it.</p><p>You and me, we're geeks. We like to tinker, toy and play with things. And when things go wrong, we like to figure out why, and fix it. We are NOT the target market for iPod, iPad and iPhone aren't for us.</p><p>We look for "features", build our own, use Android and such because that is what we're about. My wife just wants to listen to music, read a book, make a phone call.</p><p>What the FSF doesn't realize is that their "ideals" are, for all intents and purposes, "defective by design", because it doesn't take into account the need for something to "just work" that doesn't require a geek to configure, tweak, install, maintain it.</p><p>And this is why Linux is not on the "desktop". I just set up Ubuntu for one of my relatives, on his laptop. While it installed and configured itself perfectly with one exception, that one exception would be a deal killer if I wasn't capable in fixing it. The wireless setup was broken.</p><p>Now you may feel the need to point out that was a driver problem related to the manufacturer not having proper Linux drivers, and you'd be right. Ubuntu people have decided that they know best for people and don't include proprietary drivers. Because of this, it is DEFECTIVE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and BY DESIGN.</p><p>The problem isn't "Defective by design", it is competing and mutually exclusive design principles. And as long as we have a choice in what principles we value, then we have freedom. THE MOMENT we lose that, then we are enslaved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I can see the point of the FSF view on closed systems .
I 'll counter it by suggesting that FSF position of " fully open " systems is just as " defective by design " .DRM allows the idiots that want to protect their copyrights the right to protect and earn a living off of it .
You might not agree with the whole " profit " motivation , however , if it means the difference between being able to read a book or not being able to read a book , then what the FSF is doing is tantamount to censorship.Yes , DRM does n't work .
It is and will be broken .
WE understand this .
As for APPSTORE restriction , so freakin what ?
There are many many things in this world where you can only get approved addons from one source.What you do n't realize is that APPLE 's reputation is that of making things that " Just Work " .
If you want a free and open ecosystem , use Microsoft or Lunux .
Both allow you to run whatever you want on their products.My wife is a good example of the target market of such a device .
She just wants it to work .
Her iPod , she wants it to hold and play music .
She wants to go and get the music she wants and finds it on iTMS .
As for the iPod , she did n't even know what it was when I got it for her .
It took her all of few minutes to figure out how to work it.You and me , we 're geeks .
We like to tinker , toy and play with things .
And when things go wrong , we like to figure out why , and fix it .
We are NOT the target market for iPod , iPad and iPhone are n't for us.We look for " features " , build our own , use Android and such because that is what we 're about .
My wife just wants to listen to music , read a book , make a phone call.What the FSF does n't realize is that their " ideals " are , for all intents and purposes , " defective by design " , because it does n't take into account the need for something to " just work " that does n't require a geek to configure , tweak , install , maintain it.And this is why Linux is not on the " desktop " .
I just set up Ubuntu for one of my relatives , on his laptop .
While it installed and configured itself perfectly with one exception , that one exception would be a deal killer if I was n't capable in fixing it .
The wireless setup was broken.Now you may feel the need to point out that was a driver problem related to the manufacturer not having proper Linux drivers , and you 'd be right .
Ubuntu people have decided that they know best for people and do n't include proprietary drivers .
Because of this , it is DEFECTIVE ... and BY DESIGN.The problem is n't " Defective by design " , it is competing and mutually exclusive design principles .
And as long as we have a choice in what principles we value , then we have freedom .
THE MOMENT we lose that , then we are enslaved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can see the point of the FSF view on closed systems.
I'll counter it by suggesting that FSF position of "fully open" systems is just as "defective by design".DRM allows the idiots that want to protect their copyrights the right to protect and earn a living off of it.
You might not agree with the whole "profit" motivation, however, if it means the difference between being able to read a book or not being able to read a book, then what the FSF is doing is tantamount to censorship.Yes, DRM doesn't work.
It is and will be broken.
WE understand this.
As for APPSTORE restriction, so freakin what?
There are many many things in this world where you can only get approved addons from one source.What you don't realize is that APPLE's reputation is that of making things that "Just Work".
If you want a free and open ecosystem, use Microsoft or Lunux.
Both allow you to run whatever you want on their products.My wife is a good example of the target market of such a device.
She just wants it to work.
Her iPod, she wants it to hold and play music.
She wants to go and get the music she wants and finds it on iTMS.
As for the iPod, she didn't even know what it was when I got it for her.
It took her all of few minutes to figure out how to work it.You and me, we're geeks.
We like to tinker, toy and play with things.
And when things go wrong, we like to figure out why, and fix it.
We are NOT the target market for iPod, iPad and iPhone aren't for us.We look for "features", build our own, use Android and such because that is what we're about.
My wife just wants to listen to music, read a book, make a phone call.What the FSF doesn't realize is that their "ideals" are, for all intents and purposes, "defective by design", because it doesn't take into account the need for something to "just work" that doesn't require a geek to configure, tweak, install, maintain it.And this is why Linux is not on the "desktop".
I just set up Ubuntu for one of my relatives, on his laptop.
While it installed and configured itself perfectly with one exception, that one exception would be a deal killer if I wasn't capable in fixing it.
The wireless setup was broken.Now you may feel the need to point out that was a driver problem related to the manufacturer not having proper Linux drivers, and you'd be right.
Ubuntu people have decided that they know best for people and don't include proprietary drivers.
Because of this, it is DEFECTIVE ... and BY DESIGN.The problem isn't "Defective by design", it is competing and mutually exclusive design principles.
And as long as we have a choice in what principles we value, then we have freedom.
THE MOMENT we lose that, then we are enslaved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936218</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I googled for pictures of Ann Coulter's VJ and couldn't find any. I still have no idea which VJ is the subject or what it looks like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I googled for pictures of Ann Coulter 's VJ and could n't find any .
I still have no idea which VJ is the subject or what it looks like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I googled for pictures of Ann Coulter's VJ and couldn't find any.
I still have no idea which VJ is the subject or what it looks like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.31020506</id>
	<title>Evaluate software first - then hardware</title>
	<author>swisswuff</author>
	<datestamp>1265284440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How to buy hardware (this has been like that since the beginning of personal computing):

1. See what software you need to run, what problems you want to work with
2. See what hardware/OS setup allows you to do that
3. Get the best performance for the best conditions that you can get

I want to do statistics, work on images, run public domain or commercial software such as LaTeX or Gimp, and so obviously I am very happy with my Windows Vista Netbook that allows me to use compatible software.

If all I want to do is consume pre-packaged goods and just use Apple's software store than I am OK getting an iPod, iPhone, iPad. Nothing wrong with that. But if at step 1 I list other software, why even bother with Apple? Check what other platforms offer and get something else. If there are people that are happy buying iPads, there is obviously a market for these.

Besides, all you wave when jailbreaking these devices is the Apple warranty. After the device has been jailbroken / jailgebraked, you are relatively free to install other software. So purely technically speaking you are not at all bound or tied to the Apple store. You can do with the hardware whatever you see fit. I remember when Apple Powerbook G4s had a laughable wireless signal reception and so first thing to make these halfways useful was to swap the antenna - so, take it apart, change antenna, reassemble. That did not mean that Apple stopped me from having fun with wireless LAN - they just did not feel they had to be responsible for me making their computer at least halfways useful. If you study these issues before jumping into such a purchase you'll not be perplexed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How to buy hardware ( this has been like that since the beginning of personal computing ) : 1 .
See what software you need to run , what problems you want to work with 2 .
See what hardware/OS setup allows you to do that 3 .
Get the best performance for the best conditions that you can get I want to do statistics , work on images , run public domain or commercial software such as LaTeX or Gimp , and so obviously I am very happy with my Windows Vista Netbook that allows me to use compatible software .
If all I want to do is consume pre-packaged goods and just use Apple 's software store than I am OK getting an iPod , iPhone , iPad .
Nothing wrong with that .
But if at step 1 I list other software , why even bother with Apple ?
Check what other platforms offer and get something else .
If there are people that are happy buying iPads , there is obviously a market for these .
Besides , all you wave when jailbreaking these devices is the Apple warranty .
After the device has been jailbroken / jailgebraked , you are relatively free to install other software .
So purely technically speaking you are not at all bound or tied to the Apple store .
You can do with the hardware whatever you see fit .
I remember when Apple Powerbook G4s had a laughable wireless signal reception and so first thing to make these halfways useful was to swap the antenna - so , take it apart , change antenna , reassemble .
That did not mean that Apple stopped me from having fun with wireless LAN - they just did not feel they had to be responsible for me making their computer at least halfways useful .
If you study these issues before jumping into such a purchase you 'll not be perplexed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to buy hardware (this has been like that since the beginning of personal computing):

1.
See what software you need to run, what problems you want to work with
2.
See what hardware/OS setup allows you to do that
3.
Get the best performance for the best conditions that you can get

I want to do statistics, work on images, run public domain or commercial software such as LaTeX or Gimp, and so obviously I am very happy with my Windows Vista Netbook that allows me to use compatible software.
If all I want to do is consume pre-packaged goods and just use Apple's software store than I am OK getting an iPod, iPhone, iPad.
Nothing wrong with that.
But if at step 1 I list other software, why even bother with Apple?
Check what other platforms offer and get something else.
If there are people that are happy buying iPads, there is obviously a market for these.
Besides, all you wave when jailbreaking these devices is the Apple warranty.
After the device has been jailbroken / jailgebraked, you are relatively free to install other software.
So purely technically speaking you are not at all bound or tied to the Apple store.
You can do with the hardware whatever you see fit.
I remember when Apple Powerbook G4s had a laughable wireless signal reception and so first thing to make these halfways useful was to swap the antenna - so, take it apart, change antenna, reassemble.
That did not mean that Apple stopped me from having fun with wireless LAN - they just did not feel they had to be responsible for me making their computer at least halfways useful.
If you study these issues before jumping into such a purchase you'll not be perplexed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933882</id>
	<title>Why the outrage?</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1264696800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this pretty much what people with real computers have always thought Apple products were like?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this pretty much what people with real computers have always thought Apple products were like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this pretty much what people with real computers have always thought Apple products were like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934830</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of a silly argument</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1264699560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's a better world when free and proprietary software compete.</i></p><p>This is a philosophical argument, not a practical one, but I'd say that it's EVEN BETTER when free software competes with other free software. Similarly, having China to compete with the US is okay, but having a free China (say, like, an India or something) compete with the US would be even better. I guess I'm just a freedom lover. It's an ideology really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a better world when free and proprietary software compete.This is a philosophical argument , not a practical one , but I 'd say that it 's EVEN BETTER when free software competes with other free software .
Similarly , having China to compete with the US is okay , but having a free China ( say , like , an India or something ) compete with the US would be even better .
I guess I 'm just a freedom lover .
It 's an ideology really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a better world when free and proprietary software compete.This is a philosophical argument, not a practical one, but I'd say that it's EVEN BETTER when free software competes with other free software.
Similarly, having China to compete with the US is okay, but having a free China (say, like, an India or something) compete with the US would be even better.
I guess I'm just a freedom lover.
It's an ideology really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933944</id>
	<title>no photoshop == fail</title>
	<author>FunkyELF</author>
	<datestamp>1264696980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, they released a tablet that won't run regular OSX apps but only stripped down sandboxed app store approved apps?... HAHAHAHA</p><p>HAHA</p><p>HAHAHAHA</p><p>What idiots.  Definatly a huge step backwards.  But Apple Fan Bois will say look at the interface and how thin it is... its a huge step forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , they released a tablet that wo n't run regular OSX apps but only stripped down sandboxed app store approved apps ? .. .
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWhat idiots .
Definatly a huge step backwards .
But Apple Fan Bois will say look at the interface and how thin it is... its a huge step forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, they released a tablet that won't run regular OSX apps but only stripped down sandboxed app store approved apps?...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWhat idiots.
Definatly a huge step backwards.
But Apple Fan Bois will say look at the interface and how thin it is... its a huge step forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</id>
	<title>Amen</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1264697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on." - Steve Jobs, Interview in Macworld magazine, February 2004</p><p>Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating. The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.</p><p>Meanwhile, he introduces the iPad while leaning back in an easy chair and telling us how easy it is to buy and consume web pages, music, movies, books from the iTunes store. And it's all DRM infested, right down to the software you may or may not be allowed to run on it.</p><p>Consume, consume, consume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off , and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on .
" - Steve Jobs , Interview in Macworld magazine , February 2004Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating .
The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.Meanwhile , he introduces the iPad while leaning back in an easy chair and telling us how easy it is to buy and consume web pages , music , movies , books from the iTunes store .
And it 's all DRM infested , right down to the software you may or may not be allowed to run on it.Consume , consume , consume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.
" - Steve Jobs, Interview in Macworld magazine, February 2004Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating.
The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.Meanwhile, he introduces the iPad while leaning back in an easy chair and telling us how easy it is to buy and consume web pages, music, movies, books from the iTunes store.
And it's all DRM infested, right down to the software you may or may not be allowed to run on it.Consume, consume, consume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934632</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...</p><p>But.</p><p>If you don't like it, don't buy it.</p><p>Simple.</p></div><p>But but...it's shiny...and made by Apple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...But.If you do n't like it , do n't buy it.Simple.But but...it 's shiny...and made by Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...But.If you don't like it, don't buy it.Simple.But but...it's shiny...and made by Apple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940926</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1264672500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that what you want can be achieved <b> <i>without</i> </b> resort to a "closed" system. Ideally, the system should have acceptable default settings and be self-regulating for the "use it and forget about it" crowd. However, for those who want to delve more deeply into what the device can do, it would be nice if that path were not obstructed by a locked and guarded gate. People argue that Apple has to "lock down" the device to prevent users from hurting themselves, but I believe that a more acceptable middle ground is both possible and desirable. Which raises the obvious question: Why does Apple implement lock-down instead? As with all things Apple, there are ulterior motives, plans within plans if you will, that cloud the issue. IMHO, the FSF is attempting to draw out those hidden motives by challenging the publicly given reasons (i.e. "user protection") for lock-down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that what you want can be achieved without resort to a " closed " system .
Ideally , the system should have acceptable default settings and be self-regulating for the " use it and forget about it " crowd .
However , for those who want to delve more deeply into what the device can do , it would be nice if that path were not obstructed by a locked and guarded gate .
People argue that Apple has to " lock down " the device to prevent users from hurting themselves , but I believe that a more acceptable middle ground is both possible and desirable .
Which raises the obvious question : Why does Apple implement lock-down instead ?
As with all things Apple , there are ulterior motives , plans within plans if you will , that cloud the issue .
IMHO , the FSF is attempting to draw out those hidden motives by challenging the publicly given reasons ( i.e .
" user protection " ) for lock-down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that what you want can be achieved  without  resort to a "closed" system.
Ideally, the system should have acceptable default settings and be self-regulating for the "use it and forget about it" crowd.
However, for those who want to delve more deeply into what the device can do, it would be nice if that path were not obstructed by a locked and guarded gate.
People argue that Apple has to "lock down" the device to prevent users from hurting themselves, but I believe that a more acceptable middle ground is both possible and desirable.
Which raises the obvious question: Why does Apple implement lock-down instead?
As with all things Apple, there are ulterior motives, plans within plans if you will, that cloud the issue.
IMHO, the FSF is attempting to draw out those hidden motives by challenging the publicly given reasons (i.e.
"user protection") for lock-down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941628</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we've ever seen, bigger than software patents.</p></div><p>Software patents are a much bigger threat because they carry the force of law, and thus there is no escape.</p><p>In the case of Apple, I can simply choose to not buy their products.</p><p>Eventually the public will see the profound disadvantages of DRM applications (as they did with DRM music), and the market for DRM applications will eventually collapse just like DRM music did.</p><p>No such self-correcting mechanism exists for the scourge of software patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we 've ever seen , bigger than software patents.Software patents are a much bigger threat because they carry the force of law , and thus there is no escape.In the case of Apple , I can simply choose to not buy their products.Eventually the public will see the profound disadvantages of DRM applications ( as they did with DRM music ) , and the market for DRM applications will eventually collapse just like DRM music did.No such self-correcting mechanism exists for the scourge of software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we've ever seen, bigger than software patents.Software patents are a much bigger threat because they carry the force of law, and thus there is no escape.In the case of Apple, I can simply choose to not buy their products.Eventually the public will see the profound disadvantages of DRM applications (as they did with DRM music), and the market for DRM applications will eventually collapse just like DRM music did.No such self-correcting mechanism exists for the scourge of software patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943832</id>
	<title>Re:Misses the point</title>
	<author>caitsith01</author>
	<datestamp>1264684140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the complaint misses the point of the device.  It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer.</p></div><p>I think you are missing the point that it COULD do almost anything a personal computer can do, but has been intentionally crippled.  It's not like a DVD player or whatever, built with only one function... it actually IS a computer, but Apple have gone out of their way to lock it down to perform highly limited, and coincidentally profitable for Apple, functions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the complaint misses the point of the device .
It 's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer.I think you are missing the point that it COULD do almost anything a personal computer can do , but has been intentionally crippled .
It 's not like a DVD player or whatever , built with only one function... it actually IS a computer , but Apple have gone out of their way to lock it down to perform highly limited , and coincidentally profitable for Apple , functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the complaint misses the point of the device.
It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer.I think you are missing the point that it COULD do almost anything a personal computer can do, but has been intentionally crippled.
It's not like a DVD player or whatever, built with only one function... it actually IS a computer, but Apple have gone out of their way to lock it down to perform highly limited, and coincidentally profitable for Apple, functions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935816</id>
	<title>Re:They can't possibly believe this...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264702080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's more, it was pretty well known that Steve Jobs tried to argue against putting DRM in iTunes in the first place.  It was only after it became clear that record labels wouldn't allow online sales without DRM that he caved.  IIRC the iPod used to allow more free copying from the iPod to the computer, too (you could just browse the directory structure and pull the mp3s out) until the record companies started threatening to sue under the claim that the iPod was a device constructed to aid in piracy, or something along those lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's more , it was pretty well known that Steve Jobs tried to argue against putting DRM in iTunes in the first place .
It was only after it became clear that record labels would n't allow online sales without DRM that he caved .
IIRC the iPod used to allow more free copying from the iPod to the computer , too ( you could just browse the directory structure and pull the mp3s out ) until the record companies started threatening to sue under the claim that the iPod was a device constructed to aid in piracy , or something along those lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's more, it was pretty well known that Steve Jobs tried to argue against putting DRM in iTunes in the first place.
It was only after it became clear that record labels wouldn't allow online sales without DRM that he caved.
IIRC the iPod used to allow more free copying from the iPod to the computer, too (you could just browse the directory structure and pull the mp3s out) until the record companies started threatening to sue under the claim that the iPod was a device constructed to aid in piracy, or something along those lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938118</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X.</p></div></blockquote><p>You are disappointed to see a publicly-traded for-profit company follow the model of a product that was a runaway success rather than one that is a much more modest commercial success in its target market?</p><p>I think your expectations are irrational.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X.You are disappointed to see a publicly-traded for-profit company follow the model of a product that was a runaway success rather than one that is a much more modest commercial success in its target market ? I think your expectations are irrational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X.You are disappointed to see a publicly-traded for-profit company follow the model of a product that was a runaway success rather than one that is a much more modest commercial success in its target market?I think your expectations are irrational.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939330</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how many of those other tablets have you purchased? The ones you greatly prefer to the iPad?</p><p>My guess is that you, like so many others, have not bought any of them, because in fact they aren't something you really want. Maybe conceptually you like the idea, but not enough to open your wallet. So what in the world reason could there be for Apple to produce yet another one of those? They are trying a different approach. We'll see if it works, but they'd have been fools to try the approach that never worked in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many of those other tablets have you purchased ?
The ones you greatly prefer to the iPad ? My guess is that you , like so many others , have not bought any of them , because in fact they are n't something you really want .
Maybe conceptually you like the idea , but not enough to open your wallet .
So what in the world reason could there be for Apple to produce yet another one of those ?
They are trying a different approach .
We 'll see if it works , but they 'd have been fools to try the approach that never worked in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many of those other tablets have you purchased?
The ones you greatly prefer to the iPad?My guess is that you, like so many others, have not bought any of them, because in fact they aren't something you really want.
Maybe conceptually you like the idea, but not enough to open your wallet.
So what in the world reason could there be for Apple to produce yet another one of those?
They are trying a different approach.
We'll see if it works, but they'd have been fools to try the approach that never worked in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947134</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>mr100percent</author>
	<datestamp>1264759020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's a bit hyperbolic of an analogy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's a bit hyperbolic of an analogy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's a bit hyperbolic of an analogy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935014</id>
	<title>Gigantic iPod Touch</title>
	<author>h4x354x0r</author>
	<datestamp>1264700040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an iPod touch, but without the convenience of being able to put it in your pocket. Why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an iPod touch , but without the convenience of being able to put it in your pocket .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an iPod touch, but without the convenience of being able to put it in your pocket.
Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934560</id>
	<title>Re:They can't possibly believe this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future.</p></div><p>Really? Governments do this all the time and yet they remain the most effective way to oppress and control people there is...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future.Really ?
Governments do this all the time and yet they remain the most effective way to oppress and control people there is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future.Really?
Governments do this all the time and yet they remain the most effective way to oppress and control people there is...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941042</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264672860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does your iPhone allow you to receive e-mail while talking on the phone?  Yes.<br>Does your iPhone allow you to listen to music while surfing the web?  Yes.</p><p>Do you really understand what multi-tasking is?  Obviously NOT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does your iPhone allow you to receive e-mail while talking on the phone ?
Yes.Does your iPhone allow you to listen to music while surfing the web ?
Yes.Do you really understand what multi-tasking is ?
Obviously NOT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does your iPhone allow you to receive e-mail while talking on the phone?
Yes.Does your iPhone allow you to listen to music while surfing the web?
Yes.Do you really understand what multi-tasking is?
Obviously NOT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006</id>
	<title>Actually, it's a huge step forwards for many.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"What is clear, is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user."<br> <br> </i>

Wrong. It may "revoke control" from the power user. But, the general public will view the iPad, like the iPod, as a simpler, more friendly way to get things done. It <b>gives</b> them control.
<br> <br>
The general public doesn't care about our App Store hang ups, or cries of "DRM". Previously, the general public has struggled to install and play movies / apps / music at all, now they can tap a finger and it's there. Did these users prefer the pre-App Store world, where you had to have specialist knowledge to access this media? I doubt it. They couldn't access that world at all.
<br> <br>
Here on Slashdot, we see the iPad bringing "DRM", and view it as a "huge step backwards". However, the general public sees the iPad as easy access to movies and apps, simple, straightforward accessible computing. The general public see it as a huge step forwards.
<br> <br>
Our loss of control, as geeks, is most people's gain. Don't you think that complex media <i>should</i> be accessible to the general public, quickly and easily? We cry DRM at Apple, but do we really mean that we just don't want the general public in our clubhouse? What's wrong with the iPad and the "consumer mainstream" derided in the story? Not everyone wants to pop the bonnet and fiddle with the engine. In fact, hardly anyone does.
<br> <br>
The story is seriously blinkered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What is clear , is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user .
" Wrong .
It may " revoke control " from the power user .
But , the general public will view the iPad , like the iPod , as a simpler , more friendly way to get things done .
It gives them control .
The general public does n't care about our App Store hang ups , or cries of " DRM " .
Previously , the general public has struggled to install and play movies / apps / music at all , now they can tap a finger and it 's there .
Did these users prefer the pre-App Store world , where you had to have specialist knowledge to access this media ?
I doubt it .
They could n't access that world at all .
Here on Slashdot , we see the iPad bringing " DRM " , and view it as a " huge step backwards " .
However , the general public sees the iPad as easy access to movies and apps , simple , straightforward accessible computing .
The general public see it as a huge step forwards .
Our loss of control , as geeks , is most people 's gain .
Do n't you think that complex media should be accessible to the general public , quickly and easily ?
We cry DRM at Apple , but do we really mean that we just do n't want the general public in our clubhouse ?
What 's wrong with the iPad and the " consumer mainstream " derided in the story ?
Not everyone wants to pop the bonnet and fiddle with the engine .
In fact , hardly anyone does .
The story is seriously blinkered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What is clear, is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user.
"  

Wrong.
It may "revoke control" from the power user.
But, the general public will view the iPad, like the iPod, as a simpler, more friendly way to get things done.
It gives them control.
The general public doesn't care about our App Store hang ups, or cries of "DRM".
Previously, the general public has struggled to install and play movies / apps / music at all, now they can tap a finger and it's there.
Did these users prefer the pre-App Store world, where you had to have specialist knowledge to access this media?
I doubt it.
They couldn't access that world at all.
Here on Slashdot, we see the iPad bringing "DRM", and view it as a "huge step backwards".
However, the general public sees the iPad as easy access to movies and apps, simple, straightforward accessible computing.
The general public see it as a huge step forwards.
Our loss of control, as geeks, is most people's gain.
Don't you think that complex media should be accessible to the general public, quickly and easily?
We cry DRM at Apple, but do we really mean that we just don't want the general public in our clubhouse?
What's wrong with the iPad and the "consumer mainstream" derided in the story?
Not everyone wants to pop the bonnet and fiddle with the engine.
In fact, hardly anyone does.
The story is seriously blinkered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940182</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>bryan1945</author>
	<datestamp>1264670520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, I don't think Apple doesn't do most of their hardware internally, kind of like Dell.  Unless you're talking about hardware design as opposed to manufacturing- kind of unclear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , I do n't think Apple does n't do most of their hardware internally , kind of like Dell .
Unless you 're talking about hardware design as opposed to manufacturing- kind of unclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, I don't think Apple doesn't do most of their hardware internally, kind of like Dell.
Unless you're talking about hardware design as opposed to manufacturing- kind of unclear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938536</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>sarysa</author>
	<datestamp>1264709100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a pretty fair argument. I'm different in that even though my Pre is my only phone line, I got it because it's easily rooted, Palm isn't fighting the hacker community like Apple is, it's powerful, and has a decent homebrew community. I also gambled that it would someday get a decent commercial landscape, and that's starting to happen. (yay!)<br> <br>I'm not really keen on relying on a single manufacturer when something goes wrong, though. I've already used my root access to fix a problem with the broken volume control that was my fault to begin with. (dropped phone onto hard floor -- ouch) Even if I hadn't rooted it and my warranty were still intact, would they have been able to realize I dropped it, thereby invalidating it anyway?<br>Not to mention, I've enjoyed the numerous homebrew apps I've put on it, and the freedom I have with my own app-writing experimentation.<br> <br>This is kind of like the ancient liberty vs. security option, though in this case I can't really fault you for taking the security route. I'm just trying to say that the liberty route has its merits too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pretty fair argument .
I 'm different in that even though my Pre is my only phone line , I got it because it 's easily rooted , Palm is n't fighting the hacker community like Apple is , it 's powerful , and has a decent homebrew community .
I also gambled that it would someday get a decent commercial landscape , and that 's starting to happen .
( yay ! ) I 'm not really keen on relying on a single manufacturer when something goes wrong , though .
I 've already used my root access to fix a problem with the broken volume control that was my fault to begin with .
( dropped phone onto hard floor -- ouch ) Even if I had n't rooted it and my warranty were still intact , would they have been able to realize I dropped it , thereby invalidating it anyway ? Not to mention , I 've enjoyed the numerous homebrew apps I 've put on it , and the freedom I have with my own app-writing experimentation .
This is kind of like the ancient liberty vs. security option , though in this case I ca n't really fault you for taking the security route .
I 'm just trying to say that the liberty route has its merits too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pretty fair argument.
I'm different in that even though my Pre is my only phone line, I got it because it's easily rooted, Palm isn't fighting the hacker community like Apple is, it's powerful, and has a decent homebrew community.
I also gambled that it would someday get a decent commercial landscape, and that's starting to happen.
(yay!) I'm not really keen on relying on a single manufacturer when something goes wrong, though.
I've already used my root access to fix a problem with the broken volume control that was my fault to begin with.
(dropped phone onto hard floor -- ouch) Even if I hadn't rooted it and my warranty were still intact, would they have been able to realize I dropped it, thereby invalidating it anyway?Not to mention, I've enjoyed the numerous homebrew apps I've put on it, and the freedom I have with my own app-writing experimentation.
This is kind of like the ancient liberty vs. security option, though in this case I can't really fault you for taking the security route.
I'm just trying to say that the liberty route has its merits too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942032</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it's a huge step forwards for many.</title>
	<author>MrSteveSD</author>
	<datestamp>1264676040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wrong. It may "revoke control" from the power user. But, the general public will view the iPad, like the iPod, as a simpler, more friendly way to get things done. It gives them control.</p></div><p>
That's giving the general public "convenience" not "control". There are other ways of delivering convenience. e.g. Steam is quite convenient for buying games. It's a well organised store, but I still have control over my machine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
It may " revoke control " from the power user .
But , the general public will view the iPad , like the iPod , as a simpler , more friendly way to get things done .
It gives them control .
That 's giving the general public " convenience " not " control " .
There are other ways of delivering convenience .
e.g. Steam is quite convenient for buying games .
It 's a well organised store , but I still have control over my machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
It may "revoke control" from the power user.
But, the general public will view the iPad, like the iPod, as a simpler, more friendly way to get things done.
It gives them control.
That's giving the general public "convenience" not "control".
There are other ways of delivering convenience.
e.g. Steam is quite convenient for buying games.
It's a well organised store, but I still have control over my machine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945818</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular position on Slashdot...I LIKE the iPa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll probably purchase an iPad - maybe not this 1st rev. but possibly when it is updated in a year or two. I think Apple is going to sell a lot of them.</p></div><p>That's exactly what made Vista so popular...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll probably purchase an iPad - maybe not this 1st rev .
but possibly when it is updated in a year or two .
I think Apple is going to sell a lot of them.That 's exactly what made Vista so popular.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll probably purchase an iPad - maybe not this 1st rev.
but possibly when it is updated in a year or two.
I think Apple is going to sell a lot of them.That's exactly what made Vista so popular...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934216</id>
	<title>The Joo Joo tablet.</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1264697700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's supposedly going to be available 2nd quarter this year for the same price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's supposedly going to be available 2nd quarter this year for the same price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's supposedly going to be available 2nd quarter this year for the same price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945258</id>
	<title>NOT FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264695060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer,</p></div> </blockquote><p>

So, I need to fork over a yearly fee just to run the programs I want to run?<br> <br>

What have you been snorting to believe that the FSF would support this? I think you've just handed their point to them on a platter.<br> <br>

This would be nothing short of extortion if it happened, but it wont because as soon as Apple catches on to this Apple would just start restricting the developer program to actual developers. Meanwhile many dev licenses would be retroactively pulled.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>, its only $ 99/year more to be a certified developer , So , I need to fork over a yearly fee just to run the programs I want to run ?
What have you been snorting to believe that the FSF would support this ?
I think you 've just handed their point to them on a platter .
This would be nothing short of extortion if it happened , but it wont because as soon as Apple catches on to this Apple would just start restricting the developer program to actual developers .
Meanwhile many dev licenses would be retroactively pulled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer, 

So, I need to fork over a yearly fee just to run the programs I want to run?
What have you been snorting to believe that the FSF would support this?
I think you've just handed their point to them on a platter.
This would be nothing short of extortion if it happened, but it wont because as soon as Apple catches on to this Apple would just start restricting the developer program to actual developers.
Meanwhile many dev licenses would be retroactively pulled.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933828</id>
	<title>Mac World</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1264696620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always been a PC at heart.</p><p>Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.</p><p>I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands. I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with. The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain. Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables. He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion. From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind. Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.</p><p>Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many. I was a PC. They were Macs. I've always been a cold, stiff person. I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs. I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux." Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging. Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.</p><p>As I walk among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this. I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life. But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's. We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots. But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot. I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.</p><p>Nature called. I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me. After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always been a PC at heart.Not like the rest , the others .
Everyone around me .
I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth .
Unlike them , I did not " Think Different !
" --the mantra of the Macs around me , the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry .
Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that .
Eventually , I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.I gaze at the faces going by , the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks , connecting their ears to their pockets , their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands .
I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand , to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining , like them , simple and easy to deal with .
The grandest of virtues , simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs , who descended from the heavens , creating the Earth , the iron , the wind and the rain .
Steve Jobs , who defined the parameters of existence , the one who set about the patterns of reality , the constants , the variables .
He who made gravity , electromagnetic energy , and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion .
From these things , he crafted the elements , processed them , refined them , and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind .
Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically , breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.Except , it seems , for me , for I was not among the many .
I was a PC .
They were Macs .
I 've always been a cold , stiff person .
I got by , disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight , which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home , behind locked doors , I ran a Forbidden , a contraband computer from more depraved , earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs .
I dual booted , out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity , a shameful value of a PC , as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called " Windows Vista " and something else called " Linux .
" Although , as I mentioned before , although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me , I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging .
Perhaps the greatest sin of all , the single evil that , if discovered , would damn me forever , was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.As I walk among the Macs on the streets , passing the Starbuckses as I went along , I wondered how it all came to this .
I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets , the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth , and wondered if , perhaps , there could be something more to life .
But again , this was a PC 's thought , and not , like everyone elses ' , a Mac 's .
We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots , so too were we to be idiots .
But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot .
I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.Nature called .
I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white , things were n't all bad--and let myself go , expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me .
After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass ( I did not flush as iPoos , designed to be idiot-proof , did not flush ) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly , hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong , a world where if my true nature was discovered , I would be endlessly persecuted by smug , self-righteous sons of bitches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always been a PC at heart.Not like the rest, the others.
Everyone around me.
I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth.
Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!
"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry.
Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that.
Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands.
I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with.
The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain.
Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables.
He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion.
From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind.
Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many.
I was a PC.
They were Macs.
I've always been a cold, stiff person.
I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs.
I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux.
" Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging.
Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.As I walk among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this.
I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life.
But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's.
We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots.
But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot.
I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.Nature called.
I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me.
After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935408</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1264701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an iphone dev. It's been lucrative for me this past year. I went to wwdc and got tipsy on the apple kool-aid. I have a love hate relationship with them now.
<br> <br>
I have no problem with paying a subscription to be able to submit apps to the app store. It's apple's service. apple runs the infrastructure, apple wants to maintain quality (or something). It's reasonable that apple control it.
<br> <br>
Now, they don't seem to have the best record of protecting people from apps in the app store. They've had a couple of incidences over the past year of nearly malicious apps getting through the app store. But in theory they are providing a service of policing the app store.
<br> <br>
What i think is unreasonable is that i need a subscription to submit apps to my own iphone/ipod/ipad touch. It's my device! i should be able to do whatever i want with it. According to apple, we're not even allowed to jailbreak it. That's just wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an iphone dev .
It 's been lucrative for me this past year .
I went to wwdc and got tipsy on the apple kool-aid .
I have a love hate relationship with them now .
I have no problem with paying a subscription to be able to submit apps to the app store .
It 's apple 's service .
apple runs the infrastructure , apple wants to maintain quality ( or something ) .
It 's reasonable that apple control it .
Now , they do n't seem to have the best record of protecting people from apps in the app store .
They 've had a couple of incidences over the past year of nearly malicious apps getting through the app store .
But in theory they are providing a service of policing the app store .
What i think is unreasonable is that i need a subscription to submit apps to my own iphone/ipod/ipad touch .
It 's my device !
i should be able to do whatever i want with it .
According to apple , we 're not even allowed to jailbreak it .
That 's just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an iphone dev.
It's been lucrative for me this past year.
I went to wwdc and got tipsy on the apple kool-aid.
I have a love hate relationship with them now.
I have no problem with paying a subscription to be able to submit apps to the app store.
It's apple's service.
apple runs the infrastructure, apple wants to maintain quality (or something).
It's reasonable that apple control it.
Now, they don't seem to have the best record of protecting people from apps in the app store.
They've had a couple of incidences over the past year of nearly malicious apps getting through the app store.
But in theory they are providing a service of policing the app store.
What i think is unreasonable is that i need a subscription to submit apps to my own iphone/ipod/ipad touch.
It's my device!
i should be able to do whatever i want with it.
According to apple, we're not even allowed to jailbreak it.
That's just wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937134</id>
	<title>Reality check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an overgrown iPod Touch. Deal with it! Is it useful? Barely. Is it worth the money? Probably. Am I going to buy one? Probably not. Does Apple care that it annoys hackers and tinkerers? Definitely not. They sold it wrong and should have marketed it as a full size Touch then it would have scored some cool points. Calling it a game changing device is laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an overgrown iPod Touch .
Deal with it !
Is it useful ?
Barely. Is it worth the money ?
Probably. Am I going to buy one ?
Probably not .
Does Apple care that it annoys hackers and tinkerers ?
Definitely not .
They sold it wrong and should have marketed it as a full size Touch then it would have scored some cool points .
Calling it a game changing device is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an overgrown iPod Touch.
Deal with it!
Is it useful?
Barely. Is it worth the money?
Probably. Am I going to buy one?
Probably not.
Does Apple care that it annoys hackers and tinkerers?
Definitely not.
They sold it wrong and should have marketed it as a full size Touch then it would have scored some cool points.
Calling it a game changing device is laughable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935554</id>
	<title>DRM: The future of computing</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1264701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPad is the future - computing as we know it is coming to an end.  We, the geeks, the hackers, the programmers - are the minority.</p><p>We all thought DRM was going to come-in through TPM modules in the BIOS.  We thought AMD and Intel would begrudgingly add support under pressure of the RIAA.  We thought Windows would add support and that Linux would be the last bastion of free computing left.  But it isn't going to happen that way.  It's coming from a totally different angle.</p><p>What will happen is that various specialized devices, that are 100\% DRM encumbered from the start, will slowly replace the PC until it becomes an expensive specialized device for programmers.</p><p>First the iPhone comes out.  Then the iPad.  The all the iPhone and iPad clones - until these devices become ubiquitous.  That covers internet, document editing, email, and limited gaming.  That's maybe 50\% of what the average Joe uses a computer for.  Major gaming and social networking can be done on XBOX/Playstation/Wii - also 100\% DRM devices.  Then those devices will handle your movies, your TV watching, and your DVD/Blu-ray/DRM'd streaming video.  Now we are at... 75\%?  Eventually, 90\% of what computers do will be done more easily on some specialized DRM'd device.  The idea of the infinitely configurable totally hackable PC will die away.  Most consumers won't know the difference.</p><p>So how do we break this?  Maybe come-up with some super-cool thing you can do on a computer that nobody thought of yet... something that can't be done on these devices?  Maybe Android is the answer?  I dunno.  But I see the tidal wave coming...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is the future - computing as we know it is coming to an end .
We , the geeks , the hackers , the programmers - are the minority.We all thought DRM was going to come-in through TPM modules in the BIOS .
We thought AMD and Intel would begrudgingly add support under pressure of the RIAA .
We thought Windows would add support and that Linux would be the last bastion of free computing left .
But it is n't going to happen that way .
It 's coming from a totally different angle.What will happen is that various specialized devices , that are 100 \ % DRM encumbered from the start , will slowly replace the PC until it becomes an expensive specialized device for programmers.First the iPhone comes out .
Then the iPad .
The all the iPhone and iPad clones - until these devices become ubiquitous .
That covers internet , document editing , email , and limited gaming .
That 's maybe 50 \ % of what the average Joe uses a computer for .
Major gaming and social networking can be done on XBOX/Playstation/Wii - also 100 \ % DRM devices .
Then those devices will handle your movies , your TV watching , and your DVD/Blu-ray/DRM 'd streaming video .
Now we are at... 75 \ % ? Eventually , 90 \ % of what computers do will be done more easily on some specialized DRM 'd device .
The idea of the infinitely configurable totally hackable PC will die away .
Most consumers wo n't know the difference.So how do we break this ?
Maybe come-up with some super-cool thing you can do on a computer that nobody thought of yet... something that ca n't be done on these devices ?
Maybe Android is the answer ?
I dunno .
But I see the tidal wave coming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is the future - computing as we know it is coming to an end.
We, the geeks, the hackers, the programmers - are the minority.We all thought DRM was going to come-in through TPM modules in the BIOS.
We thought AMD and Intel would begrudgingly add support under pressure of the RIAA.
We thought Windows would add support and that Linux would be the last bastion of free computing left.
But it isn't going to happen that way.
It's coming from a totally different angle.What will happen is that various specialized devices, that are 100\% DRM encumbered from the start, will slowly replace the PC until it becomes an expensive specialized device for programmers.First the iPhone comes out.
Then the iPad.
The all the iPhone and iPad clones - until these devices become ubiquitous.
That covers internet, document editing, email, and limited gaming.
That's maybe 50\% of what the average Joe uses a computer for.
Major gaming and social networking can be done on XBOX/Playstation/Wii - also 100\% DRM devices.
Then those devices will handle your movies, your TV watching, and your DVD/Blu-ray/DRM'd streaming video.
Now we are at... 75\%?  Eventually, 90\% of what computers do will be done more easily on some specialized DRM'd device.
The idea of the infinitely configurable totally hackable PC will die away.
Most consumers won't know the difference.So how do we break this?
Maybe come-up with some super-cool thing you can do on a computer that nobody thought of yet... something that can't be done on these devices?
Maybe Android is the answer?
I dunno.
But I see the tidal wave coming...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934110</id>
	<title>So, how long will it be before some johnny...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hacks it, installs Linux (of whatever distribution) and makes a Beowulf cluster of it, or (dear God no) works out how to install Windows on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacks it , installs Linux ( of whatever distribution ) and makes a Beowulf cluster of it , or ( dear God no ) works out how to install Windows on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacks it, installs Linux (of whatever distribution) and makes a Beowulf cluster of it, or (dear God no) works out how to install Windows on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938932</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(feature that everyone wants) = camera</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( feature that everyone wants ) = camera</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(feature that everyone wants) = camera</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941164</id>
	<title>Re:DRM: The future of computing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We, the geeks, the hackers, the programmers - are the minority."</p><p>And we ALWAYS have been...nothing new here.</p><p>In fact, devices such as these actually may end up opening up more doors to those of us who like to "look under the hood". the number of "average Joes" who know what's going on in there will dwindle, and those of us who remember the good old days can prosper.</p><p>I don't know about you, but I'm tired of fixing borked installs and removing malware from family and friends PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We , the geeks , the hackers , the programmers - are the minority .
" And we ALWAYS have been...nothing new here.In fact , devices such as these actually may end up opening up more doors to those of us who like to " look under the hood " .
the number of " average Joes " who know what 's going on in there will dwindle , and those of us who remember the good old days can prosper.I do n't know about you , but I 'm tired of fixing borked installs and removing malware from family and friends PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We, the geeks, the hackers, the programmers - are the minority.
"And we ALWAYS have been...nothing new here.In fact, devices such as these actually may end up opening up more doors to those of us who like to "look under the hood".
the number of "average Joes" who know what's going on in there will dwindle, and those of us who remember the good old days can prosper.I don't know about you, but I'm tired of fixing borked installs and removing malware from family and friends PCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945660</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're only looking at what it can't do. Most people who buy it will be looking at what it can do. Without needing advanced computer knowledge, without needing constant reboots or reinstalls, without needing regular trips to a computer repair shop, and without needing constant upgrades.</p><p> <b>You are not the target audience. Stop assuming everyone else is the same as you.</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're only looking at what it ca n't do .
Most people who buy it will be looking at what it can do .
Without needing advanced computer knowledge , without needing constant reboots or reinstalls , without needing regular trips to a computer repair shop , and without needing constant upgrades .
You are not the target audience .
Stop assuming everyone else is the same as you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're only looking at what it can't do.
Most people who buy it will be looking at what it can do.
Without needing advanced computer knowledge, without needing constant reboots or reinstalls, without needing regular trips to a computer repair shop, and without needing constant upgrades.
You are not the target audience.
Stop assuming everyone else is the same as you. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646</id>
	<title>DEB repository.</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1264696140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see the App Store similar to a DEB repository, only the applications "allowed" by the repository administrator enter such repository and can be downloaded from there.</p><p>This raises three questions for me:<br>1. Is it possible (in the Apple version) to install/run software which was not obtained from the repository?<br>2. Is it possible to offer software free (or at a very low) cost from the Apple repository?<br>3. Can I use *any* license (like GPL) for my software offered via App Store?</p><p>If 2 and three are true, then it may be possible to distribute<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Libre/ software in the App Store, of course charging just a small amount of money for the download (Say, I port TEH GIMP to the Ipad, could I offer it for $1.00 [of course with all the source, etc])?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see the App Store similar to a DEB repository , only the applications " allowed " by the repository administrator enter such repository and can be downloaded from there.This raises three questions for me : 1 .
Is it possible ( in the Apple version ) to install/run software which was not obtained from the repository ? 2 .
Is it possible to offer software free ( or at a very low ) cost from the Apple repository ? 3 .
Can I use * any * license ( like GPL ) for my software offered via App Store ? If 2 and three are true , then it may be possible to distribute /Libre/ software in the App Store , of course charging just a small amount of money for the download ( Say , I port TEH GIMP to the Ipad , could I offer it for $ 1.00 [ of course with all the source , etc ] ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see the App Store similar to a DEB repository, only the applications "allowed" by the repository administrator enter such repository and can be downloaded from there.This raises three questions for me:1.
Is it possible (in the Apple version) to install/run software which was not obtained from the repository?2.
Is it possible to offer software free (or at a very low) cost from the Apple repository?3.
Can I use *any* license (like GPL) for my software offered via App Store?If 2 and three are true, then it may be possible to distribute /Libre/ software in the App Store, of course charging just a small amount of money for the download (Say, I port TEH GIMP to the Ipad, could I offer it for $1.00 [of course with all the source, etc])?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938364</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264708680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2. What the hell?!?!??! So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?</p></div></blockquote><p>Nope, no one is telling you that you are going to spend anything.</p><p>Hope that clears up the confusion.</p><blockquote><div><p>Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/), no flash support, no multitasking (oh great, so I can't have AIM and Safari open at the same time? Epic Fail.)...it just seems to be an extremely restricted device considering the $500 entry price.</p></div></blockquote><p>A Kindle DX has about the same entry price, and is about the same size, and does less (OTOH, it does have a 3G connection, which you have to pay more for on the iPad.)</p><blockquote><div><p>Third, what exactly are you getting for that price? Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version. For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade.</p></div></blockquote><p>And paying about the price of a high-end, dedicated ebook reader to do it. Which has many of the same limitations, and less breadth of functionality (though it is better for the specific purpose of reading ebooks.)</p><p>The iPad is hardly uniquely limited in the world of mobile devices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , it is based on iPhone OS 3.2 .
What the hell ? ! ? ! ? ? !
So you 're telling me I 'm going to spend at minimum $ 500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone ? Nope , no one is telling you that you are going to spend anything.Hope that clears up the confusion.Secondly , it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports ( except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories : / ) , no flash support , no multitasking ( oh great , so I ca n't have AIM and Safari open at the same time ?
Epic Fail .
) ...it just seems to be an extremely restricted device considering the $ 500 entry price.A Kindle DX has about the same entry price , and is about the same size , and does less ( OTOH , it does have a 3G connection , which you have to pay more for on the iPad .
) Third , what exactly are you getting for that price ?
Let 's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version .
For roughly $ 800 , you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options , zero USB ports or flash card readers , and no way to upgrade.And paying about the price of a high-end , dedicated ebook reader to do it .
Which has many of the same limitations , and less breadth of functionality ( though it is better for the specific purpose of reading ebooks .
) The iPad is hardly uniquely limited in the world of mobile devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2.
What the hell?!?!??!
So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?Nope, no one is telling you that you are going to spend anything.Hope that clears up the confusion.Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories :/), no flash support, no multitasking (oh great, so I can't have AIM and Safari open at the same time?
Epic Fail.
)...it just seems to be an extremely restricted device considering the $500 entry price.A Kindle DX has about the same entry price, and is about the same size, and does less (OTOH, it does have a 3G connection, which you have to pay more for on the iPad.
)Third, what exactly are you getting for that price?
Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version.
For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade.And paying about the price of a high-end, dedicated ebook reader to do it.
Which has many of the same limitations, and less breadth of functionality (though it is better for the specific purpose of reading ebooks.
)The iPad is hardly uniquely limited in the world of mobile devices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935734</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is as simplistic as whisper\_jeff makes it out to be. Your problem (and I don't mean to be offensive) is that you compromised on your principles. You "grudgingly accept it's limitations". The key word there is *accept*. You bought the iPhone knowing what it was and was not capable of. So obviously you like its featureset more than you  dislike its limitations.</p><p>As for the iPad not being a computer - it has a CPU. It has memory / storage. It has an input / output system. How is that NOT a tablet computer? Oh, you mean it doesn't run OS X? To date, every single tablet computer that runs a desktop OS variant has failed in the marketplace. Kudos for Apple for not going down the exact same path that Microsoft, GRiD and a host of other tablet software/hardware manufacturers have gone down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is as simplistic as whisper \ _jeff makes it out to be .
Your problem ( and I do n't mean to be offensive ) is that you compromised on your principles .
You " grudgingly accept it 's limitations " .
The key word there is * accept * .
You bought the iPhone knowing what it was and was not capable of .
So obviously you like its featureset more than you dislike its limitations.As for the iPad not being a computer - it has a CPU .
It has memory / storage .
It has an input / output system .
How is that NOT a tablet computer ?
Oh , you mean it does n't run OS X ?
To date , every single tablet computer that runs a desktop OS variant has failed in the marketplace .
Kudos for Apple for not going down the exact same path that Microsoft , GRiD and a host of other tablet software/hardware manufacturers have gone down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is as simplistic as whisper\_jeff makes it out to be.
Your problem (and I don't mean to be offensive) is that you compromised on your principles.
You "grudgingly accept it's limitations".
The key word there is *accept*.
You bought the iPhone knowing what it was and was not capable of.
So obviously you like its featureset more than you  dislike its limitations.As for the iPad not being a computer - it has a CPU.
It has memory / storage.
It has an input / output system.
How is that NOT a tablet computer?
Oh, you mean it doesn't run OS X?
To date, every single tablet computer that runs a desktop OS variant has failed in the marketplace.
Kudos for Apple for not going down the exact same path that Microsoft, GRiD and a host of other tablet software/hardware manufacturers have gone down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935386</id>
	<title>The iPad is different</title>
	<author>alispguru</author>
	<datestamp>1264700940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife has an iPhone.  She runs her free-lance business off it, so we don't jailbreak it.  AT&amp;T's network, their rules, etc.

If she also gets an iPad, with no 3G, I'll jailbreak it without a second thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife has an iPhone .
She runs her free-lance business off it , so we do n't jailbreak it .
AT&amp;T 's network , their rules , etc .
If she also gets an iPad , with no 3G , I 'll jailbreak it without a second thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife has an iPhone.
She runs her free-lance business off it, so we don't jailbreak it.
AT&amp;T's network, their rules, etc.
If she also gets an iPad, with no 3G, I'll jailbreak it without a second thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934808</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Bobfrankly1</author>
	<datestamp>1264699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>over their computers. Go ahead. Give it to them. Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose "Run as Administrator," or that they need to run spyware scans, or virus scans, or allow the machine to install updates, or use Browser X instead of Browser Y, or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way. What do they say? Come on, we've all heard it.</p><p>"Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?"
"Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?"
"Why do I have to do that? I never had to do that before."
"Do I really have to worry about this stuff?"
"Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know."
"I'll just buy a new computer."</p><p>They DO NOT WANT to perform maintenance, worry about security, track down tools, learn to use said tools, administer storage or filesystems, etc. Given the choice between technology that slides into malfunction when not administered properly (i.e. "it's broken" as far as they can tell) and no technology at all, most regular people will simply opt for "none," as in "I tried it for a while, but it was always broken or crashing or getting a virus, it sucked. I sold it and just went back to my old XYZ."</p><p>Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep. You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep. And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.</p></div><p>This comment is just baa a ad</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>over their computers .
Go ahead .
Give it to them .
Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose " Run as Administrator , " or that they need to run spyware scans , or virus scans , or allow the machine to install updates , or use Browser X instead of Browser Y , or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way .
What do they say ?
Come on , we 've all heard it .
" Ca n't you fix it so that I do n't have to worry about that ?
" " Why does n't the computer just do that for me ?
" " Why do I have to do that ?
I never had to do that before .
" " Do I really have to worry about this stuff ?
" " Just make it work , I do n't care how , and I do n't want to know .
" " I 'll just buy a new computer .
" They DO NOT WANT to perform maintenance , worry about security , track down tools , learn to use said tools , administer storage or filesystems , etc .
Given the choice between technology that slides into malfunction when not administered properly ( i.e .
" it 's broken " as far as they can tell ) and no technology at all , most regular people will simply opt for " none , " as in " I tried it for a while , but it was always broken or crashing or getting a virus , it sucked .
I sold it and just went back to my old XYZ .
" Say what you will , but the masses are sheep and they 're happy as sheep .
You can not teach them to think , vote , raise children , or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD , only the sheep .
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.This comment is just baa a ad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>over their computers.
Go ahead.
Give it to them.
Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose "Run as Administrator," or that they need to run spyware scans, or virus scans, or allow the machine to install updates, or use Browser X instead of Browser Y, or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way.
What do they say?
Come on, we've all heard it.
"Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?
"
"Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?
"
"Why do I have to do that?
I never had to do that before.
"
"Do I really have to worry about this stuff?
"
"Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know.
"
"I'll just buy a new computer.
"They DO NOT WANT to perform maintenance, worry about security, track down tools, learn to use said tools, administer storage or filesystems, etc.
Given the choice between technology that slides into malfunction when not administered properly (i.e.
"it's broken" as far as they can tell) and no technology at all, most regular people will simply opt for "none," as in "I tried it for a while, but it was always broken or crashing or getting a virus, it sucked.
I sold it and just went back to my old XYZ.
"Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep.
You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep.
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.This comment is just baa a ad
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933844</id>
	<title>Web Standards are the Key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget the App Store, you've got Safari with HTML 5 (and then some) with Apple explicitly saying they won't support proprietary plug-ins. This is going to be a widely popular platform and is going to be fantastic from a web standards standpoint. Check out Yehuda Katz's write-up (and no, I'm not him trolling for clicks).</p><p>http://yehudakatz.com/2010/01/27/the-irony-of-the-ipad-a-great-day-for-open-technologies/</p><p>As a web developer tired of IE 6, it is great news to see a platform that is going to push web standards adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the App Store , you 've got Safari with HTML 5 ( and then some ) with Apple explicitly saying they wo n't support proprietary plug-ins .
This is going to be a widely popular platform and is going to be fantastic from a web standards standpoint .
Check out Yehuda Katz 's write-up ( and no , I 'm not him trolling for clicks ) .http : //yehudakatz.com/2010/01/27/the-irony-of-the-ipad-a-great-day-for-open-technologies/As a web developer tired of IE 6 , it is great news to see a platform that is going to push web standards adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the App Store, you've got Safari with HTML 5 (and then some) with Apple explicitly saying they won't support proprietary plug-ins.
This is going to be a widely popular platform and is going to be fantastic from a web standards standpoint.
Check out Yehuda Katz's write-up (and no, I'm not him trolling for clicks).http://yehudakatz.com/2010/01/27/the-irony-of-the-ipad-a-great-day-for-open-technologies/As a web developer tired of IE 6, it is great news to see a platform that is going to push web standards adoption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945224</id>
	<title>Close.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264694820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple wants out of the X86 market. Plain and simple.<blockquote><div><p>the iPhone OS and OSX will merge (OS-XI)</p></div></blockquote><p>

More along the lines of OSX on the desktop (x86) will die and OSX on the phone (ARM) will take over.</p><blockquote><div><p>MacBook and the iPad form factors will merge.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The Macbook (non-pro) and Mac mini form factors will die, Macbook Pro and Imac's will switch to the new processor arch and run the new OS. The Mac Pro tower will cease to exist.</p><blockquote><div><p>they will all run Apple manufactured chips, and the only content and programs they will run will be from an Apple app store.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Spot on.<br> <br>

Adobe has already seen the writing on the wall and started making CS for win better. Apple want to be in complete control and are willing to sell the entire farm for it. Apple are leaving the X86 market as it does not make up enough of their total sales to justify keeping and the fanboys will follow no matter what Apple do. Apple have switch processor arch's with reckless abandon before.<br> <br>

This move is what will kill Apple, the number of Mac fanboys are quite low and the "cool" factor is a very fickle mistress. Apple have bet that they will remain relevant through their image alone. Granted this is how they became relevant but it will only last until the Next Big Thing(TM). It's not like Apple's hubris hasn't (almost) killed it before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple wants out of the X86 market .
Plain and simple.the iPhone OS and OSX will merge ( OS-XI ) More along the lines of OSX on the desktop ( x86 ) will die and OSX on the phone ( ARM ) will take over.MacBook and the iPad form factors will merge .
The Macbook ( non-pro ) and Mac mini form factors will die , Macbook Pro and Imac 's will switch to the new processor arch and run the new OS .
The Mac Pro tower will cease to exist.they will all run Apple manufactured chips , and the only content and programs they will run will be from an Apple app store .
Spot on .
Adobe has already seen the writing on the wall and started making CS for win better .
Apple want to be in complete control and are willing to sell the entire farm for it .
Apple are leaving the X86 market as it does not make up enough of their total sales to justify keeping and the fanboys will follow no matter what Apple do .
Apple have switch processor arch 's with reckless abandon before .
This move is what will kill Apple , the number of Mac fanboys are quite low and the " cool " factor is a very fickle mistress .
Apple have bet that they will remain relevant through their image alone .
Granted this is how they became relevant but it will only last until the Next Big Thing ( TM ) .
It 's not like Apple 's hubris has n't ( almost ) killed it before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple wants out of the X86 market.
Plain and simple.the iPhone OS and OSX will merge (OS-XI)

More along the lines of OSX on the desktop (x86) will die and OSX on the phone (ARM) will take over.MacBook and the iPad form factors will merge.
The Macbook (non-pro) and Mac mini form factors will die, Macbook Pro and Imac's will switch to the new processor arch and run the new OS.
The Mac Pro tower will cease to exist.they will all run Apple manufactured chips, and the only content and programs they will run will be from an Apple app store.
Spot on.
Adobe has already seen the writing on the wall and started making CS for win better.
Apple want to be in complete control and are willing to sell the entire farm for it.
Apple are leaving the X86 market as it does not make up enough of their total sales to justify keeping and the fanboys will follow no matter what Apple do.
Apple have switch processor arch's with reckless abandon before.
This move is what will kill Apple, the number of Mac fanboys are quite low and the "cool" factor is a very fickle mistress.
Apple have bet that they will remain relevant through their image alone.
Granted this is how they became relevant but it will only last until the Next Big Thing(TM).
It's not like Apple's hubris hasn't (almost) killed it before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935474</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>tallguywithglasseson</author>
	<datestamp>1264701180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've heard no plans of a Google tablet</p></div></blockquote><p>

Here:</p><p> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/msi-shows-off-10-inch-android-tablet-running-new-tegra-chipset/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/msi-shows-off-10-inch-android-tablet-running-new-tegra-chipset/</a> [engadget.com] </p><p>Now you've heard of one, it will reportedly be available later this year for $500.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard no plans of a Google tablet Here : http : //www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/msi-shows-off-10-inch-android-tablet-running-new-tegra-chipset/ [ engadget.com ] Now you 've heard of one , it will reportedly be available later this year for $ 500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard no plans of a Google tablet

Here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/msi-shows-off-10-inch-android-tablet-running-new-tegra-chipset/ [engadget.com] Now you've heard of one, it will reportedly be available later this year for $500.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934152</id>
	<title>Re:DEB repository.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judging from the iPhone model:</p><p>1. Not unless you jailbreak it.<br>2. Yes.<br>3. Yes.</p><p>The gripe with the appstore seems to be that you need a subscription to submit stuff to it, and that Apple has final word (as it should be) on what gets into the appstore, and certain devs who don't exactly play by Apple's rules get pissy about being rejected (they''ll argue that their app should get in over a fart-button app, because it's more useful, but that's only to deflect attention away from the fact that the bozo fart app developer played by Apple's rules, and they did not, but that doesn't matter, because it's their $deity-given right to have everything they submit be accepted unconditionally, because rules are slavery.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging from the iPhone model : 1 .
Not unless you jailbreak it.2 .
Yes.3. Yes.The gripe with the appstore seems to be that you need a subscription to submit stuff to it , and that Apple has final word ( as it should be ) on what gets into the appstore , and certain devs who do n't exactly play by Apple 's rules get pissy about being rejected ( they ' 'll argue that their app should get in over a fart-button app , because it 's more useful , but that 's only to deflect attention away from the fact that the bozo fart app developer played by Apple 's rules , and they did not , but that does n't matter , because it 's their $ deity-given right to have everything they submit be accepted unconditionally , because rules are slavery .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging from the iPhone model:1.
Not unless you jailbreak it.2.
Yes.3. Yes.The gripe with the appstore seems to be that you need a subscription to submit stuff to it, and that Apple has final word (as it should be) on what gets into the appstore, and certain devs who don't exactly play by Apple's rules get pissy about being rejected (they''ll argue that their app should get in over a fart-button app, because it's more useful, but that's only to deflect attention away from the fact that the bozo fart app developer played by Apple's rules, and they did not, but that doesn't matter, because it's their $deity-given right to have everything they submit be accepted unconditionally, because rules are slavery.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936564</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Tharsman</author>
	<datestamp>1264704300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then buy a NetBook Tablet, like the Asus Eee PC T91. Apple's device is not for you, it's not like there have not been tablet devices out there that didn't do what you want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then buy a NetBook Tablet , like the Asus Eee PC T91 .
Apple 's device is not for you , it 's not like there have not been tablet devices out there that did n't do what you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then buy a NetBook Tablet, like the Asus Eee PC T91.
Apple's device is not for you, it's not like there have not been tablet devices out there that didn't do what you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941002</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>sarysa</author>
	<datestamp>1264672740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a bit bothered by this, because it assumes that devices that aren't locked down are inherently flawed. Aside from removing trialware, I've never had problems with my customs or pre-builts -- Toshiba, Fujitsu, eMachines, even HP -- unless I did something stupid. I'm knowledgable enough about computers that I have my own list of what's trusted, can detect problems without programs and yet I can still rely on my desktop-replacement form factor gaming laptop to do what I need to do, always -- and I don't have to go through your daily regimen. My computing is kind of like walking through a city, using your instincts to decide which businesses and neighborhoods to avoid.<br> <br>Furthermore, it's the open nature of early computing that earned so-called "trusted companies" their trust. They boosted our economy in the long run and more or less enhanced the lives of the so-called "sheep". I agree with this thread's OP in that people don't want to do maintenance, but it's especially flawed design to devote as much time and effort as Apple has to prevent those who want "untrusted" content from getting it. This attitude is going to stifle innovation if it becomes mainstream...good thing for Microsoft, ironically enough.<br>(Linux and derivatives too, but M$ has been far below Apple on the evil scale lately, and they have the market share)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a bit bothered by this , because it assumes that devices that are n't locked down are inherently flawed .
Aside from removing trialware , I 've never had problems with my customs or pre-builts -- Toshiba , Fujitsu , eMachines , even HP -- unless I did something stupid .
I 'm knowledgable enough about computers that I have my own list of what 's trusted , can detect problems without programs and yet I can still rely on my desktop-replacement form factor gaming laptop to do what I need to do , always -- and I do n't have to go through your daily regimen .
My computing is kind of like walking through a city , using your instincts to decide which businesses and neighborhoods to avoid .
Furthermore , it 's the open nature of early computing that earned so-called " trusted companies " their trust .
They boosted our economy in the long run and more or less enhanced the lives of the so-called " sheep " .
I agree with this thread 's OP in that people do n't want to do maintenance , but it 's especially flawed design to devote as much time and effort as Apple has to prevent those who want " untrusted " content from getting it .
This attitude is going to stifle innovation if it becomes mainstream...good thing for Microsoft , ironically enough .
( Linux and derivatives too , but M $ has been far below Apple on the evil scale lately , and they have the market share )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a bit bothered by this, because it assumes that devices that aren't locked down are inherently flawed.
Aside from removing trialware, I've never had problems with my customs or pre-builts -- Toshiba, Fujitsu, eMachines, even HP -- unless I did something stupid.
I'm knowledgable enough about computers that I have my own list of what's trusted, can detect problems without programs and yet I can still rely on my desktop-replacement form factor gaming laptop to do what I need to do, always -- and I don't have to go through your daily regimen.
My computing is kind of like walking through a city, using your instincts to decide which businesses and neighborhoods to avoid.
Furthermore, it's the open nature of early computing that earned so-called "trusted companies" their trust.
They boosted our economy in the long run and more or less enhanced the lives of the so-called "sheep".
I agree with this thread's OP in that people don't want to do maintenance, but it's especially flawed design to devote as much time and effort as Apple has to prevent those who want "untrusted" content from getting it.
This attitude is going to stifle innovation if it becomes mainstream...good thing for Microsoft, ironically enough.
(Linux and derivatives too, but M$ has been far below Apple on the evil scale lately, and they have the market share)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939590</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However it is of some concern that the iPad is using a closed OS, and - I think most importantly - it has no webcam.  This is a major missed opportunity for Apple, unless they intend to make a "video iPad"?  I don't think only ubergeeks care about webcams, either!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However it is of some concern that the iPad is using a closed OS , and - I think most importantly - it has no webcam .
This is a major missed opportunity for Apple , unless they intend to make a " video iPad " ?
I do n't think only ubergeeks care about webcams , either !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However it is of some concern that the iPad is using a closed OS, and - I think most importantly - it has no webcam.
This is a major missed opportunity for Apple, unless they intend to make a "video iPad"?
I don't think only ubergeeks care about webcams, either!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934588</id>
	<title>It bridges the "Digital Divide"</title>
	<author>weatherbug</author>
	<datestamp>1264698840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that most geeks don't take into consideration is the "Can my grandmother use this?"  What good is a world of software and open systems if the person who is trying to use it, can't even figure out how to adjust the volume?  Linux and Microsoft just can't seem to wrap their head around this concept.

I think it's actually a huge step forward!  Imagine a world of technology that is available to EVERYONE, not just us elite geekoids and those who are the right side of the digital divide!  This device bridges the digital divide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that most geeks do n't take into consideration is the " Can my grandmother use this ?
" What good is a world of software and open systems if the person who is trying to use it , ca n't even figure out how to adjust the volume ?
Linux and Microsoft just ca n't seem to wrap their head around this concept .
I think it 's actually a huge step forward !
Imagine a world of technology that is available to EVERYONE , not just us elite geekoids and those who are the right side of the digital divide !
This device bridges the digital divide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that most geeks don't take into consideration is the "Can my grandmother use this?
"  What good is a world of software and open systems if the person who is trying to use it, can't even figure out how to adjust the volume?
Linux and Microsoft just can't seem to wrap their head around this concept.
I think it's actually a huge step forward!
Imagine a world of technology that is available to EVERYONE, not just us elite geekoids and those who are the right side of the digital divide!
This device bridges the digital divide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943272</id>
	<title>Doorstops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I like to use my computers as doorstops, unfortunatley when my new Dell stopped browsing the web becuase the door had been slammed into it so many times they wouldn't even repair it under warranty!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I like to use my computers as doorstops , unfortunatley when my new Dell stopped browsing the web becuase the door had been slammed into it so many times they would n't even repair it under warranty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I like to use my computers as doorstops, unfortunatley when my new Dell stopped browsing the web becuase the door had been slammed into it so many times they wouldn't even repair it under warranty!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935880</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>$99/year for a developer's license and $599+ for an Intel based Mac to write the software on, if you don't already have one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 99/year for a developer 's license and $ 599 + for an Intel based Mac to write the software on , if you do n't already have one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$99/year for a developer's license and $599+ for an Intel based Mac to write the software on, if you don't already have one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935106</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>given mr jobs attitude vs openness (i think he had some arguments about it with woz around the macintosh time, as the mac was much more closed then the appleII variants), i would say that the app store model is his wet dream come true; and would love to convert the whole non-pro product line of apple to it in a heartbeat.</p><p>but as that would offend many long time customers, apple will instead take a long term approach, making a new generation of apple customers more used to coming to apple for everything. And then will the imac and mac mini quietly fade, with a bit of hand waving and a statement about lack of demand...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>given mr jobs attitude vs openness ( i think he had some arguments about it with woz around the macintosh time , as the mac was much more closed then the appleII variants ) , i would say that the app store model is his wet dream come true ; and would love to convert the whole non-pro product line of apple to it in a heartbeat.but as that would offend many long time customers , apple will instead take a long term approach , making a new generation of apple customers more used to coming to apple for everything .
And then will the imac and mac mini quietly fade , with a bit of hand waving and a statement about lack of demand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>given mr jobs attitude vs openness (i think he had some arguments about it with woz around the macintosh time, as the mac was much more closed then the appleII variants), i would say that the app store model is his wet dream come true; and would love to convert the whole non-pro product line of apple to it in a heartbeat.but as that would offend many long time customers, apple will instead take a long term approach, making a new generation of apple customers more used to coming to apple for everything.
And then will the imac and mac mini quietly fade, with a bit of hand waving and a statement about lack of demand...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1264697340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like </i></p><p>OS X is not locked down.  This is something that started with the iPhone.</p><p><i>If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.</i></p><p>I will.  iPad may not be useful in itself, and it is certainly not the first, but all of Apple's marketing dollars may finally get this market segment to take off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like OS X is not locked down .
This is something that started with the iPhone.If you want open and free , go somewhere else and take your chances.I will .
iPad may not be useful in itself , and it is certainly not the first , but all of Apple 's marketing dollars may finally get this market segment to take off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like OS X is not locked down.
This is something that started with the iPhone.If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.I will.
iPad may not be useful in itself, and it is certainly not the first, but all of Apple's marketing dollars may finally get this market segment to take off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943868</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the only way to warn the public about something is to not give them a viable alternative, then you're just pissing in the wind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the only way to warn the public about something is to not give them a viable alternative , then you 're just pissing in the wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the only way to warn the public about something is to not give them a viable alternative, then you're just pissing in the wind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934872</id>
	<title>Re:DEB repository.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.) No.<br>
2.) Only if Apple allows it. They have a history of not doing this when it conflicts with existing paid apps. This goes for free and non-free software alike, especially when the paid version is offered by Apple. It doesn't always happen, but often enough.<br>
3.) I don't know about *any* license, but the GPL is among those you can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) No .
2. ) Only if Apple allows it .
They have a history of not doing this when it conflicts with existing paid apps .
This goes for free and non-free software alike , especially when the paid version is offered by Apple .
It does n't always happen , but often enough .
3. ) I do n't know about * any * license , but the GPL is among those you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) No.
2.) Only if Apple allows it.
They have a history of not doing this when it conflicts with existing paid apps.
This goes for free and non-free software alike, especially when the paid version is offered by Apple.
It doesn't always happen, but often enough.
3.) I don't know about *any* license, but the GPL is among those you can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935964</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? iPad Killer for LESS!</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1264702440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, that Lenovo S10-3t looks nice. If only it came with an operating system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , that Lenovo S10-3t looks nice .
If only it came with an operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, that Lenovo S10-3t looks nice.
If only it came with an operating system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934792</id>
	<title>Dear Mr. Sullivan</title>
	<author>DannyO152</author>
	<datestamp>1264699440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We note your concerns and indeed if personal computing had started in the manner you suggested, then it would be a different world. For instance, IBM would not have had any need for Microsoft to provide BASIC so users of their new device could write their own utility programs. No BASIC, no asking Microsoft for an operating system. Is your mind blown? My mind's blown. I'm taking a moment.</p><p>And with that wavy cross-dissolve my Scene 2 what-if speculation/flashback concludes and I'm back from the alternate scenario. A dream, but it was so real. And you were there. And you. And... but I digress.</p><p>I'm soon off to walk to work. Now I could drive and when I get in the car, I sort of understand implicitly that my freedoms are restricted as to what routes and lanes I take and how fast I may go and what colors I correlate with acceleration, but I do accept it. I like writing programs and I like what free and open software has done to make my life better. I can't write programs for my iPhone. On the other hand, telephoning on my computer, though improved, is problematic. It sure doesn't fit in my pocket. I guess the point I'm making is give us some credit. We understand what we are and are not getting. When we need more, we'll use something else. In my case that something else is running Linux or FreeBSD.</p><p>In conclusion, I hope you have a good day and while we will keep a chair available, we'll plan to have someone else bring the cookies to our inaugural iPad User Group meeting.</p><p>Cheers, Dan</p><p>P.S. I <em>could</em> write programs for my iPhone, but the hassle isn't worth it. It'd make more sense to deliver custom functionality via a webhost under my control and that way any networked computer I have access to could use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We note your concerns and indeed if personal computing had started in the manner you suggested , then it would be a different world .
For instance , IBM would not have had any need for Microsoft to provide BASIC so users of their new device could write their own utility programs .
No BASIC , no asking Microsoft for an operating system .
Is your mind blown ?
My mind 's blown .
I 'm taking a moment.And with that wavy cross-dissolve my Scene 2 what-if speculation/flashback concludes and I 'm back from the alternate scenario .
A dream , but it was so real .
And you were there .
And you .
And... but I digress.I 'm soon off to walk to work .
Now I could drive and when I get in the car , I sort of understand implicitly that my freedoms are restricted as to what routes and lanes I take and how fast I may go and what colors I correlate with acceleration , but I do accept it .
I like writing programs and I like what free and open software has done to make my life better .
I ca n't write programs for my iPhone .
On the other hand , telephoning on my computer , though improved , is problematic .
It sure does n't fit in my pocket .
I guess the point I 'm making is give us some credit .
We understand what we are and are not getting .
When we need more , we 'll use something else .
In my case that something else is running Linux or FreeBSD.In conclusion , I hope you have a good day and while we will keep a chair available , we 'll plan to have someone else bring the cookies to our inaugural iPad User Group meeting.Cheers , DanP.S .
I could write programs for my iPhone , but the hassle is n't worth it .
It 'd make more sense to deliver custom functionality via a webhost under my control and that way any networked computer I have access to could use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We note your concerns and indeed if personal computing had started in the manner you suggested, then it would be a different world.
For instance, IBM would not have had any need for Microsoft to provide BASIC so users of their new device could write their own utility programs.
No BASIC, no asking Microsoft for an operating system.
Is your mind blown?
My mind's blown.
I'm taking a moment.And with that wavy cross-dissolve my Scene 2 what-if speculation/flashback concludes and I'm back from the alternate scenario.
A dream, but it was so real.
And you were there.
And you.
And... but I digress.I'm soon off to walk to work.
Now I could drive and when I get in the car, I sort of understand implicitly that my freedoms are restricted as to what routes and lanes I take and how fast I may go and what colors I correlate with acceleration, but I do accept it.
I like writing programs and I like what free and open software has done to make my life better.
I can't write programs for my iPhone.
On the other hand, telephoning on my computer, though improved, is problematic.
It sure doesn't fit in my pocket.
I guess the point I'm making is give us some credit.
We understand what we are and are not getting.
When we need more, we'll use something else.
In my case that something else is running Linux or FreeBSD.In conclusion, I hope you have a good day and while we will keep a chair available, we'll plan to have someone else bring the cookies to our inaugural iPad User Group meeting.Cheers, DanP.S.
I could write programs for my iPhone, but the hassle isn't worth it.
It'd make more sense to deliver custom functionality via a webhost under my control and that way any networked computer I have access to could use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934976</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1264699920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, except that they don't have to charge $99 to still have that filtering.</p><p>Almost all android-based phones will refuse to install anything not cleared by the Google Market by default.  The difference is that anybody can go into a menu and change a setting, and now you can install whatever you want from wherever you want.</p><p>I'd be fine if Google even wanted to have three tiers - anything goes, anything in the market, and anything in the market that was reviewed by Google for quality.  Most linux distros work the same way - ubuntu by default gives you stuff they consider stable, but if you want you can ask for stuff they consider less stable (but still from them), or you can add any repository you'd like or start installing DEBs, or tarballs for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , except that they do n't have to charge $ 99 to still have that filtering.Almost all android-based phones will refuse to install anything not cleared by the Google Market by default .
The difference is that anybody can go into a menu and change a setting , and now you can install whatever you want from wherever you want.I 'd be fine if Google even wanted to have three tiers - anything goes , anything in the market , and anything in the market that was reviewed by Google for quality .
Most linux distros work the same way - ubuntu by default gives you stuff they consider stable , but if you want you can ask for stuff they consider less stable ( but still from them ) , or you can add any repository you 'd like or start installing DEBs , or tarballs for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, except that they don't have to charge $99 to still have that filtering.Almost all android-based phones will refuse to install anything not cleared by the Google Market by default.
The difference is that anybody can go into a menu and change a setting, and now you can install whatever you want from wherever you want.I'd be fine if Google even wanted to have three tiers - anything goes, anything in the market, and anything in the market that was reviewed by Google for quality.
Most linux distros work the same way - ubuntu by default gives you stuff they consider stable, but if you want you can ask for stuff they consider less stable (but still from them), or you can add any repository you'd like or start installing DEBs, or tarballs for that matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934728</id>
	<title>It will be,</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1264699200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>An iflop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>An iflop : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An iflop :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935924</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264702380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you grew up basically. I was the same way in the late 80s and 90s, building my own PCs, buying the latest greatest 3d card, always upgrading the next fastest baud rate modem, futzing around with my computer settings etc. because it was fun. It also kept me very poor. I finally grew tired of my fledgling hobby and just bought a mid 90s era Mac and have been fully in the camp of "just works" ever since. Instead of ripping the iPhone for having an integrated battery, I learned to value the fact it just works better than the need to find an outlet once a day to charge my non-swappable batter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you grew up basically .
I was the same way in the late 80s and 90s , building my own PCs , buying the latest greatest 3d card , always upgrading the next fastest baud rate modem , futzing around with my computer settings etc .
because it was fun .
It also kept me very poor .
I finally grew tired of my fledgling hobby and just bought a mid 90s era Mac and have been fully in the camp of " just works " ever since .
Instead of ripping the iPhone for having an integrated battery , I learned to value the fact it just works better than the need to find an outlet once a day to charge my non-swappable batter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you grew up basically.
I was the same way in the late 80s and 90s, building my own PCs, buying the latest greatest 3d card, always upgrading the next fastest baud rate modem, futzing around with my computer settings etc.
because it was fun.
It also kept me very poor.
I finally grew tired of my fledgling hobby and just bought a mid 90s era Mac and have been fully in the camp of "just works" ever since.
Instead of ripping the iPhone for having an integrated battery, I learned to value the fact it just works better than the need to find an outlet once a day to charge my non-swappable batter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935252</id>
	<title>Its not a computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop thinking of it as a computer and just as another piece of consumer electronics and you'll be much happier.</p><p>The iPad is something which does a limited set of things very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop thinking of it as a computer and just as another piece of consumer electronics and you 'll be much happier.The iPad is something which does a limited set of things very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop thinking of it as a computer and just as another piece of consumer electronics and you'll be much happier.The iPad is something which does a limited set of things very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935122</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>cowscows</author>
	<datestamp>1264700340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure when anyone from Apple said that it was going to be a tablet computer, and not a super ipod touch. I think Apple very consciously designed it as basically a super ipod touch. Most likely because they figure they can sell truckloads more giant ipod touches than they can tablet computers.</p><p>It's too bad for you that it's not what you wanted it to be. But I don't see how that's so complicated an idea that "If you don't like it then don't buy it" doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure when anyone from Apple said that it was going to be a tablet computer , and not a super ipod touch .
I think Apple very consciously designed it as basically a super ipod touch .
Most likely because they figure they can sell truckloads more giant ipod touches than they can tablet computers.It 's too bad for you that it 's not what you wanted it to be .
But I do n't see how that 's so complicated an idea that " If you do n't like it then do n't buy it " does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure when anyone from Apple said that it was going to be a tablet computer, and not a super ipod touch.
I think Apple very consciously designed it as basically a super ipod touch.
Most likely because they figure they can sell truckloads more giant ipod touches than they can tablet computers.It's too bad for you that it's not what you wanted it to be.
But I don't see how that's so complicated an idea that "If you don't like it then don't buy it" doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934710</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>roju</author>
	<datestamp>1264699200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they want that option to be there for their expert to fix it. Same thing with cars - I have no interest whatsoever in the internal state of my car, but I would be unhappy if I had to take it to the dealership instead of my personal mechanic to keep it running smoothly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they want that option to be there for their expert to fix it .
Same thing with cars - I have no interest whatsoever in the internal state of my car , but I would be unhappy if I had to take it to the dealership instead of my personal mechanic to keep it running smoothly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they want that option to be there for their expert to fix it.
Same thing with cars - I have no interest whatsoever in the internal state of my car, but I would be unhappy if I had to take it to the dealership instead of my personal mechanic to keep it running smoothly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934926</id>
	<title>Product-customer fit</title>
	<author>NameIsDavid</author>
	<datestamp>1264699860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>99\% of the computing activity that goes on daily is information and media consumption, not creation. First and foremost, we surf the web and, along the way, watch photos or various media clips that we encounter. Gone are the days when a computer meant something used for word processing or writing a spreadsheet. While we still do those things in similar absolute amounts, the sheer number of *other* things we use our computers for has dwarfed these activities to the point where there is a large market for a machine optimized primarily for consumption. The netbook was aimed at this catagory, hence its name. A key to success is that such a device needs to be able to do rudimentary creation or at least editing. Again, witness the netbook. The keyboard is cramped and the screen is small, but this is fine for occasional road-warrier-style editing while mostly being used for reading email and internet surfing.

The iPad fits this niche very well, with a much slicker and more intuitive UI. Why must it be labeled and treated as a general purpose computer even though almost none of its customers would use it as such even if it were so capable? Tech journalists treat every product as if it's intended for their personal use.

As for the app store, Apple's centralized control has thus far resulting in only a literal handful of highly-desired apps being rejected and not made available. A handful out of more than 100K. This is an exceedingly small fraction, with almost zero impact on how anyone has used their iPhones and iPod Touches unless Google Voice is your raison d'etre. Improving usability by a few percent while opening up the floodgates to a far larger share of malware might not actually be the right tradeoff for the majority of customers who, again, are using the device for consumption and will likely never even buy more than a handful of apps to supplement the build in apps.

There's no slippery slope here because the same model wouldn't be tolerated on a Mac. Once those who'd be better served with an iPad are taken out of the equation, the remaining Mac customers buy these machines because they actually create content, need choice and see a net benefit to having control vs. having to search many stores for the app they need and police for malware. Indeed, since the software used for most purposes tends to have already been largely standardized (Office, iLife, Photoshop, Final Cut, etc.), most users don't actually even exercise that much choice at this mature point in the product lifecycle, tending to prefer to stay compatible with the knowledgebase that exists for these dominant products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>99 \ % of the computing activity that goes on daily is information and media consumption , not creation .
First and foremost , we surf the web and , along the way , watch photos or various media clips that we encounter .
Gone are the days when a computer meant something used for word processing or writing a spreadsheet .
While we still do those things in similar absolute amounts , the sheer number of * other * things we use our computers for has dwarfed these activities to the point where there is a large market for a machine optimized primarily for consumption .
The netbook was aimed at this catagory , hence its name .
A key to success is that such a device needs to be able to do rudimentary creation or at least editing .
Again , witness the netbook .
The keyboard is cramped and the screen is small , but this is fine for occasional road-warrier-style editing while mostly being used for reading email and internet surfing .
The iPad fits this niche very well , with a much slicker and more intuitive UI .
Why must it be labeled and treated as a general purpose computer even though almost none of its customers would use it as such even if it were so capable ?
Tech journalists treat every product as if it 's intended for their personal use .
As for the app store , Apple 's centralized control has thus far resulting in only a literal handful of highly-desired apps being rejected and not made available .
A handful out of more than 100K .
This is an exceedingly small fraction , with almost zero impact on how anyone has used their iPhones and iPod Touches unless Google Voice is your raison d'etre .
Improving usability by a few percent while opening up the floodgates to a far larger share of malware might not actually be the right tradeoff for the majority of customers who , again , are using the device for consumption and will likely never even buy more than a handful of apps to supplement the build in apps .
There 's no slippery slope here because the same model would n't be tolerated on a Mac .
Once those who 'd be better served with an iPad are taken out of the equation , the remaining Mac customers buy these machines because they actually create content , need choice and see a net benefit to having control vs. having to search many stores for the app they need and police for malware .
Indeed , since the software used for most purposes tends to have already been largely standardized ( Office , iLife , Photoshop , Final Cut , etc .
) , most users do n't actually even exercise that much choice at this mature point in the product lifecycle , tending to prefer to stay compatible with the knowledgebase that exists for these dominant products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>99\% of the computing activity that goes on daily is information and media consumption, not creation.
First and foremost, we surf the web and, along the way, watch photos or various media clips that we encounter.
Gone are the days when a computer meant something used for word processing or writing a spreadsheet.
While we still do those things in similar absolute amounts, the sheer number of *other* things we use our computers for has dwarfed these activities to the point where there is a large market for a machine optimized primarily for consumption.
The netbook was aimed at this catagory, hence its name.
A key to success is that such a device needs to be able to do rudimentary creation or at least editing.
Again, witness the netbook.
The keyboard is cramped and the screen is small, but this is fine for occasional road-warrier-style editing while mostly being used for reading email and internet surfing.
The iPad fits this niche very well, with a much slicker and more intuitive UI.
Why must it be labeled and treated as a general purpose computer even though almost none of its customers would use it as such even if it were so capable?
Tech journalists treat every product as if it's intended for their personal use.
As for the app store, Apple's centralized control has thus far resulting in only a literal handful of highly-desired apps being rejected and not made available.
A handful out of more than 100K.
This is an exceedingly small fraction, with almost zero impact on how anyone has used their iPhones and iPod Touches unless Google Voice is your raison d'etre.
Improving usability by a few percent while opening up the floodgates to a far larger share of malware might not actually be the right tradeoff for the majority of customers who, again, are using the device for consumption and will likely never even buy more than a handful of apps to supplement the build in apps.
There's no slippery slope here because the same model wouldn't be tolerated on a Mac.
Once those who'd be better served with an iPad are taken out of the equation, the remaining Mac customers buy these machines because they actually create content, need choice and see a net benefit to having control vs. having to search many stores for the app they need and police for malware.
Indeed, since the software used for most purposes tends to have already been largely standardized (Office, iLife, Photoshop, Final Cut, etc.
), most users don't actually even exercise that much choice at this mature point in the product lifecycle, tending to prefer to stay compatible with the knowledgebase that exists for these dominant products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936482</id>
	<title>Re:*shrug*</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1264704060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bah, quote fail</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bah , quote fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bah, quote fail
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936328</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than calling everyone sheep, I would say:<br>Computers are appliances.<br>I don't have to have a degree in stoves to use my stove.<br>When computers are as simple to use as stoves, people don't care why, but they love it.</p><p>Simmilarly, if I needed a PhD in stoves to cook food, I'd go back to being a hunter gatherer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than calling everyone sheep , I would say : Computers are appliances.I do n't have to have a degree in stoves to use my stove.When computers are as simple to use as stoves , people do n't care why , but they love it.Simmilarly , if I needed a PhD in stoves to cook food , I 'd go back to being a hunter gatherer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than calling everyone sheep, I would say:Computers are appliances.I don't have to have a degree in stoves to use my stove.When computers are as simple to use as stoves, people don't care why, but they love it.Simmilarly, if I needed a PhD in stoves to cook food, I'd go back to being a hunter gatherer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933796</id>
	<title>"Customers Can't Be Trusted With Freedom"</title>
	<author>psbrogna</author>
	<datestamp>1264696500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fantastic. Can anybody think of a more effective strategy for shedding market share? Given that most of this particular segment has already formed an opinion of Windows, I'm pretty excited about their remaining options.
<br> <br>
Will the next Mac Vs. PC commercials show the cool Mac guy caged or manacled? Can't wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic .
Can anybody think of a more effective strategy for shedding market share ?
Given that most of this particular segment has already formed an opinion of Windows , I 'm pretty excited about their remaining options .
Will the next Mac Vs. PC commercials show the cool Mac guy caged or manacled ?
Ca n't wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic.
Can anybody think of a more effective strategy for shedding market share?
Given that most of this particular segment has already formed an opinion of Windows, I'm pretty excited about their remaining options.
Will the next Mac Vs. PC commercials show the cool Mac guy caged or manacled?
Can't wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937128</id>
	<title>This is not the computer you're looking for</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1264705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Boy, what a bunch of whiners.</p><p>The iPad is not a computer for anyone who reads Slashdot. It is for those who simply want something that they can surf the web with, do a bit of email, and read a few ebooks. It is computer as an appliance. If you're interested in this, and want more, buy a MacBook. That uses the same base OS and is not locked down.</p><p>Then, there are the "sheeple" comments. People who buy this are sheep who simply follow the herd! They don't want to think! They're stupid!</p><p>No, they're not. They're quite intelligent and have decided to use their intelligence to handle things like dating and relationships instead of spending hours reading random tech forums to find out what they need to do to prevent some virus on their computer from stealing their money. Android isn't locked down, and the iPhone is, but then it was Android that had at least four trojan apps that were suppose to be banking apps, but ended up stealing banking info. You want to run root on your phone? Get an Android! If you simply want something you don't have to think about, get an iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boy , what a bunch of whiners.The iPad is not a computer for anyone who reads Slashdot .
It is for those who simply want something that they can surf the web with , do a bit of email , and read a few ebooks .
It is computer as an appliance .
If you 're interested in this , and want more , buy a MacBook .
That uses the same base OS and is not locked down.Then , there are the " sheeple " comments .
People who buy this are sheep who simply follow the herd !
They do n't want to think !
They 're stupid ! No , they 're not .
They 're quite intelligent and have decided to use their intelligence to handle things like dating and relationships instead of spending hours reading random tech forums to find out what they need to do to prevent some virus on their computer from stealing their money .
Android is n't locked down , and the iPhone is , but then it was Android that had at least four trojan apps that were suppose to be banking apps , but ended up stealing banking info .
You want to run root on your phone ?
Get an Android !
If you simply want something you do n't have to think about , get an iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Boy, what a bunch of whiners.The iPad is not a computer for anyone who reads Slashdot.
It is for those who simply want something that they can surf the web with, do a bit of email, and read a few ebooks.
It is computer as an appliance.
If you're interested in this, and want more, buy a MacBook.
That uses the same base OS and is not locked down.Then, there are the "sheeple" comments.
People who buy this are sheep who simply follow the herd!
They don't want to think!
They're stupid!No, they're not.
They're quite intelligent and have decided to use their intelligence to handle things like dating and relationships instead of spending hours reading random tech forums to find out what they need to do to prevent some virus on their computer from stealing their money.
Android isn't locked down, and the iPhone is, but then it was Android that had at least four trojan apps that were suppose to be banking apps, but ended up stealing banking info.
You want to run root on your phone?
Get an Android!
If you simply want something you don't have to think about, get an iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933988</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1264697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you really dislike the iPad, it would be far more effective to harp on how the device simply isn't useful, not how it restricts freedom. The iPad has far bigger problems than the usual Apple lockdown, like its awkward form factor and price making it a device with the disadvantages of both a smartphone and a netbook, but the advantages of neither.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really dislike the iPad , it would be far more effective to harp on how the device simply is n't useful , not how it restricts freedom .
The iPad has far bigger problems than the usual Apple lockdown , like its awkward form factor and price making it a device with the disadvantages of both a smartphone and a netbook , but the advantages of neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really dislike the iPad, it would be far more effective to harp on how the device simply isn't useful, not how it restricts freedom.
The iPad has far bigger problems than the usual Apple lockdown, like its awkward form factor and price making it a device with the disadvantages of both a smartphone and a netbook, but the advantages of neither.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942866</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1264679040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe those sites should leave flash behind.  Lots of people do it.  Flash is archaic and useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe those sites should leave flash behind .
Lots of people do it .
Flash is archaic and useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe those sites should leave flash behind.
Lots of people do it.
Flash is archaic and useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934464</id>
	<title>*shrug*</title>
	<author>WhiteWolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1264698480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the iPad is destined to be another Apple TV.</p><p>It's expensive, functionally limited, and a good deal less portable than an iPhone or iPod. I've got several good friends who are mega-apple-fanboys (I'm a moderate apple fanboy, BTW), and not one of them is the least bit interested. Every one of them thought the iPad would be a general-purpose computing device, and it just isn't.</p><p>Every one of them would prefer to have an iPhone and a netbook, or an iPhone and a MacBook Air. Frankly, I agree with them. I just don't see the draw of the device.</p><p>I'm sure that Apple will sell quite a few of these devices to people who will use them as portable web tablets and video players, but I just don't see the iPad having near the market influence of the iPhone. Apple would have to dramatically alter the OS of the iPad to do that, and I think they are unwilling to support 3 different OSs at one time (they're concerned about fracturing the developer base, and OS X and OS iPod are enough). All that being said, I agree with the FSF's opinion in principle, but refuse to fear the market damaging effects of a device that I just don't think will be that successful.</p><p>Now, if the iPad was running Android, or WebOS, or an OS that was easier to tweak into a general purpose computing device, than it's fate might be different. Even then, it's seriously overpriced compared to your average netbook, and I have a feeling that Acer and ASUS's response would be Netbooks sans keyboard.</p><p>People just need to face it; as much as John Q Nerd wants a cool-looking Tablet computer, tablet machines continuously fail in the marketplace. Touch devices just don't sell well unless they are pocket portable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the iPad is destined to be another Apple TV.It 's expensive , functionally limited , and a good deal less portable than an iPhone or iPod .
I 've got several good friends who are mega-apple-fanboys ( I 'm a moderate apple fanboy , BTW ) , and not one of them is the least bit interested .
Every one of them thought the iPad would be a general-purpose computing device , and it just is n't.Every one of them would prefer to have an iPhone and a netbook , or an iPhone and a MacBook Air .
Frankly , I agree with them .
I just do n't see the draw of the device.I 'm sure that Apple will sell quite a few of these devices to people who will use them as portable web tablets and video players , but I just do n't see the iPad having near the market influence of the iPhone .
Apple would have to dramatically alter the OS of the iPad to do that , and I think they are unwilling to support 3 different OSs at one time ( they 're concerned about fracturing the developer base , and OS X and OS iPod are enough ) .
All that being said , I agree with the FSF 's opinion in principle , but refuse to fear the market damaging effects of a device that I just do n't think will be that successful.Now , if the iPad was running Android , or WebOS , or an OS that was easier to tweak into a general purpose computing device , than it 's fate might be different .
Even then , it 's seriously overpriced compared to your average netbook , and I have a feeling that Acer and ASUS 's response would be Netbooks sans keyboard.People just need to face it ; as much as John Q Nerd wants a cool-looking Tablet computer , tablet machines continuously fail in the marketplace .
Touch devices just do n't sell well unless they are pocket portable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the iPad is destined to be another Apple TV.It's expensive, functionally limited, and a good deal less portable than an iPhone or iPod.
I've got several good friends who are mega-apple-fanboys (I'm a moderate apple fanboy, BTW), and not one of them is the least bit interested.
Every one of them thought the iPad would be a general-purpose computing device, and it just isn't.Every one of them would prefer to have an iPhone and a netbook, or an iPhone and a MacBook Air.
Frankly, I agree with them.
I just don't see the draw of the device.I'm sure that Apple will sell quite a few of these devices to people who will use them as portable web tablets and video players, but I just don't see the iPad having near the market influence of the iPhone.
Apple would have to dramatically alter the OS of the iPad to do that, and I think they are unwilling to support 3 different OSs at one time (they're concerned about fracturing the developer base, and OS X and OS iPod are enough).
All that being said, I agree with the FSF's opinion in principle, but refuse to fear the market damaging effects of a device that I just don't think will be that successful.Now, if the iPad was running Android, or WebOS, or an OS that was easier to tweak into a general purpose computing device, than it's fate might be different.
Even then, it's seriously overpriced compared to your average netbook, and I have a feeling that Acer and ASUS's response would be Netbooks sans keyboard.People just need to face it; as much as John Q Nerd wants a cool-looking Tablet computer, tablet machines continuously fail in the marketplace.
Touch devices just don't sell well unless they are pocket portable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946</id>
	<title>They can't possibly believe this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We organized actions and protests targeting iTunes music DRM outside Apple stores, and under the pressure Steve Jobs dropped DRM on music.</i></p><p>Jobs was on record as opposing DRM on music long before the campaign started. It was the labels that had to be convinced to change, they were the ones responsible, not Apple. Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We organized actions and protests targeting iTunes music DRM outside Apple stores , and under the pressure Steve Jobs dropped DRM on music.Jobs was on record as opposing DRM on music long before the campaign started .
It was the labels that had to be convinced to change , they were the ones responsible , not Apple .
Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We organized actions and protests targeting iTunes music DRM outside Apple stores, and under the pressure Steve Jobs dropped DRM on music.Jobs was on record as opposing DRM on music long before the campaign started.
It was the labels that had to be convinced to change, they were the ones responsible, not Apple.
Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934030</id>
	<title>T aco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>may also want Confirmed that *B<SD centralized models Project returns by BSDI who sell Theo de Raadt, one</htmltext>
<tokenext>may also want Confirmed that * B &lt; SD centralized models Project returns by BSDI who sell Theo de Raadt , one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>may also want Confirmed that *B&lt;SD centralized models Project returns by BSDI who sell Theo de Raadt, one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940536</id>
	<title>Re:no photoshop == fail</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1264671480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right, the ideal Apple Tablet would be a turntable Air that becomes a tablet, with full OSX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right , the ideal Apple Tablet would be a turntable Air that becomes a tablet , with full OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right, the ideal Apple Tablet would be a turntable Air that becomes a tablet, with full OSX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936344</id>
	<title>iPad Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will only be a few weeks before the iPad is jailbroken like the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will only be a few weeks before the iPad is jailbroken like the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will only be a few weeks before the iPad is jailbroken like the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933838</id>
	<title>Central repository is good</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264696680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things I love about Linux is a central repository for software, being able to find all software updates in one place, and having one simple way to install and remove apps.</p><p>The App Store is great in this regard. The issue isn't that the App Store restricts the user, but rather the App Store restricts the developer. Not anyone can simply get an app in the store. You have to pass Apple's magic gates.</p><p>Apple would never let any old app in the store, nor would they allow users to simply add other "repositories" to the App Store, because it would breed piracy. But the basic concept of the App Store is still solid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I love about Linux is a central repository for software , being able to find all software updates in one place , and having one simple way to install and remove apps.The App Store is great in this regard .
The issue is n't that the App Store restricts the user , but rather the App Store restricts the developer .
Not anyone can simply get an app in the store .
You have to pass Apple 's magic gates.Apple would never let any old app in the store , nor would they allow users to simply add other " repositories " to the App Store , because it would breed piracy .
But the basic concept of the App Store is still solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I love about Linux is a central repository for software, being able to find all software updates in one place, and having one simple way to install and remove apps.The App Store is great in this regard.
The issue isn't that the App Store restricts the user, but rather the App Store restricts the developer.
Not anyone can simply get an app in the store.
You have to pass Apple's magic gates.Apple would never let any old app in the store, nor would they allow users to simply add other "repositories" to the App Store, because it would breed piracy.
But the basic concept of the App Store is still solid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934692</id>
	<title>He's not the only one to wonder...</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1264699140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has certainly raised some eye brows with recent purchase of an advertising company which together with that OS patent that prevents the user from doing anything with the computer until they have confirmed they have seen the ad makes for some interesting computing horror scenarios.</p><p>I'm currently invested into Apple hardware and genuinely like OS X, but it does make me wonder in anticipation about where their desktop offerings are headed. I certainly hope they won't make a silly mistake of turning their currently general purpose desktop computers into a locked down environment akin to iPhone or iPad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has certainly raised some eye brows with recent purchase of an advertising company which together with that OS patent that prevents the user from doing anything with the computer until they have confirmed they have seen the ad makes for some interesting computing horror scenarios.I 'm currently invested into Apple hardware and genuinely like OS X , but it does make me wonder in anticipation about where their desktop offerings are headed .
I certainly hope they wo n't make a silly mistake of turning their currently general purpose desktop computers into a locked down environment akin to iPhone or iPad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has certainly raised some eye brows with recent purchase of an advertising company which together with that OS patent that prevents the user from doing anything with the computer until they have confirmed they have seen the ad makes for some interesting computing horror scenarios.I'm currently invested into Apple hardware and genuinely like OS X, but it does make me wonder in anticipation about where their desktop offerings are headed.
I certainly hope they won't make a silly mistake of turning their currently general purpose desktop computers into a locked down environment akin to iPhone or iPad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948678</id>
	<title>Can somebody help me?</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1264776900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I need to find a computing device that costs twice the price of a netbook, has about 1/10 the storage capacity but a similar-screen.</p><p>It definitely must not be able to multitask and I don't want it to be able to play any Flash video.</p><p>Oh, and because I don't get away from my computer very much, I am suffering from muscle wasteage and cannot lift anything weighing more than about 3/4 kilogram.</p><p>Can somebody please assist? Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I need to find a computing device that costs twice the price of a netbook , has about 1/10 the storage capacity but a similar-screen.It definitely must not be able to multitask and I do n't want it to be able to play any Flash video.Oh , and because I do n't get away from my computer very much , I am suffering from muscle wasteage and can not lift anything weighing more than about 3/4 kilogram.Can somebody please assist ?
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need to find a computing device that costs twice the price of a netbook, has about 1/10 the storage capacity but a similar-screen.It definitely must not be able to multitask and I don't want it to be able to play any Flash video.Oh, and because I don't get away from my computer very much, I am suffering from muscle wasteage and cannot lift anything weighing more than about 3/4 kilogram.Can somebody please assist?
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938776</id>
	<title>post 1001?</title>
	<author>smadasam</author>
	<datestamp>1264709580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>post 1001?</htmltext>
<tokenext>post 1001 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>post 1001?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937572</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think there is a system emerging here.</p><p>The general public is highly resistant to new technology.  Things like iPod, IPhone, tablet PCs, GUIs, touch screens, multi-touch, etc. were all invented long before Apple marketed them to the public. But the did not catch on.</p><p>However, Apple has it's rabid fan-bois who will buy anything Apple makes as long as Apple makes it look hip, trendy, and expensive.  Once that has happened, so called cheap knock-offs (even if they existed before the Apple product) can then sell better since Apple created the demand.</p><p>Microsoft has always helped keep Apple afloat with money and software.  They've had tablet OS features since 2001, but it never took off.  If Apple can sell this "innovation" to it's rabid fan-bois, then Microsoft and the PC industry will eventually end up selling more tablets.</p><p>Is Apple just a tool of Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think there is a system emerging here.The general public is highly resistant to new technology .
Things like iPod , IPhone , tablet PCs , GUIs , touch screens , multi-touch , etc .
were all invented long before Apple marketed them to the public .
But the did not catch on.However , Apple has it 's rabid fan-bois who will buy anything Apple makes as long as Apple makes it look hip , trendy , and expensive .
Once that has happened , so called cheap knock-offs ( even if they existed before the Apple product ) can then sell better since Apple created the demand.Microsoft has always helped keep Apple afloat with money and software .
They 've had tablet OS features since 2001 , but it never took off .
If Apple can sell this " innovation " to it 's rabid fan-bois , then Microsoft and the PC industry will eventually end up selling more tablets.Is Apple just a tool of Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think there is a system emerging here.The general public is highly resistant to new technology.
Things like iPod, IPhone, tablet PCs, GUIs, touch screens, multi-touch, etc.
were all invented long before Apple marketed them to the public.
But the did not catch on.However, Apple has it's rabid fan-bois who will buy anything Apple makes as long as Apple makes it look hip, trendy, and expensive.
Once that has happened, so called cheap knock-offs (even if they existed before the Apple product) can then sell better since Apple created the demand.Microsoft has always helped keep Apple afloat with money and software.
They've had tablet OS features since 2001, but it never took off.
If Apple can sell this "innovation" to it's rabid fan-bois, then Microsoft and the PC industry will eventually end up selling more tablets.Is Apple just a tool of Microsoft?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937178</id>
	<title>Re:Misses the point</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1264705980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firstly, I hate it and I hate everything it does and doesn't do. It is pointless.<br><br>But it's not meant for you or I, nor anyone else who reads Slashdot.<br><br>It's meant for my wife. My wife who runs Firefox, types "facebook" into Firefox's default Google homepage, clicks the first result and then spends the next three hours talking bollocks to her friends.<br><br>If the iPad runs Facebook, it's a winning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , I hate it and I hate everything it does and does n't do .
It is pointless.But it 's not meant for you or I , nor anyone else who reads Slashdot.It 's meant for my wife .
My wife who runs Firefox , types " facebook " into Firefox 's default Google homepage , clicks the first result and then spends the next three hours talking bollocks to her friends.If the iPad runs Facebook , it 's a winning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, I hate it and I hate everything it does and doesn't do.
It is pointless.But it's not meant for you or I, nor anyone else who reads Slashdot.It's meant for my wife.
My wife who runs Firefox, types "facebook" into Firefox's default Google homepage, clicks the first result and then spends the next three hours talking bollocks to her friends.If the iPad runs Facebook, it's a winning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933770</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1264696500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that they can unintentionally allow their computers to become part of spam spewing botnets, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that they can unintentionally allow their computers to become part of spam spewing botnets , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that they can unintentionally allow their computers to become part of spam spewing botnets, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934480</id>
	<title>Mass Market Computing is turning into the Console</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1264698540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a huge step backward, but that is the direction Mass Market Computing is going.    Choice and openness generally only bring problems and fragmentation in the market.   Look at windows, it can be a mess because of all the "choice" you have.  Look at games, a majority of the market has gone to consoles.   I believe that computing will go the same way.    We, well maybe not slashdot members, but the mass market will all buy the same pre-made (and subsidized) box in exchange for lock-in.   Fortunately it will succeed because it will work with less problems then the general platform.   Just wait for the PS4 and Xbox 720, they will replace the PC for the majority of users.   Apply is just trying to do this in a more portable fashion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a huge step backward , but that is the direction Mass Market Computing is going .
Choice and openness generally only bring problems and fragmentation in the market .
Look at windows , it can be a mess because of all the " choice " you have .
Look at games , a majority of the market has gone to consoles .
I believe that computing will go the same way .
We , well maybe not slashdot members , but the mass market will all buy the same pre-made ( and subsidized ) box in exchange for lock-in .
Fortunately it will succeed because it will work with less problems then the general platform .
Just wait for the PS4 and Xbox 720 , they will replace the PC for the majority of users .
Apply is just trying to do this in a more portable fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a huge step backward, but that is the direction Mass Market Computing is going.
Choice and openness generally only bring problems and fragmentation in the market.
Look at windows, it can be a mess because of all the "choice" you have.
Look at games, a majority of the market has gone to consoles.
I believe that computing will go the same way.
We, well maybe not slashdot members, but the mass market will all buy the same pre-made (and subsidized) box in exchange for lock-in.
Fortunately it will succeed because it will work with less problems then the general platform.
Just wait for the PS4 and Xbox 720, they will replace the PC for the majority of users.
Apply is just trying to do this in a more portable fashion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933938</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those geeks feeling an itch to buy an ipad, let me put it really simply.</p><p>Imagine all computer vendors starting the lock-in practices that Apple uses... then certainly open-source would stand no chance anymore.</p><p>Therefore, if you love open-source, don't buy this shit.</p><p>There.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those geeks feeling an itch to buy an ipad , let me put it really simply.Imagine all computer vendors starting the lock-in practices that Apple uses... then certainly open-source would stand no chance anymore.Therefore , if you love open-source , do n't buy this shit.There .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those geeks feeling an itch to buy an ipad, let me put it really simply.Imagine all computer vendors starting the lock-in practices that Apple uses... then certainly open-source would stand no chance anymore.Therefore, if you love open-source, don't buy this shit.There.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935744</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>travisco\_nabisco</author>
	<datestamp>1264701840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately you may have bought what will be one of the first smart phones to fall victim of a virus/bot in mass quantity. Because Apple has sold so many iPhones, and because they are all identical within each generation they make for a very large and appealing market for virus writers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately you may have bought what will be one of the first smart phones to fall victim of a virus/bot in mass quantity .
Because Apple has sold so many iPhones , and because they are all identical within each generation they make for a very large and appealing market for virus writers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately you may have bought what will be one of the first smart phones to fall victim of a virus/bot in mass quantity.
Because Apple has sold so many iPhones, and because they are all identical within each generation they make for a very large and appealing market for virus writers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936916</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>noewun</author>
	<datestamp>1264705260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The masses, as you call them, are NOT sheep, and the idea there exists a difference between sheep and shepherds is one of the reasons Slashdot and geeks are so comically bad at predicting market success and failures.</p><p>The large mass of average computer users do not want to know how their computers work: they just want them to work. This is not a sign of inferior intelligence, but a choice where to put time and effort. I will bet you the mass of Slashdot users can't cook a good meal, or make their own bread, or change their own brakes, or drive a manual car, or do their own drywall work, or write their own music. All these, too, are choices: spending to choose your time making your own computers instead of making your own food, for instance, doesn't make you a better person than someone who can't figure out an error message but can cook a great four course meal. And that idea--Geek Macho--is one of the reasons many seeming great technological ideas never get anywhere, while Apple, which understands what average computer users want, goes from strength to strength.</p><p>Or, put more concisely: holding your users in contempt because their likes and dislikes don't match yours is the quick way to bankruptcy. Similarly, holding users in contempt because they prioritize their lives differently than yours is a way to avoid honest discussion and jump straight to reinforcing your own prejudices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The masses , as you call them , are NOT sheep , and the idea there exists a difference between sheep and shepherds is one of the reasons Slashdot and geeks are so comically bad at predicting market success and failures.The large mass of average computer users do not want to know how their computers work : they just want them to work .
This is not a sign of inferior intelligence , but a choice where to put time and effort .
I will bet you the mass of Slashdot users ca n't cook a good meal , or make their own bread , or change their own brakes , or drive a manual car , or do their own drywall work , or write their own music .
All these , too , are choices : spending to choose your time making your own computers instead of making your own food , for instance , does n't make you a better person than someone who ca n't figure out an error message but can cook a great four course meal .
And that idea--Geek Macho--is one of the reasons many seeming great technological ideas never get anywhere , while Apple , which understands what average computer users want , goes from strength to strength.Or , put more concisely : holding your users in contempt because their likes and dislikes do n't match yours is the quick way to bankruptcy .
Similarly , holding users in contempt because they prioritize their lives differently than yours is a way to avoid honest discussion and jump straight to reinforcing your own prejudices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The masses, as you call them, are NOT sheep, and the idea there exists a difference between sheep and shepherds is one of the reasons Slashdot and geeks are so comically bad at predicting market success and failures.The large mass of average computer users do not want to know how their computers work: they just want them to work.
This is not a sign of inferior intelligence, but a choice where to put time and effort.
I will bet you the mass of Slashdot users can't cook a good meal, or make their own bread, or change their own brakes, or drive a manual car, or do their own drywall work, or write their own music.
All these, too, are choices: spending to choose your time making your own computers instead of making your own food, for instance, doesn't make you a better person than someone who can't figure out an error message but can cook a great four course meal.
And that idea--Geek Macho--is one of the reasons many seeming great technological ideas never get anywhere, while Apple, which understands what average computer users want, goes from strength to strength.Or, put more concisely: holding your users in contempt because their likes and dislikes don't match yours is the quick way to bankruptcy.
Similarly, holding users in contempt because they prioritize their lives differently than yours is a way to avoid honest discussion and jump straight to reinforcing your own prejudices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936964</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1264705440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stand back, I'm going to drop a car analogy on this.<br> <br>
Cars used to be mechanical and fairly standardized (manufacturers' parts weren't necessarily compatible, but the tools required to take them apart and the fundamental knowledge for troubleshooting problems were). Most 'normal' people did not want to work on them to any serious degree, and they would take their car problems to mechanics; however, diagnostics and repair for those mechanics did not vary too much (speaking generally) from brand to brand let alone model to model. More importantly, anybody with a mind to do so could buy some fairly standard tools and learn how to be their own mechanic.<br> <br>
Then came the age of automotive electronics. The electronics were made proprietary not only in terms of physical I/O, but data I/O as well, consequently, without specialized expensive diagnostic hardware and software provided by the manufacturer, diagnosis and repair became much more difficult. Worse, the interface and parameters of the electronics now varies not just between manufacturers, but between models, which puts a lot of pressure on independent shops vs. dealerships, and will eventually squeeze them out of business. And repair and maintenance at home? Ha! Forgeddaboutit.<br> <br>
This is what things like the iPad will do to the computer field, eliminate independent support and eliminate end user administration. It's a battle for the soul of technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stand back , I 'm going to drop a car analogy on this .
Cars used to be mechanical and fairly standardized ( manufacturers ' parts were n't necessarily compatible , but the tools required to take them apart and the fundamental knowledge for troubleshooting problems were ) .
Most 'normal ' people did not want to work on them to any serious degree , and they would take their car problems to mechanics ; however , diagnostics and repair for those mechanics did not vary too much ( speaking generally ) from brand to brand let alone model to model .
More importantly , anybody with a mind to do so could buy some fairly standard tools and learn how to be their own mechanic .
Then came the age of automotive electronics .
The electronics were made proprietary not only in terms of physical I/O , but data I/O as well , consequently , without specialized expensive diagnostic hardware and software provided by the manufacturer , diagnosis and repair became much more difficult .
Worse , the interface and parameters of the electronics now varies not just between manufacturers , but between models , which puts a lot of pressure on independent shops vs. dealerships , and will eventually squeeze them out of business .
And repair and maintenance at home ?
Ha ! Forgeddaboutit .
This is what things like the iPad will do to the computer field , eliminate independent support and eliminate end user administration .
It 's a battle for the soul of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stand back, I'm going to drop a car analogy on this.
Cars used to be mechanical and fairly standardized (manufacturers' parts weren't necessarily compatible, but the tools required to take them apart and the fundamental knowledge for troubleshooting problems were).
Most 'normal' people did not want to work on them to any serious degree, and they would take their car problems to mechanics; however, diagnostics and repair for those mechanics did not vary too much (speaking generally) from brand to brand let alone model to model.
More importantly, anybody with a mind to do so could buy some fairly standard tools and learn how to be their own mechanic.
Then came the age of automotive electronics.
The electronics were made proprietary not only in terms of physical I/O, but data I/O as well, consequently, without specialized expensive diagnostic hardware and software provided by the manufacturer, diagnosis and repair became much more difficult.
Worse, the interface and parameters of the electronics now varies not just between manufacturers, but between models, which puts a lot of pressure on independent shops vs. dealerships, and will eventually squeeze them out of business.
And repair and maintenance at home?
Ha! Forgeddaboutit.
This is what things like the iPad will do to the computer field, eliminate independent support and eliminate end user administration.
It's a battle for the soul of technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X.  On my MacBook Pro, or my wife's iMac, I feel like I get the best of both worlds: a nice consistant "just-works" gui with all the power/control I might need just a terminal window away.</p><p>FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we've ever seen, bigger than software patents.  It's "Tivo-ization" writ large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X. On my MacBook Pro , or my wife 's iMac , I feel like I get the best of both worlds : a nice consistant " just-works " gui with all the power/control I might need just a terminal window away.FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we 've ever seen , bigger than software patents .
It 's " Tivo-ization " writ large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X.  On my MacBook Pro, or my wife's iMac, I feel like I get the best of both worlds: a nice consistant "just-works" gui with all the power/control I might need just a terminal window away.FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we've ever seen, bigger than software patents.
It's "Tivo-ization" writ large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</id>
	<title>The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1264696020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>iPod Touch.<br> <br>
iPhone.<br> <br>
They're both spectacular devices. The iPad will work within a similar ecology and thus has a good chance of being a pretty sweet device (time will tell, of course).<br> <br>
But.<br> <br>
If you don't like it, don't buy it.<br> <br>
Simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>iPod Touch .
iPhone . They 're both spectacular devices .
The iPad will work within a similar ecology and thus has a good chance of being a pretty sweet device ( time will tell , of course ) .
But . If you do n't like it , do n't buy it .
Simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPod Touch.
iPhone. 
They're both spectacular devices.
The iPad will work within a similar ecology and thus has a good chance of being a pretty sweet device (time will tell, of course).
But. 
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935434</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Follier</author>
	<datestamp>1264701060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>If you don't like it, don't buy it.</em> <br> <br>
Oh no, I <em>do</em> like it.  And that's why me and everyone else is going to buy the cheaper compact version that has a camera and a phone, and is otherwise identical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like it , do n't buy it .
Oh no , I do like it .
And that 's why me and everyone else is going to buy the cheaper compact version that has a camera and a phone , and is otherwise identical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Oh no, I do like it.
And that's why me and everyone else is going to buy the cheaper compact version that has a camera and a phone, and is otherwise identical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937136</id>
	<title>Am I the only one that likes the iPad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It keeps me dry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It keeps me dry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It keeps me dry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934242</id>
	<title>There MUST be more to this thing.</title>
	<author>papasui</author>
	<datestamp>1264697820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have an iPhone since the original came out and I'm now on a 3GS.  I absolutely love it and when I even consider using my WM6 phone that work provides I shudder thinking about it.  I have a very strong feeling that there must be a lot more planned for this thing than what we've been shown so far.  Apple was throwing out a lot of big phrases like 'most important project of my life', blah blah.
A future software update must be in the works that greatly enhances this thing..  I've never really thought to myself the iPhone is great but only if it was twice the size.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an iPhone since the original came out and I 'm now on a 3GS .
I absolutely love it and when I even consider using my WM6 phone that work provides I shudder thinking about it .
I have a very strong feeling that there must be a lot more planned for this thing than what we 've been shown so far .
Apple was throwing out a lot of big phrases like 'most important project of my life ' , blah blah .
A future software update must be in the works that greatly enhances this thing.. I 've never really thought to myself the iPhone is great but only if it was twice the size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an iPhone since the original came out and I'm now on a 3GS.
I absolutely love it and when I even consider using my WM6 phone that work provides I shudder thinking about it.
I have a very strong feeling that there must be a lot more planned for this thing than what we've been shown so far.
Apple was throwing out a lot of big phrases like 'most important project of my life', blah blah.
A future software update must be in the works that greatly enhances this thing..  I've never really thought to myself the iPhone is great but only if it was twice the size.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935304</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPad isn't your device.  You didn't make it, and you didn't invest any of your time working on it.  The iPad is made by Apple Inc., and works exactly how they want it to work.  Apple isn't hiding anything, they've made the rules of the road abundantly clear.</p><p>We live in a free country.  If you don't like the thing don't buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is n't your device .
You did n't make it , and you did n't invest any of your time working on it .
The iPad is made by Apple Inc. , and works exactly how they want it to work .
Apple is n't hiding anything , they 've made the rules of the road abundantly clear.We live in a free country .
If you do n't like the thing do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad isn't your device.
You didn't make it, and you didn't invest any of your time working on it.
The iPad is made by Apple Inc., and works exactly how they want it to work.
Apple isn't hiding anything, they've made the rules of the road abundantly clear.We live in a free country.
If you don't like the thing don't buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935778</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1264701960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you need a subscription to interact with your own possession that you are holding in your own hand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you need a subscription to interact with your own possession that you are holding in your own hand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you need a subscription to interact with your own possession that you are holding in your own hand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940144</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264670460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cant wait to get me 1 of them their iPads cause compooters r  hard 2 figger out and my girl sez it so kool. peace out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cant wait to get me 1 of them their iPads cause compooters r hard 2 figger out and my girl sez it so kool .
peace out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cant wait to get me 1 of them their iPads cause compooters r  hard 2 figger out and my girl sez it so kool.
peace out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948002</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264771740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I draw on the iPad, like a tablet?  An ultra-cheap Cinteq would be beyond awesome.</p><p>Oh, no?  Well, it's not for creative people, for sure.  What a waste of an IPS screen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I draw on the iPad , like a tablet ?
An ultra-cheap Cinteq would be beyond awesome.Oh , no ?
Well , it 's not for creative people , for sure .
What a waste of an IPS screen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I draw on the iPad, like a tablet?
An ultra-cheap Cinteq would be beyond awesome.Oh, no?
Well, it's not for creative people, for sure.
What a waste of an IPS screen!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938866</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X.  On my MacBook Pro, or my wife's iMac, I feel like I get the best of both worlds: a nice consistant "just-works" gui with all the power/control I might need just a terminal window away.</p><p>FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we've ever seen, bigger than software patents.  It's "Tivo-ization" writ large.</p></div><p>I agree. I don't own any Apple machines, but I wouldn't mind using OSX if it got me a nice tablet - it might not run engineering applications, but its a nice OS. I do mind, however, owning a device that I can't just put apps on without someone else's approval. I want to be able to do crazy hacky things with my devices, and I was really excited about the magical tablet until i saw that it very much is just a big iPhone. I already had an iPhone and I got sick of having to constantly jailbreak it to do anything. I guess that's why I have an Android phone.</p><p>Incidentally, i remember when the first iPhone came out, and everyone complained, and apple has just slowly fed people incremental improvements over the years, absolutely milking something that was once innovative. I'm honestly almost positive they left off 3G just so they could have a "major" upgrade later without much work. I could go on about that, but the point is: I bet they do the same with this - next year, throw in a camera, and maybe announce multitasking. Maybe link it to your phone and allow you to text from it. Just basic features that get people to upgrade without Apple having to do any real innovation. That sounds troll-ish, but come on, you tell me why they didn't include 3G in the first iphone, and why 3 years later, they iPhone 3Gs is almost identical to the original?<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X. On my MacBook Pro , or my wife 's iMac , I feel like I get the best of both worlds : a nice consistant " just-works " gui with all the power/control I might need just a terminal window away.FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we 've ever seen , bigger than software patents .
It 's " Tivo-ization " writ large.I agree .
I do n't own any Apple machines , but I would n't mind using OSX if it got me a nice tablet - it might not run engineering applications , but its a nice OS .
I do mind , however , owning a device that I ca n't just put apps on without someone else 's approval .
I want to be able to do crazy hacky things with my devices , and I was really excited about the magical tablet until i saw that it very much is just a big iPhone .
I already had an iPhone and I got sick of having to constantly jailbreak it to do anything .
I guess that 's why I have an Android phone.Incidentally , i remember when the first iPhone came out , and everyone complained , and apple has just slowly fed people incremental improvements over the years , absolutely milking something that was once innovative .
I 'm honestly almost positive they left off 3G just so they could have a " major " upgrade later without much work .
I could go on about that , but the point is : I bet they do the same with this - next year , throw in a camera , and maybe announce multitasking .
Maybe link it to your phone and allow you to text from it .
Just basic features that get people to upgrade without Apple having to do any real innovation .
That sounds troll-ish , but come on , you tell me why they did n't include 3G in the first iphone , and why 3 years later , they iPhone 3Gs is almost identical to the original ? -Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X.  On my MacBook Pro, or my wife's iMac, I feel like I get the best of both worlds: a nice consistant "just-works" gui with all the power/control I might need just a terminal window away.FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we've ever seen, bigger than software patents.
It's "Tivo-ization" writ large.I agree.
I don't own any Apple machines, but I wouldn't mind using OSX if it got me a nice tablet - it might not run engineering applications, but its a nice OS.
I do mind, however, owning a device that I can't just put apps on without someone else's approval.
I want to be able to do crazy hacky things with my devices, and I was really excited about the magical tablet until i saw that it very much is just a big iPhone.
I already had an iPhone and I got sick of having to constantly jailbreak it to do anything.
I guess that's why I have an Android phone.Incidentally, i remember when the first iPhone came out, and everyone complained, and apple has just slowly fed people incremental improvements over the years, absolutely milking something that was once innovative.
I'm honestly almost positive they left off 3G just so they could have a "major" upgrade later without much work.
I could go on about that, but the point is: I bet they do the same with this - next year, throw in a camera, and maybe announce multitasking.
Maybe link it to your phone and allow you to text from it.
Just basic features that get people to upgrade without Apple having to do any real innovation.
That sounds troll-ish, but come on, you tell me why they didn't include 3G in the first iphone, and why 3 years later, they iPhone 3Gs is almost identical to the original?-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30951254</id>
	<title>Not Impressed by iPad...yet.</title>
	<author>JonathanPDX</author>
	<datestamp>1264787820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a user of Apple computers, but I did get an iPhone. It turns out to be one of the most useful devices I've ever owned...and, despite AT&amp;T, it even makes phone calls.

The iPad, however, is nothing more than an over-sized, over-priced iPod Touch without the camera. Plus, it lacks external data accessibility via connections (USB, flash drive, handwriting, Flash compatibility, etc.)

If it tends to be around long enough, perhaps Apple will add some capabilities to it. Then I might consider it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a user of Apple computers , but I did get an iPhone .
It turns out to be one of the most useful devices I 've ever owned...and , despite AT&amp;T , it even makes phone calls .
The iPad , however , is nothing more than an over-sized , over-priced iPod Touch without the camera .
Plus , it lacks external data accessibility via connections ( USB , flash drive , handwriting , Flash compatibility , etc .
) If it tends to be around long enough , perhaps Apple will add some capabilities to it .
Then I might consider it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a user of Apple computers, but I did get an iPhone.
It turns out to be one of the most useful devices I've ever owned...and, despite AT&amp;T, it even makes phone calls.
The iPad, however, is nothing more than an over-sized, over-priced iPod Touch without the camera.
Plus, it lacks external data accessibility via connections (USB, flash drive, handwriting, Flash compatibility, etc.
)

If it tends to be around long enough, perhaps Apple will add some capabilities to it.
Then I might consider it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943086</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>tfoss</author>
	<datestamp>1264680060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you are so clearly not the target market.</p><p> <i>So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?</i> </p><p>Doesn't seem like you should spend any $$ on this, as it clearly isn't suited to your needs.</p><p> <i>Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/), no flash support</i> </p><p>Yeah, it's too bad there aren't any accessories that are made to use the dock connector.  No flash support is a no-brainer (slow, crashy, controlled by a 3rd party), and for someone who cares about "openness," I'd think impetus to move away from a proprietary format would be a good thing.</p><p> <i>Third, what exactly are you getting for that price? Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version. For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade. For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop! But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.</i> </p><p>I always am amused by these kind of 'but you could get a kickass desktop for that price' comparisons.  It's not a computer, it's not intended to be a computer, much less a 30 pound anchor of a gaming rig.  It's intended to be a media consumption device.  An incredibly light, thin, long battery life, natural interface media consumption device.  Repeat after me, this <b>isn't</b> a general purpose computer.</p><p> <i>Apple should have included a stylus with the system. Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers. If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet. Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus. Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.</i> </p><p>Seriously?  A Wacom tablet?  That is the big market that you think they missed?</p><p> <i>Honestly, my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system. By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing</i> </p><p>As pointed out numerous times, by using the iPhone OS, they have made this an appliance, not a general purpose computer.  You want a general purpose computer, this is not it.  Whether the public at large wants a computer or a media consumption device remains to be seen, but based on the iPod Touch's success, it seems like the latter has a market.</p><p> <i>they should have either ported over OSX (which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes) or just built a new operating system from the ground up.</i> </p><p>Do you get that all computer OS's have been designed for keyboard/mouse input, and not finger input?  There is a dramatic difference in the rules that guide design for those two totally separate cases.  Moving OSX to hardware that uses fingers and not mice would fail about as badly as moving Windows to hardware that uses fingers and not mice.  Here is where I note that Apple *did* write a new operating system (not from the ground up, but pretty significantly) designed for finger input:  the iPhone OS.</p><p> <i>But no, they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they'll buy it! They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it!</i> </p><p>You are not their target market.  I'm sorry you feel physically abused because a company decided to make a device you don't find appealing.  It seems odd, though, to presume that everyone has your particular desires for a slate-shaped-opensource-hackable-usb/firewire/eSCSI/SATA-Wacom laptop computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you are so clearly not the target market .
So you 're telling me I 'm going to spend at minimum $ 500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone ?
Does n't seem like you should spend any $ $ on this , as it clearly is n't suited to your needs .
Secondly , it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports ( except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories : / ) , no flash support Yeah , it 's too bad there are n't any accessories that are made to use the dock connector .
No flash support is a no-brainer ( slow , crashy , controlled by a 3rd party ) , and for someone who cares about " openness , " I 'd think impetus to move away from a proprietary format would be a good thing .
Third , what exactly are you getting for that price ?
Let 's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version .
For roughly $ 800 , you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options , zero USB ports or flash card readers , and no way to upgrade .
For $ 800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell , you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop !
But no , with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device .
I always am amused by these kind of 'but you could get a kickass desktop for that price ' comparisons .
It 's not a computer , it 's not intended to be a computer , much less a 30 pound anchor of a gaming rig .
It 's intended to be a media consumption device .
An incredibly light , thin , long battery life , natural interface media consumption device .
Repeat after me , this is n't a general purpose computer .
Apple should have included a stylus with the system .
Think about the people that use Wacom tablets , like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers .
If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software , this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet .
Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus .
Nope , that 's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing .
Seriously ? A Wacom tablet ?
That is the big market that you think they missed ?
Honestly , my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system .
By keeping it locked down like that , they have severely limited the appeal of this thing As pointed out numerous times , by using the iPhone OS , they have made this an appliance , not a general purpose computer .
You want a general purpose computer , this is not it .
Whether the public at large wants a computer or a media consumption device remains to be seen , but based on the iPod Touch 's success , it seems like the latter has a market .
they should have either ported over OSX ( which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes ) or just built a new operating system from the ground up .
Do you get that all computer OS 's have been designed for keyboard/mouse input , and not finger input ?
There is a dramatic difference in the rules that guide design for those two totally separate cases .
Moving OSX to hardware that uses fingers and not mice would fail about as badly as moving Windows to hardware that uses fingers and not mice .
Here is where I note that Apple * did * write a new operating system ( not from the ground up , but pretty significantly ) designed for finger input : the iPhone OS .
But no , they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they 'll buy it !
They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it !
You are not their target market .
I 'm sorry you feel physically abused because a company decided to make a device you do n't find appealing .
It seems odd , though , to presume that everyone has your particular desires for a slate-shaped-opensource-hackable-usb/firewire/eSCSI/SATA-Wacom laptop computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you are so clearly not the target market.
So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
Doesn't seem like you should spend any $$ on this, as it clearly isn't suited to your needs.
Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories :/), no flash support Yeah, it's too bad there aren't any accessories that are made to use the dock connector.
No flash support is a no-brainer (slow, crashy, controlled by a 3rd party), and for someone who cares about "openness," I'd think impetus to move away from a proprietary format would be a good thing.
Third, what exactly are you getting for that price?
Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version.
For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade.
For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop!
But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.
I always am amused by these kind of 'but you could get a kickass desktop for that price' comparisons.
It's not a computer, it's not intended to be a computer, much less a 30 pound anchor of a gaming rig.
It's intended to be a media consumption device.
An incredibly light, thin, long battery life, natural interface media consumption device.
Repeat after me, this isn't a general purpose computer.
Apple should have included a stylus with the system.
Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers.
If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet.
Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus.
Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.
Seriously?  A Wacom tablet?
That is the big market that you think they missed?
Honestly, my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system.
By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing As pointed out numerous times, by using the iPhone OS, they have made this an appliance, not a general purpose computer.
You want a general purpose computer, this is not it.
Whether the public at large wants a computer or a media consumption device remains to be seen, but based on the iPod Touch's success, it seems like the latter has a market.
they should have either ported over OSX (which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes) or just built a new operating system from the ground up.
Do you get that all computer OS's have been designed for keyboard/mouse input, and not finger input?
There is a dramatic difference in the rules that guide design for those two totally separate cases.
Moving OSX to hardware that uses fingers and not mice would fail about as badly as moving Windows to hardware that uses fingers and not mice.
Here is where I note that Apple *did* write a new operating system (not from the ground up, but pretty significantly) designed for finger input:  the iPhone OS.
But no, they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they'll buy it!
They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it!
You are not their target market.
I'm sorry you feel physically abused because a company decided to make a device you don't find appealing.
It seems odd, though, to presume that everyone has your particular desires for a slate-shaped-opensource-hackable-usb/firewire/eSCSI/SATA-Wacom laptop computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935890</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you rely on an extremely complex, non-replaceable-battery, history-of-spotty/unreliable-service gadget for your ONLY phone line. I assume you don't conduct a lot of important business by phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you rely on an extremely complex , non-replaceable-battery , history-of-spotty/unreliable-service gadget for your ONLY phone line .
I assume you do n't conduct a lot of important business by phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you rely on an extremely complex, non-replaceable-battery, history-of-spotty/unreliable-service gadget for your ONLY phone line.
I assume you don't conduct a lot of important business by phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933860</id>
	<title>of course its backward into DRM corp control</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1264696740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hasn't that been the whole thrust of apple since the beginning - a gilded cage as one recent poster so aptly put it ?
The advertising campaing that apple = freedom from the MS/ big corporations / borg / 1984 is  <br>
<b>classic</b> advertising<br>
you say the opposite of reality.<br>
eg, when your corporation has lousy customer service, you run an ad campaing touting your legendary customer service (citizen bank in boston); when you are a corporate evil doer, you run an ad capaign on Public Radio (archer daniels midland, mcneill leherer snoozehour)...when you are a major cause of pollution, you run ads touting your greeness (oil companies, toyota hybrids)<br>
The whole history of apple has been restricting your freedom to do what only jobs wants you to do, so he can make a lot of money. People are ok with that, to paraphrase Mencked, no one ever lost money underestimating how much freedom the american consumer will give up for instant gratification</htmltext>
<tokenext>has n't that been the whole thrust of apple since the beginning - a gilded cage as one recent poster so aptly put it ?
The advertising campaing that apple = freedom from the MS/ big corporations / borg / 1984 is classic advertising you say the opposite of reality .
eg , when your corporation has lousy customer service , you run an ad campaing touting your legendary customer service ( citizen bank in boston ) ; when you are a corporate evil doer , you run an ad capaign on Public Radio ( archer daniels midland , mcneill leherer snoozehour ) ...when you are a major cause of pollution , you run ads touting your greeness ( oil companies , toyota hybrids ) The whole history of apple has been restricting your freedom to do what only jobs wants you to do , so he can make a lot of money .
People are ok with that , to paraphrase Mencked , no one ever lost money underestimating how much freedom the american consumer will give up for instant gratification</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hasn't that been the whole thrust of apple since the beginning - a gilded cage as one recent poster so aptly put it ?
The advertising campaing that apple = freedom from the MS/ big corporations / borg / 1984 is  
classic advertising
you say the opposite of reality.
eg, when your corporation has lousy customer service, you run an ad campaing touting your legendary customer service (citizen bank in boston); when you are a corporate evil doer, you run an ad capaign on Public Radio (archer daniels midland, mcneill leherer snoozehour)...when you are a major cause of pollution, you run ads touting your greeness (oil companies, toyota hybrids)
The whole history of apple has been restricting your freedom to do what only jobs wants you to do, so he can make a lot of money.
People are ok with that, to paraphrase Mencked, no one ever lost money underestimating how much freedom the american consumer will give up for instant gratification</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940726</id>
	<title>Your personal mechanic?</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1264672020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"But they want that option to be there for their expert to fix it."</i> <br> <br>
As the "personal mechanic" for most of my family's computers, I love the idea of the App Store, because I can be sure that Kazaa and it's ilk will never be available on those devices.  I don't want to have the option to fix my cousin's iPhone, I want it to work and stay the hell out of my life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But they want that option to be there for their expert to fix it .
" As the " personal mechanic " for most of my family 's computers , I love the idea of the App Store , because I can be sure that Kazaa and it 's ilk will never be available on those devices .
I do n't want to have the option to fix my cousin 's iPhone , I want it to work and stay the hell out of my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But they want that option to be there for their expert to fix it.
"  
As the "personal mechanic" for most of my family's computers, I love the idea of the App Store, because I can be sure that Kazaa and it's ilk will never be available on those devices.
I don't want to have the option to fix my cousin's iPhone, I want it to work and stay the hell out of my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935866</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of a silly argument</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264702200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better still, why not just buy a device from a company that respects your freedoms?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better still , why not just buy a device from a company that respects your freedoms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better still, why not just buy a device from a company that respects your freedoms?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939334</id>
	<title>Re:iPhone vs iTouch vs iPad? Do I have it right?</title>
	<author>DarKnyht</author>
	<datestamp>1264711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upgrade the iPad and you have a MaxiPad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrade the iPad and you have a MaxiPad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrade the iPad and you have a MaxiPad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935760</id>
	<title>Uhh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YEAH!!  Imagine if there was some type of popular (i)phone that only allowed you to install what the company wanted...</p><p>It sells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YEAH ! !
Imagine if there was some type of popular ( i ) phone that only allowed you to install what the company wanted...It sells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YEAH!!
Imagine if there was some type of popular (i)phone that only allowed you to install what the company wanted...It sells.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938684</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong wrong wrong. This is not about only about apps (though it sounds like GNU or similarly freely licensed software would be impossible) but free content (for instance, public domain or creative commons).</p><p>From the article:</p><p>"Other critics of DRM have asserted that Apple is not responsible, and it is the publishers insisting on the restrictions. However, on the iPhone and its new tablet, Apple does not provide publishers any way to opt out of the restrictions -- even free software and free culture authors who want to give legal permission for users to share their works. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong wrong wrong .
This is not about only about apps ( though it sounds like GNU or similarly freely licensed software would be impossible ) but free content ( for instance , public domain or creative commons ) .From the article : " Other critics of DRM have asserted that Apple is not responsible , and it is the publishers insisting on the restrictions .
However , on the iPhone and its new tablet , Apple does not provide publishers any way to opt out of the restrictions -- even free software and free culture authors who want to give legal permission for users to share their works .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong wrong wrong.
This is not about only about apps (though it sounds like GNU or similarly freely licensed software would be impossible) but free content (for instance, public domain or creative commons).From the article:"Other critics of DRM have asserted that Apple is not responsible, and it is the publishers insisting on the restrictions.
However, on the iPhone and its new tablet, Apple does not provide publishers any way to opt out of the restrictions -- even free software and free culture authors who want to give legal permission for users to share their works.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941050</id>
	<title>it's not a computer</title>
	<author>ozarkcanoer</author>
	<datestamp>1264672920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someday Apple may have a MacBook in a similar physical package, but I don't view  the iPad as a computer as we've seen them since the Apple II.  I think it's a communications appliance with some elements that are found on traditional computers like the shared file folder for transferring files.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday Apple may have a MacBook in a similar physical package , but I do n't view the iPad as a computer as we 've seen them since the Apple II .
I think it 's a communications appliance with some elements that are found on traditional computers like the shared file folder for transferring files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday Apple may have a MacBook in a similar physical package, but I don't view  the iPad as a computer as we've seen them since the Apple II.
I think it's a communications appliance with some elements that are found on traditional computers like the shared file folder for transferring files.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944998</id>
	<title>Re:Consumers vs. Programmers</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1264692720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1,000,000, Insightful. Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1,000,000 , Insightful .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1,000,000, Insightful.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933606</id>
	<title>Re:Dear FSF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, it doesn't matter if it happens to OS X. What matters is that it could become the standard going forward, and if we've learned anything from the iPhone and iPod it's that Apple has tremendous influence in driving the standards of consumer electronics. The reason for the app store has nothing to do with security and everything about Apple wringing every last penny out of developers by taking an arbitrary cut of their sales and providing only limited QC and indexing that could easily be provided by any other site or service. If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you. And that's no choice at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , it does n't matter if it happens to OS X. What matters is that it could become the standard going forward , and if we 've learned anything from the iPhone and iPod it 's that Apple has tremendous influence in driving the standards of consumer electronics .
The reason for the app store has nothing to do with security and everything about Apple wringing every last penny out of developers by taking an arbitrary cut of their sales and providing only limited QC and indexing that could easily be provided by any other site or service .
If people want a choice , they should GET a choice - use the app store , or do n't .
Instead , Apple 's making the choice for you .
And that 's no choice at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, it doesn't matter if it happens to OS X. What matters is that it could become the standard going forward, and if we've learned anything from the iPhone and iPod it's that Apple has tremendous influence in driving the standards of consumer electronics.
The reason for the app store has nothing to do with security and everything about Apple wringing every last penny out of developers by taking an arbitrary cut of their sales and providing only limited QC and indexing that could easily be provided by any other site or service.
If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't.
Instead, Apple's making the choice for you.
And that's no choice at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933846</id>
	<title>If I buy it, I own it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I buy a compute platform, then I own it and I should be able to write programs and interact with it how I see fit.  I don't want to get stuck in another situation like my iPhone, which requires "moderation" for applications; which, BTW, is not fool-proof -- I found a keylogger in one of the so-called "approved" Apps.  Surprise!</p><p>I predict this will be more of an iBlunder than anything.   Apple does a lot of good things, but I'm afraid this isn't one of them.  The iPad is just a large iPod Touch... lousy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy a compute platform , then I own it and I should be able to write programs and interact with it how I see fit .
I do n't want to get stuck in another situation like my iPhone , which requires " moderation " for applications ; which , BTW , is not fool-proof -- I found a keylogger in one of the so-called " approved " Apps .
Surprise ! I predict this will be more of an iBlunder than anything .
Apple does a lot of good things , but I 'm afraid this is n't one of them .
The iPad is just a large iPod Touch... lousy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy a compute platform, then I own it and I should be able to write programs and interact with it how I see fit.
I don't want to get stuck in another situation like my iPhone, which requires "moderation" for applications; which, BTW, is not fool-proof -- I found a keylogger in one of the so-called "approved" Apps.
Surprise!I predict this will be more of an iBlunder than anything.
Apple does a lot of good things, but I'm afraid this isn't one of them.
The iPad is just a large iPod Touch... lousy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935426</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264701060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as was previously said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't buy it.  Buy something else that fits your requirements.</p><p>Is this really that hard to comprehend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ... as was previously said ... do n't buy it .
Buy something else that fits your requirements.Is this really that hard to comprehend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So ... as was previously said ... don't buy it.
Buy something else that fits your requirements.Is this really that hard to comprehend?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934234</id>
	<title>Re:"Customers Can't Be Trusted With Freedom"</title>
	<author>hamburger lady</author>
	<datestamp>1264697760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>given the immense popularity of the iphone and the itouch, i'd say yeah, in this segment of the market it's a very effective strategy.</p><p>apparently, most phone/MP3/netbook users aren't interested in an open device they can do whatever they want with. they want something they can surf the web with and listen to music and run some cool apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>given the immense popularity of the iphone and the itouch , i 'd say yeah , in this segment of the market it 's a very effective strategy.apparently , most phone/MP3/netbook users are n't interested in an open device they can do whatever they want with .
they want something they can surf the web with and listen to music and run some cool apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>given the immense popularity of the iphone and the itouch, i'd say yeah, in this segment of the market it's a very effective strategy.apparently, most phone/MP3/netbook users aren't interested in an open device they can do whatever they want with.
they want something they can surf the web with and listen to music and run some cool apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934408</id>
	<title>Think Different</title>
	<author>Reformed Lurker</author>
	<datestamp>1264698360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I hate to be quoting Apple, the iPad is the start of a computing appliance.  You'll pick this up in the morning while you make your toast and catch up on the news (reading or watching; big media or Facebook).  It's not meant to replace the laptop (and do you think Apple wants to kill that product line?).</p><p>Everyone is thinking in traditional computer form-factors while Apple is trying something new.  Whether they succeed or not is anyone's guess.  A lot better products have come and gone - the best tech isn't always the winner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I hate to be quoting Apple , the iPad is the start of a computing appliance .
You 'll pick this up in the morning while you make your toast and catch up on the news ( reading or watching ; big media or Facebook ) .
It 's not meant to replace the laptop ( and do you think Apple wants to kill that product line ?
) .Everyone is thinking in traditional computer form-factors while Apple is trying something new .
Whether they succeed or not is anyone 's guess .
A lot better products have come and gone - the best tech is n't always the winner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I hate to be quoting Apple, the iPad is the start of a computing appliance.
You'll pick this up in the morning while you make your toast and catch up on the news (reading or watching; big media or Facebook).
It's not meant to replace the laptop (and do you think Apple wants to kill that product line?
).Everyone is thinking in traditional computer form-factors while Apple is trying something new.
Whether they succeed or not is anyone's guess.
A lot better products have come and gone - the best tech isn't always the winner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934104</id>
	<title>2006 iPad</title>
	<author>djahz</author>
	<datestamp>1264697460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2006 iPad commercial:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eF0y0IfpPU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eF0y0IfpPU</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>2006 iPad commercial : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 8eF0y0IfpPU [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2006 iPad commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eF0y0IfpPU [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934080</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>thermostat42</author>
	<datestamp>1264697340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control. Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?</p></div><p>Uh, because they bought the device? I think the burden is on the other side for taking away control.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think Mac OS X will ever go away from giving you the control it does (and it is quite nice), but Mac OS X is not appropriate on a device like the iPad.</p></div><p>Why isn't OS X appropriate? What is the difference between this and an Air? I saw the presentation, the device sat between the iPod touch and the macbook. What is one OS appropriate and the other isn't?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook. The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple's vision of the iPad. Except that Apple is actually \_less\_ connected in to your device than Google would be.</p></div><p>"Google's doing it too!" is not a good argument.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?</p></div><p>Well, I'm sure it will: <a href="https://thejoojoo.com/" title="thejoojoo.com">https://thejoojoo.com/</a> [thejoojoo.com], though the market doesn't always act rationally, and perhaps the FSF is trying to raise awareness about the freedoms people are giving up for Apple's style.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control .
Why should average users have control over their computer ?
Is n't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows ? Uh , because they bought the device ?
I think the burden is on the other side for taking away control.I do n't think Mac OS X will ever go away from giving you the control it does ( and it is quite nice ) , but Mac OS X is not appropriate on a device like the iPad.Why is n't OS X appropriate ?
What is the difference between this and an Air ?
I saw the presentation , the device sat between the iPod touch and the macbook .
What is one OS appropriate and the other is n't ? In fact , I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook .
The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple 's vision of the iPad .
Except that Apple is actually \ _less \ _ connected in to your device than Google would be .
" Google 's doing it too !
" is not a good argument.Attacking Apple 's products is one thing .
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete , and let the marketplace decide ? Well , I 'm sure it will : https : //thejoojoo.com/ [ thejoojoo.com ] , though the market does n't always act rationally , and perhaps the FSF is trying to raise awareness about the freedoms people are giving up for Apple 's style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control.
Why should average users have control over their computer?
Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?Uh, because they bought the device?
I think the burden is on the other side for taking away control.I don't think Mac OS X will ever go away from giving you the control it does (and it is quite nice), but Mac OS X is not appropriate on a device like the iPad.Why isn't OS X appropriate?
What is the difference between this and an Air?
I saw the presentation, the device sat between the iPod touch and the macbook.
What is one OS appropriate and the other isn't?In fact, I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook.
The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple's vision of the iPad.
Except that Apple is actually \_less\_ connected in to your device than Google would be.
"Google's doing it too!
" is not a good argument.Attacking Apple's products is one thing.
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?Well, I'm sure it will: https://thejoojoo.com/ [thejoojoo.com], though the market doesn't always act rationally, and perhaps the FSF is trying to raise awareness about the freedoms people are giving up for Apple's style.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947320</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>vagabond\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1264761480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You miss the point. It's not a general-purpose computer only <b>because</b> it's locked and not marketed as a general-purpose computer. Not really because of any technical limitations (as you could claim for a phone).</p><p>If Apple created a MacBook with the same restrictions as the iPad, you would say it's not a general-purpose computer. On the other hand if the iPad ran OSX then it would be perfectly general-purpose, just slow (something like a netbook).</p><p>At the same time the iPad can do so many things that it can really replace a general-purpose computer for the 90\% of people who use them only to surf the web, watch movies, music, etc.</p><p>So here comes the FSF's argument: don't fall into the trap of using locked devices, freedom of computing is really important. I think it's a pretty valid point. If this "app store" trend continues, and in combination with cloud computing (see Chrome OS), it's possible that devices where you can run your own code become a small niche pretty soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You miss the point .
It 's not a general-purpose computer only because it 's locked and not marketed as a general-purpose computer .
Not really because of any technical limitations ( as you could claim for a phone ) .If Apple created a MacBook with the same restrictions as the iPad , you would say it 's not a general-purpose computer .
On the other hand if the iPad ran OSX then it would be perfectly general-purpose , just slow ( something like a netbook ) .At the same time the iPad can do so many things that it can really replace a general-purpose computer for the 90 \ % of people who use them only to surf the web , watch movies , music , etc.So here comes the FSF 's argument : do n't fall into the trap of using locked devices , freedom of computing is really important .
I think it 's a pretty valid point .
If this " app store " trend continues , and in combination with cloud computing ( see Chrome OS ) , it 's possible that devices where you can run your own code become a small niche pretty soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You miss the point.
It's not a general-purpose computer only because it's locked and not marketed as a general-purpose computer.
Not really because of any technical limitations (as you could claim for a phone).If Apple created a MacBook with the same restrictions as the iPad, you would say it's not a general-purpose computer.
On the other hand if the iPad ran OSX then it would be perfectly general-purpose, just slow (something like a netbook).At the same time the iPad can do so many things that it can really replace a general-purpose computer for the 90\% of people who use them only to surf the web, watch movies, music, etc.So here comes the FSF's argument: don't fall into the trap of using locked devices, freedom of computing is really important.
I think it's a pretty valid point.
If this "app store" trend continues, and in combination with cloud computing (see Chrome OS), it's possible that devices where you can run your own code become a small niche pretty soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936054</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>milesw</author>
	<datestamp>1264702740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I bought an iPhone this year. This is one asset that is so important that I just want it to WORK. I don't want to worry about viruses</i> <br> <br>
Start worrying:<br> <br>
<a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/0413235/Malware-Could-Grab-Data-From-Stock-iPhones" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Malware Could Grab Data From Stock iPhones</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought an iPhone this year .
This is one asset that is so important that I just want it to WORK .
I do n't want to worry about viruses Start worrying : Malware Could Grab Data From Stock iPhones [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought an iPhone this year.
This is one asset that is so important that I just want it to WORK.
I don't want to worry about viruses  
Start worrying: 
Malware Could Grab Data From Stock iPhones [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935024</id>
	<title>If you want a computer...</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1264700100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is clear, is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user.</p></div><p>So buy a PC (with Linux if you prefer) or Mac (which, in other news, will still run any software or OS you like and comes with a complete SDK).
</p><p>The non-Mac iProducts are not intended as general purpose computers - App Store or no the lack of keyboards, storage, interfaces, multitasking etc. makes them unsuitable for that. They're web browsers and media players.

</p><p>Now, its worth being a bit vigilant against the possibility of true general purpose computers disappearing from the market, but currently I see no sign of that. Maybe the DBD people should be concentrating their ire on the likes of <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/27/0625244" title="slashdot.org">Ubisoft</a> [slashdot.org] who <i>are</i> dictating what people can do on general purpose PCs.

</p><p>Meanwhile, Big Brother's App Store is giving many Mom'n'Pop developers access to a single, high profile sales channel and payment collection system.

</p><p>Also, DRM is a problem that affects virtually every other ebook reader and has been hobbling the industry since before the iPad was a twinkle in Jobs' eye. Go protest outside the publishers and authors' associations that are actually causing the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is clear , is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user.So buy a PC ( with Linux if you prefer ) or Mac ( which , in other news , will still run any software or OS you like and comes with a complete SDK ) .
The non-Mac iProducts are not intended as general purpose computers - App Store or no the lack of keyboards , storage , interfaces , multitasking etc .
makes them unsuitable for that .
They 're web browsers and media players .
Now , its worth being a bit vigilant against the possibility of true general purpose computers disappearing from the market , but currently I see no sign of that .
Maybe the DBD people should be concentrating their ire on the likes of Ubisoft [ slashdot.org ] who are dictating what people can do on general purpose PCs .
Meanwhile , Big Brother 's App Store is giving many Mom'n'Pop developers access to a single , high profile sales channel and payment collection system .
Also , DRM is a problem that affects virtually every other ebook reader and has been hobbling the industry since before the iPad was a twinkle in Jobs ' eye .
Go protest outside the publishers and authors ' associations that are actually causing the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is clear, is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user.So buy a PC (with Linux if you prefer) or Mac (which, in other news, will still run any software or OS you like and comes with a complete SDK).
The non-Mac iProducts are not intended as general purpose computers - App Store or no the lack of keyboards, storage, interfaces, multitasking etc.
makes them unsuitable for that.
They're web browsers and media players.
Now, its worth being a bit vigilant against the possibility of true general purpose computers disappearing from the market, but currently I see no sign of that.
Maybe the DBD people should be concentrating their ire on the likes of Ubisoft [slashdot.org] who are dictating what people can do on general purpose PCs.
Meanwhile, Big Brother's App Store is giving many Mom'n'Pop developers access to a single, high profile sales channel and payment collection system.
Also, DRM is a problem that affects virtually every other ebook reader and has been hobbling the industry since before the iPad was a twinkle in Jobs' eye.
Go protest outside the publishers and authors' associations that are actually causing the problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940006</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264670040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>YOU are the sheep because you think that defective gadgets - ones where you need to spend time and energy on maintenance that a PROPERLY designed gadget wouldn't require...</p></div><p>I think you meant to use "perfectly" instead of "properly".  All tools require some maintenance, no matter how well designed.  Case-in-point:  Multiple iPhone OS updates.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO with a minimal amount of hassle and that don't require me to spend tons of time making sure they're in good shape before I use them.</p></div><p>And if you only use the tool for what it's supposed to do, it requires little maintenance.  Even Windows, despite its reputation, isn't a terrible OS unless you're trying to install every FreeScreensaver.exe you can find -- in which case, the tool is doing what it's supposed to do but the user isn't knowledgeable about the tool.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web. I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there.</p></div><p>Hm...  yet Safari isn't without security flaws either.  Remember PWN 2 OWN?  (Hint:  <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">It's the contest where the Macbook Air got compromised in 2 minutes via an exploit in Safari.</a> [engadget.com])  Sounds like you'd give up all Flash-based web content just so you can have a browser that you feel superior about, though it may not actually be more secure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.</p></div><p>Honestly, short of installing Wolfenstein XXII, how often do people check system requirements?  The software either has a Windows logo or a Mac logo.  And as far as "click as few buttons as possible"...  what's so hard about downloading an MSI or DMG and installing?  The App Store isn't a bad idea on its own, but using that store as the exclusive distribution channel <em>is</em> a bad idea.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Talk about being a brainwashed sheep!</p></div><p>Indeed!</p><p>Face it...  Apple can't do wrong in your world.  In <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1528240&amp;cid=30935600" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">another post</a> [slashdot.org] you even claim that Apple releases its products with all features enabled as opposed to MS releasing multiple versions with multiple features.  Do you even remember the iPhone's debut?  No 3G, no clipboard, and no SMS while <em>every</em> other manufacturer in the market had models with those features.  Enjoy the Kool-Aid...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU are the sheep because you think that defective gadgets - ones where you need to spend time and energy on maintenance that a PROPERLY designed gadget would n't require...I think you meant to use " perfectly " instead of " properly " .
All tools require some maintenance , no matter how well designed .
Case-in-point : Multiple iPhone OS updates.I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO with a minimal amount of hassle and that do n't require me to spend tons of time making sure they 're in good shape before I use them.And if you only use the tool for what it 's supposed to do , it requires little maintenance .
Even Windows , despite its reputation , is n't a terrible OS unless you 're trying to install every FreeScreensaver.exe you can find -- in which case , the tool is doing what it 's supposed to do but the user is n't knowledgeable about the tool.When I want to use a web enabled device , I want to just surf the goddamn web .
I do n't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits , scanning my system , and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I 'm going to do there.Hm... yet Safari is n't without security flaws either .
Remember PWN 2 OWN ?
( Hint : It 's the contest where the Macbook Air got compromised in 2 minutes via an exploit in Safari .
[ engadget.com ] ) Sounds like you 'd give up all Flash-based web content just so you can have a browser that you feel superior about , though it may not actually be more secure.When I want to install an application on my computer I do n't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.Honestly , short of installing Wolfenstein XXII , how often do people check system requirements ?
The software either has a Windows logo or a Mac logo .
And as far as " click as few buttons as possible " ... what 's so hard about downloading an MSI or DMG and installing ?
The App Store is n't a bad idea on its own , but using that store as the exclusive distribution channel is a bad idea.Talk about being a brainwashed sheep ! Indeed ! Face it... Apple ca n't do wrong in your world .
In another post [ slashdot.org ] you even claim that Apple releases its products with all features enabled as opposed to MS releasing multiple versions with multiple features .
Do you even remember the iPhone 's debut ?
No 3G , no clipboard , and no SMS while every other manufacturer in the market had models with those features .
Enjoy the Kool-Aid.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU are the sheep because you think that defective gadgets - ones where you need to spend time and energy on maintenance that a PROPERLY designed gadget wouldn't require...I think you meant to use "perfectly" instead of "properly".
All tools require some maintenance, no matter how well designed.
Case-in-point:  Multiple iPhone OS updates.I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO with a minimal amount of hassle and that don't require me to spend tons of time making sure they're in good shape before I use them.And if you only use the tool for what it's supposed to do, it requires little maintenance.
Even Windows, despite its reputation, isn't a terrible OS unless you're trying to install every FreeScreensaver.exe you can find -- in which case, the tool is doing what it's supposed to do but the user isn't knowledgeable about the tool.When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web.
I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there.Hm...  yet Safari isn't without security flaws either.
Remember PWN 2 OWN?
(Hint:  It's the contest where the Macbook Air got compromised in 2 minutes via an exploit in Safari.
[engadget.com])  Sounds like you'd give up all Flash-based web content just so you can have a browser that you feel superior about, though it may not actually be more secure.When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.Honestly, short of installing Wolfenstein XXII, how often do people check system requirements?
The software either has a Windows logo or a Mac logo.
And as far as "click as few buttons as possible"...  what's so hard about downloading an MSI or DMG and installing?
The App Store isn't a bad idea on its own, but using that store as the exclusive distribution channel is a bad idea.Talk about being a brainwashed sheep!Indeed!Face it...  Apple can't do wrong in your world.
In another post [slashdot.org] you even claim that Apple releases its products with all features enabled as opposed to MS releasing multiple versions with multiple features.
Do you even remember the iPhone's debut?
No 3G, no clipboard, and no SMS while every other manufacturer in the market had models with those features.
Enjoy the Kool-Aid...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938926</id>
	<title>Attitude adjustment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the attitude that can be so frustrating on Slashdot is the sentiment that anyone that doesn't want to mod or jailbreak every possession is a moron.  Everyone who just wants a computer that does what they want safely and simply is a moron - and only Linux geeks are smart.  A physicist or historian who is brilliant (and probably just as geeky in their arena as we can be in ours) is contemptible in your eyes.<br>This is an appliance - and this is what most people want - an appliance that does a specific set of tasks. Press a button, and it just works.  Many of these people in fact ARE morons, but many are not, and simply "geek out" on music, history, medicine, or something else - and don't have the mental energy or time for PC/Mac/Linux maintenance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the attitude that can be so frustrating on Slashdot is the sentiment that anyone that does n't want to mod or jailbreak every possession is a moron .
Everyone who just wants a computer that does what they want safely and simply is a moron - and only Linux geeks are smart .
A physicist or historian who is brilliant ( and probably just as geeky in their arena as we can be in ours ) is contemptible in your eyes.This is an appliance - and this is what most people want - an appliance that does a specific set of tasks .
Press a button , and it just works .
Many of these people in fact ARE morons , but many are not , and simply " geek out " on music , history , medicine , or something else - and do n't have the mental energy or time for PC/Mac/Linux maintenance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the attitude that can be so frustrating on Slashdot is the sentiment that anyone that doesn't want to mod or jailbreak every possession is a moron.
Everyone who just wants a computer that does what they want safely and simply is a moron - and only Linux geeks are smart.
A physicist or historian who is brilliant (and probably just as geeky in their arena as we can be in ours) is contemptible in your eyes.This is an appliance - and this is what most people want - an appliance that does a specific set of tasks.
Press a button, and it just works.
Many of these people in fact ARE morons, but many are not, and simply "geek out" on music, history, medicine, or something else - and don't have the mental energy or time for PC/Mac/Linux maintenance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938690</id>
	<title>Actually, you don't.</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1264709460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to? </i></p><p>No. Not at all. You're welcome to poke at it with a magnetized needle or any other tool you've got in order to program it the way you want.</p><p>You could even recreate the work other people have already done in creating an open toolchain on the iPhone. Or you could just use that toolchain.</p><p>You can even use the developer tools Apple has created for free -- they give those away.</p><p>If you want to participate in the marketplace that Apple has developed, though, they ask you for fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to ?
No. Not at all .
You 're welcome to poke at it with a magnetized needle or any other tool you 've got in order to program it the way you want.You could even recreate the work other people have already done in creating an open toolchain on the iPhone .
Or you could just use that toolchain.You can even use the developer tools Apple has created for free -- they give those away.If you want to participate in the marketplace that Apple has developed , though , they ask you for fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to?
No. Not at all.
You're welcome to poke at it with a magnetized needle or any other tool you've got in order to program it the way you want.You could even recreate the work other people have already done in creating an open toolchain on the iPhone.
Or you could just use that toolchain.You can even use the developer tools Apple has created for free -- they give those away.If you want to participate in the marketplace that Apple has developed, though, they ask you for fees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944956</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular position on Slashdot...I LIKE the iPa</title>
	<author>MrPhilby</author>
	<datestamp>1264692360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Could a netbook meet my needs? To some degree but the tablet form factor of the iPad is key for me."

Explain? Nice 'n' shiny?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Could a netbook meet my needs ?
To some degree but the tablet form factor of the iPad is key for me .
" Explain ?
Nice 'n ' shiny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Could a netbook meet my needs?
To some degree but the tablet form factor of the iPad is key for me.
"

Explain?
Nice 'n' shiny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938728</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not that simple.  If enough people do buy it, the competition will wither away.  Then if you want a netbook-type thing you'll be stuck with Apple and whatever applications it decides to approve.  After a while they will raise their cut of developers' sales from the current 50\% to 60\%...70\%...80\%...  But by then nobody can do anything about it because Apple owns the standard and they won't open up the "app store" to competition.</p><p>Umm, didn't this happen with Microsoft Windows &amp; Office?  And didn't Microsoft get sued both here and in Europe (and lost both)?  Of course they did, because leveraging a monopoly position is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust act.  But I wouldn't expect that to matter much with the current supreme court and our "you get what you pay for" legal system.</p><p>It wasn't always like this, but now buying Apple products is a faustian bargain: You get a nice toy but it comes with a long-term curse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not that simple .
If enough people do buy it , the competition will wither away .
Then if you want a netbook-type thing you 'll be stuck with Apple and whatever applications it decides to approve .
After a while they will raise their cut of developers ' sales from the current 50 \ % to 60 \ % ...70 \ % ...80 \ % ... But by then nobody can do anything about it because Apple owns the standard and they wo n't open up the " app store " to competition.Umm , did n't this happen with Microsoft Windows &amp; Office ?
And did n't Microsoft get sued both here and in Europe ( and lost both ) ?
Of course they did , because leveraging a monopoly position is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust act .
But I would n't expect that to matter much with the current supreme court and our " you get what you pay for " legal system.It was n't always like this , but now buying Apple products is a faustian bargain : You get a nice toy but it comes with a long-term curse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not that simple.
If enough people do buy it, the competition will wither away.
Then if you want a netbook-type thing you'll be stuck with Apple and whatever applications it decides to approve.
After a while they will raise their cut of developers' sales from the current 50\% to 60\%...70\%...80\%...  But by then nobody can do anything about it because Apple owns the standard and they won't open up the "app store" to competition.Umm, didn't this happen with Microsoft Windows &amp; Office?
And didn't Microsoft get sued both here and in Europe (and lost both)?
Of course they did, because leveraging a monopoly position is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust act.
But I wouldn't expect that to matter much with the current supreme court and our "you get what you pay for" legal system.It wasn't always like this, but now buying Apple products is a faustian bargain: You get a nice toy but it comes with a long-term curse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939592</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch"</p><p>It's supposed to be whatever Apple "supposed" it to be when they designed and built it. Projecting your own ideas of what it is "supposed to be" doesn't mean you're right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch " It 's supposed to be whatever Apple " supposed " it to be when they designed and built it .
Projecting your own ideas of what it is " supposed to be " does n't mean you 're right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch"It's supposed to be whatever Apple "supposed" it to be when they designed and built it.
Projecting your own ideas of what it is "supposed to be" doesn't mean you're right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939838</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1264669500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device.</p></div><p>No, but it is being pushed as an email client and web browser and, unless it's significantly changed from the current iPhone OS, it's missing some key features needed in those two applications.</p><p>Mainly, I see it missing the ability to deal with files and peripherals. Browsing the web without being able to download files is an incomplete experience. Using an email client without the ability to deal with attachments is an incomplete experience. Not being able to print out a file or web page again makes it an incomplete experience. Not being able to import photos from a digital camera makes it an incomplete experience.</p><p>I do see this device being tremendously useful for specific purposes, just not any of the purposes Apple lists. When I take my car to the dealership for service, the representatives all have expensive tablet computers that could easily be replaced by cheaper iPads. And if Apple were to come out with a version with a camera and GPS, it could be a very useful device for inspectors (building, health, appraisal, etc) to take with them when they're in the field. And it would be perfect for a doctor to take with him as he makes his rounds so that he can pull up/update medical history, lookup drug information, check his schedule and such. And I'm sure there's plenty of other highly specialized tasks that could benefit from something with the iPad's form factor, abilities, price and ease of development.</p><p>But, to me, it just seems significantly incomplete for web browsing, email, photo management, book reading (no eInk, no interest from me...I value my eyesight too much to read for significant periods of time on a device with active lighting) and a lot of the other uses that Apple is touting. Those things may not require a completely general-purpose computing device, but they do require more general-purpose features than the iPad seems to offer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device.No , but it is being pushed as an email client and web browser and , unless it 's significantly changed from the current iPhone OS , it 's missing some key features needed in those two applications.Mainly , I see it missing the ability to deal with files and peripherals .
Browsing the web without being able to download files is an incomplete experience .
Using an email client without the ability to deal with attachments is an incomplete experience .
Not being able to print out a file or web page again makes it an incomplete experience .
Not being able to import photos from a digital camera makes it an incomplete experience.I do see this device being tremendously useful for specific purposes , just not any of the purposes Apple lists .
When I take my car to the dealership for service , the representatives all have expensive tablet computers that could easily be replaced by cheaper iPads .
And if Apple were to come out with a version with a camera and GPS , it could be a very useful device for inspectors ( building , health , appraisal , etc ) to take with them when they 're in the field .
And it would be perfect for a doctor to take with him as he makes his rounds so that he can pull up/update medical history , lookup drug information , check his schedule and such .
And I 'm sure there 's plenty of other highly specialized tasks that could benefit from something with the iPad 's form factor , abilities , price and ease of development.But , to me , it just seems significantly incomplete for web browsing , email , photo management , book reading ( no eInk , no interest from me...I value my eyesight too much to read for significant periods of time on a device with active lighting ) and a lot of the other uses that Apple is touting .
Those things may not require a completely general-purpose computing device , but they do require more general-purpose features than the iPad seems to offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device.No, but it is being pushed as an email client and web browser and, unless it's significantly changed from the current iPhone OS, it's missing some key features needed in those two applications.Mainly, I see it missing the ability to deal with files and peripherals.
Browsing the web without being able to download files is an incomplete experience.
Using an email client without the ability to deal with attachments is an incomplete experience.
Not being able to print out a file or web page again makes it an incomplete experience.
Not being able to import photos from a digital camera makes it an incomplete experience.I do see this device being tremendously useful for specific purposes, just not any of the purposes Apple lists.
When I take my car to the dealership for service, the representatives all have expensive tablet computers that could easily be replaced by cheaper iPads.
And if Apple were to come out with a version with a camera and GPS, it could be a very useful device for inspectors (building, health, appraisal, etc) to take with them when they're in the field.
And it would be perfect for a doctor to take with him as he makes his rounds so that he can pull up/update medical history, lookup drug information, check his schedule and such.
And I'm sure there's plenty of other highly specialized tasks that could benefit from something with the iPad's form factor, abilities, price and ease of development.But, to me, it just seems significantly incomplete for web browsing, email, photo management, book reading (no eInk, no interest from me...I value my eyesight too much to read for significant periods of time on a device with active lighting) and a lot of the other uses that Apple is touting.
Those things may not require a completely general-purpose computing device, but they do require more general-purpose features than the iPad seems to offer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936924</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1264705320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Look, if you're disappointed that the iPad isn't really a tablet computer, that's fine.  So am I.  As it is, the thing's awfully good looking, but I don't have a use for a super iPod Touch.  It apparently isn't supposed to be a tablet computer, and I have no idea why people keep saying it should be, except that that's what they wanted Apple to produce and were disappointed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , if you 're disappointed that the iPad is n't really a tablet computer , that 's fine .
So am I. As it is , the thing 's awfully good looking , but I do n't have a use for a super iPod Touch .
It apparently is n't supposed to be a tablet computer , and I have no idea why people keep saying it should be , except that that 's what they wanted Apple to produce and were disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Look, if you're disappointed that the iPad isn't really a tablet computer, that's fine.
So am I.  As it is, the thing's awfully good looking, but I don't have a use for a super iPod Touch.
It apparently isn't supposed to be a tablet computer, and I have no idea why people keep saying it should be, except that that's what they wanted Apple to produce and were disappointed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938404</id>
	<title>Re:What about Open eBooks?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ePub is an open format, yes. But it absolutely does support DRM, and there are several DRMs in use for it now. Adobe makes the most popular ePub DRM, which is supported by the Sony eBook readers, among others. Barnes &amp; Nobles' "nook" uses a modified version of the Adobe DRM, so their books only read on the nook and other readers licensed by B&amp;N. These all read non-DRMed ePub books as well, but Apple has not yet said anything about the DRM(s) they're supporting in "iBooks". I don't think anyone would be shocked if they built a varient of "FairPlay" that works within ePub.</p><p>But this is Apple.. DRM on apps, DRM on video, etc. Yeah, they let up on music... pretty much at the same time other DRM-free music stores came online to compete. They aren't against DRM, and it's a pretty safe bet their eBooks only read on Apple products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ePub is an open format , yes .
But it absolutely does support DRM , and there are several DRMs in use for it now .
Adobe makes the most popular ePub DRM , which is supported by the Sony eBook readers , among others .
Barnes &amp; Nobles ' " nook " uses a modified version of the Adobe DRM , so their books only read on the nook and other readers licensed by B&amp;N .
These all read non-DRMed ePub books as well , but Apple has not yet said anything about the DRM ( s ) they 're supporting in " iBooks " .
I do n't think anyone would be shocked if they built a varient of " FairPlay " that works within ePub.But this is Apple.. DRM on apps , DRM on video , etc .
Yeah , they let up on music... pretty much at the same time other DRM-free music stores came online to compete .
They are n't against DRM , and it 's a pretty safe bet their eBooks only read on Apple products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ePub is an open format, yes.
But it absolutely does support DRM, and there are several DRMs in use for it now.
Adobe makes the most popular ePub DRM, which is supported by the Sony eBook readers, among others.
Barnes &amp; Nobles' "nook" uses a modified version of the Adobe DRM, so their books only read on the nook and other readers licensed by B&amp;N.
These all read non-DRMed ePub books as well, but Apple has not yet said anything about the DRM(s) they're supporting in "iBooks".
I don't think anyone would be shocked if they built a varient of "FairPlay" that works within ePub.But this is Apple.. DRM on apps, DRM on video, etc.
Yeah, they let up on music... pretty much at the same time other DRM-free music stores came online to compete.
They aren't against DRM, and it's a pretty safe bet their eBooks only read on Apple products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938816</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1264709700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not create your own <b>open source</b> tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?</p></div><p>You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not create your own open source tablet to compete , and let the marketplace decide ? You keep using that term .
I do n't think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?You keep using that term.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, for the love of christ, get over yourself. People are sheep because they don't want to spend time and energy maintaining their gadgets, they just want to use them?</p><p>YOU are the sheep because you think that defective gadgets - ones where you need to spend time and energy on maintenance that a PROPERLY designed gadget wouldn't require - somehow makes you a better person. Rather than holding the people who design and sell those faulty gadgets responsible for releasing a shitty product, you instead seem to think it is a *virtue* that you're willing to put up with a crappy device that requires you to spend tons of time on tasks unrelated to what you want to do just so you can use their devices. You actually think it's a *good* thing that you have to do this!</p><p>Talk about being a brainwashed sheep!</p><p>I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO with a minimal amount of hassle and that don't require me to spend tons of time making sure they're in good shape before I use them. When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web. I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there. When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.</p><p>Please, though, feel free to continue to imagine that you're somehow better than everyone else because your time is worth so little to you that you're more than happy to spend your time making up for the failures of the people who provide you with gadgets and software to do their jobs better. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be getting actual work done or having fun with our gadgets. If not wasting my time doing bunches of routine maintenance tasks with my electronics makes me a sheep, then baa baa baa, guilty as charged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , for the love of christ , get over yourself .
People are sheep because they do n't want to spend time and energy maintaining their gadgets , they just want to use them ? YOU are the sheep because you think that defective gadgets - ones where you need to spend time and energy on maintenance that a PROPERLY designed gadget would n't require - somehow makes you a better person .
Rather than holding the people who design and sell those faulty gadgets responsible for releasing a shitty product , you instead seem to think it is a * virtue * that you 're willing to put up with a crappy device that requires you to spend tons of time on tasks unrelated to what you want to do just so you can use their devices .
You actually think it 's a * good * thing that you have to do this ! Talk about being a brainwashed sheep ! I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO with a minimal amount of hassle and that do n't require me to spend tons of time making sure they 're in good shape before I use them .
When I want to use a web enabled device , I want to just surf the goddamn web .
I do n't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits , scanning my system , and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I 'm going to do there .
When I want to install an application on my computer I do n't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.Please , though , feel free to continue to imagine that you 're somehow better than everyone else because your time is worth so little to you that you 're more than happy to spend your time making up for the failures of the people who provide you with gadgets and software to do their jobs better .
Meanwhile , the rest of us will be getting actual work done or having fun with our gadgets .
If not wasting my time doing bunches of routine maintenance tasks with my electronics makes me a sheep , then baa baa baa , guilty as charged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, for the love of christ, get over yourself.
People are sheep because they don't want to spend time and energy maintaining their gadgets, they just want to use them?YOU are the sheep because you think that defective gadgets - ones where you need to spend time and energy on maintenance that a PROPERLY designed gadget wouldn't require - somehow makes you a better person.
Rather than holding the people who design and sell those faulty gadgets responsible for releasing a shitty product, you instead seem to think it is a *virtue* that you're willing to put up with a crappy device that requires you to spend tons of time on tasks unrelated to what you want to do just so you can use their devices.
You actually think it's a *good* thing that you have to do this!Talk about being a brainwashed sheep!I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO with a minimal amount of hassle and that don't require me to spend tons of time making sure they're in good shape before I use them.
When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web.
I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there.
When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.Please, though, feel free to continue to imagine that you're somehow better than everyone else because your time is worth so little to you that you're more than happy to spend your time making up for the failures of the people who provide you with gadgets and software to do their jobs better.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will be getting actual work done or having fun with our gadgets.
If not wasting my time doing bunches of routine maintenance tasks with my electronics makes me a sheep, then baa baa baa, guilty as charged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934874</id>
	<title>For once, the Apple haters are onto something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPad is not a netbook.  In a way, it is LESS than a netbook.  It does more than a Kindle or Nook, but only if you bring your own bandwidth.  And it's tightly controlled.  The OS and the apps are quite cool, but it's a lot less flexible than a netbook.</p><p>Pricing is rather interesting too.  It outperforms traditional e-book readers, but it costs more.  A lot more unless you can live with supplying your own wifi.  It underperforms vs. netbooks, but STILL costs more.  The iPad competes a little bit with iPod touch and iPhone, but not at all with MacBook.  Unfortunately, it doesn't compete with conventional netbooks either.</p><p>In order of preference, I would like to buy the following:</p><p>1. OS X netbook for under $1000<br>2. MacBook running OS X (which I already own)<br>3. MacBook Pro<br>4. Conventional netbook with Ubuntu<br>5. Conventional netbook with XP<br>6. Conventional netbook with Win7<br>7. iPad<br>8. iPhone on Verizon network<br>9. iPod touch</p><p>For all the hype, the iPad is in 7th place on my list; unlikely to go any higher unless somebody finds an easy way to hack it open.  Notice how Apple could have put this product at the top of my list, and yet they were content with 7th place.  This is the kind of arrogance that the market will punish.</p><p>Clearly, the purchase price is only part of the cost of owning an iPad.  Unlike a MacBook, you will use it only as Apple wants it used.  And Apple will get paid whenever you add software -- no matter who writes it.  If Microsoft made netbooks, this is what they would look like.</p><p>Notice how Vista and iPhone on AT&amp;T fail to make the cut.</p><p>In all honestly, a $600 NetMacBook running Snow Leopard would have been much more newsworthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is not a netbook .
In a way , it is LESS than a netbook .
It does more than a Kindle or Nook , but only if you bring your own bandwidth .
And it 's tightly controlled .
The OS and the apps are quite cool , but it 's a lot less flexible than a netbook.Pricing is rather interesting too .
It outperforms traditional e-book readers , but it costs more .
A lot more unless you can live with supplying your own wifi .
It underperforms vs. netbooks , but STILL costs more .
The iPad competes a little bit with iPod touch and iPhone , but not at all with MacBook .
Unfortunately , it does n't compete with conventional netbooks either.In order of preference , I would like to buy the following : 1 .
OS X netbook for under $ 10002 .
MacBook running OS X ( which I already own ) 3 .
MacBook Pro4 .
Conventional netbook with Ubuntu5 .
Conventional netbook with XP6 .
Conventional netbook with Win77 .
iPad8. iPhone on Verizon network9 .
iPod touchFor all the hype , the iPad is in 7th place on my list ; unlikely to go any higher unless somebody finds an easy way to hack it open .
Notice how Apple could have put this product at the top of my list , and yet they were content with 7th place .
This is the kind of arrogance that the market will punish.Clearly , the purchase price is only part of the cost of owning an iPad .
Unlike a MacBook , you will use it only as Apple wants it used .
And Apple will get paid whenever you add software -- no matter who writes it .
If Microsoft made netbooks , this is what they would look like.Notice how Vista and iPhone on AT&amp;T fail to make the cut.In all honestly , a $ 600 NetMacBook running Snow Leopard would have been much more newsworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is not a netbook.
In a way, it is LESS than a netbook.
It does more than a Kindle or Nook, but only if you bring your own bandwidth.
And it's tightly controlled.
The OS and the apps are quite cool, but it's a lot less flexible than a netbook.Pricing is rather interesting too.
It outperforms traditional e-book readers, but it costs more.
A lot more unless you can live with supplying your own wifi.
It underperforms vs. netbooks, but STILL costs more.
The iPad competes a little bit with iPod touch and iPhone, but not at all with MacBook.
Unfortunately, it doesn't compete with conventional netbooks either.In order of preference, I would like to buy the following:1.
OS X netbook for under $10002.
MacBook running OS X (which I already own)3.
MacBook Pro4.
Conventional netbook with Ubuntu5.
Conventional netbook with XP6.
Conventional netbook with Win77.
iPad8. iPhone on Verizon network9.
iPod touchFor all the hype, the iPad is in 7th place on my list; unlikely to go any higher unless somebody finds an easy way to hack it open.
Notice how Apple could have put this product at the top of my list, and yet they were content with 7th place.
This is the kind of arrogance that the market will punish.Clearly, the purchase price is only part of the cost of owning an iPad.
Unlike a MacBook, you will use it only as Apple wants it used.
And Apple will get paid whenever you add software -- no matter who writes it.
If Microsoft made netbooks, this is what they would look like.Notice how Vista and iPhone on AT&amp;T fail to make the cut.In all honestly, a $600 NetMacBook running Snow Leopard would have been much more newsworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934794</id>
	<title>It's not a Tablet Computer -- it's an Appliance</title>
	<author>samalex</author>
	<datestamp>1264699440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The iPad is as much of a computer as the AppleTV is... it's just an appliance that lets you get or view content through the small window controlled by Apple.  I like it and would get one for a few tasks, but it wouldn't replace my laptop, cell phone, or anything else.  It could replace a GPS with Google Maps and I like being able to play videos for the kiddos in the car.  It may also be nice to have in the kitchen to look-up recipes or to view weather or our daily calendar.  And I think it would make an awesome eBook reader, but that's it...  I wouldn't use it to do my budget, or pay my bills, or do anything productive.  And with no Flash support or Hulu or Netflix, it's very limiting.

If this thing was a full blown computer with OSX or something that would allow installing other operating systems like Linux, that'd be different, but for now it's nothing more than a simple appliance for doing simple things... no more and no less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is as much of a computer as the AppleTV is... it 's just an appliance that lets you get or view content through the small window controlled by Apple .
I like it and would get one for a few tasks , but it would n't replace my laptop , cell phone , or anything else .
It could replace a GPS with Google Maps and I like being able to play videos for the kiddos in the car .
It may also be nice to have in the kitchen to look-up recipes or to view weather or our daily calendar .
And I think it would make an awesome eBook reader , but that 's it... I would n't use it to do my budget , or pay my bills , or do anything productive .
And with no Flash support or Hulu or Netflix , it 's very limiting .
If this thing was a full blown computer with OSX or something that would allow installing other operating systems like Linux , that 'd be different , but for now it 's nothing more than a simple appliance for doing simple things... no more and no less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is as much of a computer as the AppleTV is... it's just an appliance that lets you get or view content through the small window controlled by Apple.
I like it and would get one for a few tasks, but it wouldn't replace my laptop, cell phone, or anything else.
It could replace a GPS with Google Maps and I like being able to play videos for the kiddos in the car.
It may also be nice to have in the kitchen to look-up recipes or to view weather or our daily calendar.
And I think it would make an awesome eBook reader, but that's it...  I wouldn't use it to do my budget, or pay my bills, or do anything productive.
And with no Flash support or Hulu or Netflix, it's very limiting.
If this thing was a full blown computer with OSX or something that would allow installing other operating systems like Linux, that'd be different, but for now it's nothing more than a simple appliance for doing simple things... no more and no less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935840</id>
	<title>Cool Design, Bad Product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a big Apple fan, wouldn't trade my MacBook for any PC, and willing to live with all the limitations of the iPhone for it cool looks, but this time Mr Jobs simply screwed this up.<br>Apple has done tremendous job bringing most desirable toy to the market, but crippled it down to the level that makes me sick.<br>Keep It Simple - well, it may be a main motive, but for something that was suppose to replace a laptop or a Netbook in my bag, iPad doesn't seem to do the job.<br>Lack of camera on the portable device in the Skype age is simply unacceptable, and I can only hope that Mac OS will not go iTunes way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a big Apple fan , would n't trade my MacBook for any PC , and willing to live with all the limitations of the iPhone for it cool looks , but this time Mr Jobs simply screwed this up.Apple has done tremendous job bringing most desirable toy to the market , but crippled it down to the level that makes me sick.Keep It Simple - well , it may be a main motive , but for something that was suppose to replace a laptop or a Netbook in my bag , iPad does n't seem to do the job.Lack of camera on the portable device in the Skype age is simply unacceptable , and I can only hope that Mac OS will not go iTunes way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a big Apple fan, wouldn't trade my MacBook for any PC, and willing to live with all the limitations of the iPhone for it cool looks, but this time Mr Jobs simply screwed this up.Apple has done tremendous job bringing most desirable toy to the market, but crippled it down to the level that makes me sick.Keep It Simple - well, it may be a main motive, but for something that was suppose to replace a laptop or a Netbook in my bag, iPad doesn't seem to do the job.Lack of camera on the portable device in the Skype age is simply unacceptable, and I can only hope that Mac OS will not go iTunes way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?</p></div><p>Because that's not the purpose of the FSF. If the only way to warn the public about a Potential Harmful Thing is to create your own multinational corporation with the engineering power to create open competition, that's somewhat going to limit the informed debate...</p><p>Watchdog organisation: "Look, this make of washing machine regularly blows up and kills anyone nearby"<br>Company's apologist: "People are buying it, so obviously the market is deciding! Create your own non-explosive type and sell it"</p><p>Sometimes people don't know all the consequences of the purchase they make, that's what the FSF are trying to do. Guess what, sometimes the market gets it wrong...</p><p>Separately from the locked-down issue, do you *honestly* think that people are not going to be a bit surprised at some of the limitations of the device? No Flash therefore no Vimeo, Hulu and lots of websites will be hamstrung? It looks like a laptop without the physical keyboard, people are going to expect similar functionality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Attacking Apple 's products is one thing .
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete , and let the marketplace decide ? Because that 's not the purpose of the FSF .
If the only way to warn the public about a Potential Harmful Thing is to create your own multinational corporation with the engineering power to create open competition , that 's somewhat going to limit the informed debate...Watchdog organisation : " Look , this make of washing machine regularly blows up and kills anyone nearby " Company 's apologist : " People are buying it , so obviously the market is deciding !
Create your own non-explosive type and sell it " Sometimes people do n't know all the consequences of the purchase they make , that 's what the FSF are trying to do .
Guess what , sometimes the market gets it wrong...Separately from the locked-down issue , do you * honestly * think that people are not going to be a bit surprised at some of the limitations of the device ?
No Flash therefore no Vimeo , Hulu and lots of websites will be hamstrung ?
It looks like a laptop without the physical keyboard , people are going to expect similar functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attacking Apple's products is one thing.
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?Because that's not the purpose of the FSF.
If the only way to warn the public about a Potential Harmful Thing is to create your own multinational corporation with the engineering power to create open competition, that's somewhat going to limit the informed debate...Watchdog organisation: "Look, this make of washing machine regularly blows up and kills anyone nearby"Company's apologist: "People are buying it, so obviously the market is deciding!
Create your own non-explosive type and sell it"Sometimes people don't know all the consequences of the purchase they make, that's what the FSF are trying to do.
Guess what, sometimes the market gets it wrong...Separately from the locked-down issue, do you *honestly* think that people are not going to be a bit surprised at some of the limitations of the device?
No Flash therefore no Vimeo, Hulu and lots of websites will be hamstrung?
It looks like a laptop without the physical keyboard, people are going to expect similar functionality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941126</id>
	<title>Re:Not a PC - More like TV + Cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok I don't usually respond to these but I really wanted to respond cuz I am a PC user.  I work on Macs as well so I am not an Apple hater I actually love what both these companies have to offer.  I see your point about PC users that run as administrators and click on any little pop up and brick their computer.  But lets face it when you are running in OS X you are basically running as close to root as possible with your system.  The ONLY ONLY reason OS X is least likely to get viruses is because hackers don't waste their time with it.  I can get into and bash into any OS X 10. whatever system and take control as root and brick it even worse than PCs can because Apple is so nice to let me modify the EFI because its partially linked to the OS.  I can do the same thing on a PC side but some OEMs are more protective of their BIOS than others.  Anyway, I say all this because many Mac users feel like their operating system is flawless and it's not.  It has vulnerabilities and as more and more people start hopping onto iPhones, iPods, and iPads the easier its going to be for hackers to go in and pull stuff off from their devices.  I know that those tools like tweaking certain commands or having access to the Terminal may not be for everyone but they should allow power users to have the option of using them.  Why can't Apple have that option on their devices to modify certain things I mean they should have done it like OS X even though in my opinion.</p><p>In any case, I think that the best thing that has ever happened for hackers is the lack of knowledge people have for computers and their dependance on trust on a system.  As we advance in technology its ironic that users want a simpler looking interface without taking the time to actually learn how a system works.  This is why people are suckered into viruses and trojans and the sort.  It is not on behalf of an OS, even thought this can be it from time to time, largely it is partly because of the consumer.  Most computer users don't know what a browser is or what a cursor is.  In this day and age we should be getting more educated on these things.  And by educated I mean really knowing what's going on.  I am not talking about writing code or anything I'm talking about the basic functions of the computer.  Apple in my opinion doesn't help this issue because they deviate from the problem at hand and "simplify" the computer to a point that confuses its own users as to how applications and commands function within its own system.  You can argue it all you want and I am not saying Apple users are dumb because I am one.  I am saying that Apple treats its users like they are children and sometimes that's uncalled for.  OK now fan boys FLAME ON!</p><p>-Z</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok I do n't usually respond to these but I really wanted to respond cuz I am a PC user .
I work on Macs as well so I am not an Apple hater I actually love what both these companies have to offer .
I see your point about PC users that run as administrators and click on any little pop up and brick their computer .
But lets face it when you are running in OS X you are basically running as close to root as possible with your system .
The ONLY ONLY reason OS X is least likely to get viruses is because hackers do n't waste their time with it .
I can get into and bash into any OS X 10. whatever system and take control as root and brick it even worse than PCs can because Apple is so nice to let me modify the EFI because its partially linked to the OS .
I can do the same thing on a PC side but some OEMs are more protective of their BIOS than others .
Anyway , I say all this because many Mac users feel like their operating system is flawless and it 's not .
It has vulnerabilities and as more and more people start hopping onto iPhones , iPods , and iPads the easier its going to be for hackers to go in and pull stuff off from their devices .
I know that those tools like tweaking certain commands or having access to the Terminal may not be for everyone but they should allow power users to have the option of using them .
Why ca n't Apple have that option on their devices to modify certain things I mean they should have done it like OS X even though in my opinion.In any case , I think that the best thing that has ever happened for hackers is the lack of knowledge people have for computers and their dependance on trust on a system .
As we advance in technology its ironic that users want a simpler looking interface without taking the time to actually learn how a system works .
This is why people are suckered into viruses and trojans and the sort .
It is not on behalf of an OS , even thought this can be it from time to time , largely it is partly because of the consumer .
Most computer users do n't know what a browser is or what a cursor is .
In this day and age we should be getting more educated on these things .
And by educated I mean really knowing what 's going on .
I am not talking about writing code or anything I 'm talking about the basic functions of the computer .
Apple in my opinion does n't help this issue because they deviate from the problem at hand and " simplify " the computer to a point that confuses its own users as to how applications and commands function within its own system .
You can argue it all you want and I am not saying Apple users are dumb because I am one .
I am saying that Apple treats its users like they are children and sometimes that 's uncalled for .
OK now fan boys FLAME ON ! -Z</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok I don't usually respond to these but I really wanted to respond cuz I am a PC user.
I work on Macs as well so I am not an Apple hater I actually love what both these companies have to offer.
I see your point about PC users that run as administrators and click on any little pop up and brick their computer.
But lets face it when you are running in OS X you are basically running as close to root as possible with your system.
The ONLY ONLY reason OS X is least likely to get viruses is because hackers don't waste their time with it.
I can get into and bash into any OS X 10. whatever system and take control as root and brick it even worse than PCs can because Apple is so nice to let me modify the EFI because its partially linked to the OS.
I can do the same thing on a PC side but some OEMs are more protective of their BIOS than others.
Anyway, I say all this because many Mac users feel like their operating system is flawless and it's not.
It has vulnerabilities and as more and more people start hopping onto iPhones, iPods, and iPads the easier its going to be for hackers to go in and pull stuff off from their devices.
I know that those tools like tweaking certain commands or having access to the Terminal may not be for everyone but they should allow power users to have the option of using them.
Why can't Apple have that option on their devices to modify certain things I mean they should have done it like OS X even though in my opinion.In any case, I think that the best thing that has ever happened for hackers is the lack of knowledge people have for computers and their dependance on trust on a system.
As we advance in technology its ironic that users want a simpler looking interface without taking the time to actually learn how a system works.
This is why people are suckered into viruses and trojans and the sort.
It is not on behalf of an OS, even thought this can be it from time to time, largely it is partly because of the consumer.
Most computer users don't know what a browser is or what a cursor is.
In this day and age we should be getting more educated on these things.
And by educated I mean really knowing what's going on.
I am not talking about writing code or anything I'm talking about the basic functions of the computer.
Apple in my opinion doesn't help this issue because they deviate from the problem at hand and "simplify" the computer to a point that confuses its own users as to how applications and commands function within its own system.
You can argue it all you want and I am not saying Apple users are dumb because I am one.
I am saying that Apple treats its users like they are children and sometimes that's uncalled for.
OK now fan boys FLAME ON!-Z</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934978</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>simplu</author>
	<datestamp>1264699920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control. Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?</p></div><p>You should go live in North Korea for a while. And than see if you need somebody to convince you that you need to have control. Maybe I exaggerated but in the end its the same thing, you should be able to choose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control .
Why should average users have control over their computer ?
Is n't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows ? You should go live in North Korea for a while .
And than see if you need somebody to convince you that you need to have control .
Maybe I exaggerated but in the end its the same thing , you should be able to choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control.
Why should average users have control over their computer?
Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?You should go live in North Korea for a while.
And than see if you need somebody to convince you that you need to have control.
Maybe I exaggerated but in the end its the same thing, you should be able to choose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934082</id>
	<title>Ipad - forward or back?</title>
	<author>cwevenson</author>
	<datestamp>1264697400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have read some of the comments about the new iPad and there are valid concerns. Sure Apple limits what can be installed on the device. But after having to service hundreds of Windows based computers over my lifetime I thought this was probably a good idea. Not all developers take the same care to assure their code structure is solid. Apple at least sets some standards to the applications prior to allowing them to be in the Apps store. Now for the most part the developers out there are responsible but there are a few apps that leave something to be desired.

What I think to be a good and solid advancement is the functionality of the device. I know a great number of seniors and this device opens out new mobility for them, not requiring the standard limiting inputs but to browse and contribute without typing or mousing. I think this device could completely eliminate the teacher as we know it.

Also, seeing as governments and industry organization have put their foot down in my consumer products of late with respect to assuring they get their piece of the revenue, I doubt that will go away any time soon. (DRM) But then like a faithful friend of mine always says, "you get what you ask for, no fail." And the DRM is what the consumers asked for and got.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read some of the comments about the new iPad and there are valid concerns .
Sure Apple limits what can be installed on the device .
But after having to service hundreds of Windows based computers over my lifetime I thought this was probably a good idea .
Not all developers take the same care to assure their code structure is solid .
Apple at least sets some standards to the applications prior to allowing them to be in the Apps store .
Now for the most part the developers out there are responsible but there are a few apps that leave something to be desired .
What I think to be a good and solid advancement is the functionality of the device .
I know a great number of seniors and this device opens out new mobility for them , not requiring the standard limiting inputs but to browse and contribute without typing or mousing .
I think this device could completely eliminate the teacher as we know it .
Also , seeing as governments and industry organization have put their foot down in my consumer products of late with respect to assuring they get their piece of the revenue , I doubt that will go away any time soon .
( DRM ) But then like a faithful friend of mine always says , " you get what you ask for , no fail .
" And the DRM is what the consumers asked for and got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read some of the comments about the new iPad and there are valid concerns.
Sure Apple limits what can be installed on the device.
But after having to service hundreds of Windows based computers over my lifetime I thought this was probably a good idea.
Not all developers take the same care to assure their code structure is solid.
Apple at least sets some standards to the applications prior to allowing them to be in the Apps store.
Now for the most part the developers out there are responsible but there are a few apps that leave something to be desired.
What I think to be a good and solid advancement is the functionality of the device.
I know a great number of seniors and this device opens out new mobility for them, not requiring the standard limiting inputs but to browse and contribute without typing or mousing.
I think this device could completely eliminate the teacher as we know it.
Also, seeing as governments and industry organization have put their foot down in my consumer products of late with respect to assuring they get their piece of the revenue, I doubt that will go away any time soon.
(DRM) But then like a faithful friend of mine always says, "you get what you ask for, no fail.
" And the DRM is what the consumers asked for and got.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937810</id>
	<title>Where's my Ubuntu pad?</title>
	<author>DaveSlash</author>
	<datestamp>1264707360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where's my Ubuntu pad with a usb port?
Come on Corporations, make me one already.

Is it because the multi-touch patents?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's my Ubuntu pad with a usb port ?
Come on Corporations , make me one already .
Is it because the multi-touch patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's my Ubuntu pad with a usb port?
Come on Corporations, make me one already.
Is it because the multi-touch patents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940110</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264670340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i was with you right up until this crap:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep. You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep. And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.</p></div><p>Come on now.  The fact that the vast majority of people have neither the aptitude nor the inclination to have a deep understanding of technology doesn't give you a position of judgment so sweeping.</p><p>In any case, I suspect what you mean to say by teaching them to "think, vote, raise children" is to do it they way you would like. That doesn't make you a shepherd and them sheep.  It just makes you a douche.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i was with you right up until this crap : Say what you will , but the masses are sheep and they 're happy as sheep .
You can not teach them to think , vote , raise children , or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD , only the sheep .
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.Come on now .
The fact that the vast majority of people have neither the aptitude nor the inclination to have a deep understanding of technology does n't give you a position of judgment so sweeping.In any case , I suspect what you mean to say by teaching them to " think , vote , raise children " is to do it they way you would like .
That does n't make you a shepherd and them sheep .
It just makes you a douche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was with you right up until this crap:Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep.
You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep.
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.Come on now.
The fact that the vast majority of people have neither the aptitude nor the inclination to have a deep understanding of technology doesn't give you a position of judgment so sweeping.In any case, I suspect what you mean to say by teaching them to "think, vote, raise children" is to do it they way you would like.
That doesn't make you a shepherd and them sheep.
It just makes you a douche.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938900</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you can just jailbreak it, and not end up paying for this overpriced piece of hardware 'plus' the yearly 'developer fee'.</p><p>I have no doubt this ability will quickly appear for the iPad, as it did for the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can just jailbreak it , and not end up paying for this overpriced piece of hardware 'plus ' the yearly 'developer fee'.I have no doubt this ability will quickly appear for the iPad , as it did for the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can just jailbreak it, and not end up paying for this overpriced piece of hardware 'plus' the yearly 'developer fee'.I have no doubt this ability will quickly appear for the iPad, as it did for the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934818</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>daid303</author>
	<datestamp>1264699560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).[/quote]After 3 weeks of mailing with support I gave up. They never got my account working. Painless is not requiring any registration/payment, and supplying the documentation and development software for nothing.</p><p>And I only wanted to look at the iPhone api, just to see if the platform would be worth developing for. But this experience told me enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] The process to become a developer is pretty painless ( I did it for my own iPod touch , simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road ) .
[ /quote ] After 3 weeks of mailing with support I gave up .
They never got my account working .
Painless is not requiring any registration/payment , and supplying the documentation and development software for nothing.And I only wanted to look at the iPhone api , just to see if the platform would be worth developing for .
But this experience told me enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).
[/quote]After 3 weeks of mailing with support I gave up.
They never got my account working.
Painless is not requiring any registration/payment, and supplying the documentation and development software for nothing.And I only wanted to look at the iPhone api, just to see if the platform would be worth developing for.
But this experience told me enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934936</id>
	<title>Apple is a hardware company...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things work, a single vendor to complain to if something goes wrong.<br>Frustrated people go to Apple and don't mind paying more money in doing so.  People choose to have less choice for reliability.<br>Most people realize that Apple has fewer native software applications (choices) than other computer OS's.<br>People want products to work and not have to learn about the command line to install something, tweak something  - period.  Most people don't (or won't) make time to learn the command line.</p><p>There will always be other organizations that will find profitability in creating/developing solutions that Apple doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things work , a single vendor to complain to if something goes wrong.Frustrated people go to Apple and do n't mind paying more money in doing so .
People choose to have less choice for reliability.Most people realize that Apple has fewer native software applications ( choices ) than other computer OS 's.People want products to work and not have to learn about the command line to install something , tweak something - period .
Most people do n't ( or wo n't ) make time to learn the command line.There will always be other organizations that will find profitability in creating/developing solutions that Apple does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things work, a single vendor to complain to if something goes wrong.Frustrated people go to Apple and don't mind paying more money in doing so.
People choose to have less choice for reliability.Most people realize that Apple has fewer native software applications (choices) than other computer OS's.People want products to work and not have to learn about the command line to install something, tweak something  - period.
Most people don't (or won't) make time to learn the command line.There will always be other organizations that will find profitability in creating/developing solutions that Apple doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938588</id>
	<title>Control vs. Responsibility</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264709220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Average users don't WANT control over their computers. Go ahead. Give it to them. Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose "Run as Administrator," or that they need to run spyware scans, or virus scans, or allow the machine to install updates, or use Browser X instead of Browser Y, or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way. What do they say? Come on, we've all heard it.</p></div><p>I don't think you need to do any of that on OS X.  And I don't think people complain much about OS X in the way you described.</p><p>Yet there's this terminal application that gives the users total control and the power to fuck up their machines, royally.</p><p>The freedom to make your own choices if you want, but with sane default choices made for you.</p><p>(Man, I wish I could say that Linux is 100\% there with a straight face...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Average users do n't WANT control over their computers .
Go ahead .
Give it to them .
Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose " Run as Administrator , " or that they need to run spyware scans , or virus scans , or allow the machine to install updates , or use Browser X instead of Browser Y , or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way .
What do they say ?
Come on , we 've all heard it.I do n't think you need to do any of that on OS X. And I do n't think people complain much about OS X in the way you described.Yet there 's this terminal application that gives the users total control and the power to fuck up their machines , royally.The freedom to make your own choices if you want , but with sane default choices made for you .
( Man , I wish I could say that Linux is 100 \ % there with a straight face... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Average users don't WANT control over their computers.
Go ahead.
Give it to them.
Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose "Run as Administrator," or that they need to run spyware scans, or virus scans, or allow the machine to install updates, or use Browser X instead of Browser Y, or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way.
What do they say?
Come on, we've all heard it.I don't think you need to do any of that on OS X.  And I don't think people complain much about OS X in the way you described.Yet there's this terminal application that gives the users total control and the power to fuck up their machines, royally.The freedom to make your own choices if you want, but with sane default choices made for you.
(Man, I wish I could say that Linux is 100\% there with a straight face...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943182</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264680420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch."</p><p>Really? According to who?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch. " Really ?
According to who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch."Really?
According to who?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935212</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me get this straight. You buy an already expensive device that limits you in the way you use it. Then apple wants even more money just so you can run your own stuff, which in my opinion should be possible out of the box without need for jailbreaks.</p><p>When did it ever become acceptable to screw your customers not once but twice or thrice? On the other hand, this reminds me of the behavior of some telecoms and games with downloaded content... Maybe most consumers are sheep and put up with it to get their shiny blingbling, but that's no reason to just accept this decline to ignorance and helplessness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight .
You buy an already expensive device that limits you in the way you use it .
Then apple wants even more money just so you can run your own stuff , which in my opinion should be possible out of the box without need for jailbreaks.When did it ever become acceptable to screw your customers not once but twice or thrice ?
On the other hand , this reminds me of the behavior of some telecoms and games with downloaded content... Maybe most consumers are sheep and put up with it to get their shiny blingbling , but that 's no reason to just accept this decline to ignorance and helplessness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight.
You buy an already expensive device that limits you in the way you use it.
Then apple wants even more money just so you can run your own stuff, which in my opinion should be possible out of the box without need for jailbreaks.When did it ever become acceptable to screw your customers not once but twice or thrice?
On the other hand, this reminds me of the behavior of some telecoms and games with downloaded content... Maybe most consumers are sheep and put up with it to get their shiny blingbling, but that's no reason to just accept this decline to ignorance and helplessness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936386</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1264703760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry to point this out, but reality seems to contradict you.</p><p>I have an Android Phone. I can develop whatever the hell I want to develop for it, and install what I want without jailbreaking it or something.</p><p>And it does what it is supposed to do, and it does it well. If I don't want to thinker with the device, but just use it, then I can, with no hassle.</p><p>Now, any feature you can imagine that could make my device easier to use, doesn't imply closing the device and make it so full of DRM that it no longer interests me.</p><p>The fact that older Linux distros or other open source software were both the epitome of openness and also very hard to use is just an stupid cultural thing, not a hard rule.</p><p>If some software is hard to use, it only depends on the quality of the developer, not on the censoring policy of the platform. Good developers can make usable and powerful software for any platform.</p><p>If you think that a platform should be very closed to be easy of use, then you have been brainwashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry to point this out , but reality seems to contradict you.I have an Android Phone .
I can develop whatever the hell I want to develop for it , and install what I want without jailbreaking it or something.And it does what it is supposed to do , and it does it well .
If I do n't want to thinker with the device , but just use it , then I can , with no hassle.Now , any feature you can imagine that could make my device easier to use , does n't imply closing the device and make it so full of DRM that it no longer interests me.The fact that older Linux distros or other open source software were both the epitome of openness and also very hard to use is just an stupid cultural thing , not a hard rule.If some software is hard to use , it only depends on the quality of the developer , not on the censoring policy of the platform .
Good developers can make usable and powerful software for any platform.If you think that a platform should be very closed to be easy of use , then you have been brainwashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry to point this out, but reality seems to contradict you.I have an Android Phone.
I can develop whatever the hell I want to develop for it, and install what I want without jailbreaking it or something.And it does what it is supposed to do, and it does it well.
If I don't want to thinker with the device, but just use it, then I can, with no hassle.Now, any feature you can imagine that could make my device easier to use, doesn't imply closing the device and make it so full of DRM that it no longer interests me.The fact that older Linux distros or other open source software were both the epitome of openness and also very hard to use is just an stupid cultural thing, not a hard rule.If some software is hard to use, it only depends on the quality of the developer, not on the censoring policy of the platform.
Good developers can make usable and powerful software for any platform.If you think that a platform should be very closed to be easy of use, then you have been brainwashed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162</id>
	<title>Unpopular position on Slashdot...I LIKE the iPad</title>
	<author>dogmatixpsych</author>
	<datestamp>1264697580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see what the iPad has to do with OS X. The iPhone OS is built for a completely different purpose than OS X is. iPads are meant to do a relatively few things (read books, consume media, browse web, play games, etc.) very well and intuitively. OS X does a lot of things very well and is incredibly powerful. In our neuroimaging lab we used to run Linux as our main processing OS (we still use it a lot) but we are transitioning over to OS X because we can do everything we need to do that Linux can do plus much more.<br> <br>
As someone in academia, the iPad would be perfect for much of what I do. I can take notes on it (including notes when I do therapy or psychological assessments), check my email, write papers and reports, read articles and books, listen to music, run all sorts of other apps (including terminal ones with ssh support), transfer and display brain images, and more. With the right adapter I could use the iPad to run Keynote presentations from.<br> <br>
I do some of these things on my iPod Touch - I use it all the time for my work - but the screen size limits some of what I can do. Could a netbook meet my needs? To some degree but the tablet form factor of the iPad is key for me. I could purchase a different tablet computer but again, their form factors are larger than the iPad. Plus, they usually cost more.<br> <br>
Besides, the iPad is competing with the Kindle to some degree and a Kindle with a 9.7" screen is only $10 cheaper than the iPad. I know the smaller Kindle is slightly more than 1/2 the price of the iPad but it does far less than 1/2 of what the iPad does (but the Kindle is very good at what it is designed to do, so I hear).<br> <br>
I'll probably purchase an iPad - maybe not this 1st rev. but possibly when it is updated in a year or two. I think Apple is going to sell a lot of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see what the iPad has to do with OS X. The iPhone OS is built for a completely different purpose than OS X is .
iPads are meant to do a relatively few things ( read books , consume media , browse web , play games , etc .
) very well and intuitively .
OS X does a lot of things very well and is incredibly powerful .
In our neuroimaging lab we used to run Linux as our main processing OS ( we still use it a lot ) but we are transitioning over to OS X because we can do everything we need to do that Linux can do plus much more .
As someone in academia , the iPad would be perfect for much of what I do .
I can take notes on it ( including notes when I do therapy or psychological assessments ) , check my email , write papers and reports , read articles and books , listen to music , run all sorts of other apps ( including terminal ones with ssh support ) , transfer and display brain images , and more .
With the right adapter I could use the iPad to run Keynote presentations from .
I do some of these things on my iPod Touch - I use it all the time for my work - but the screen size limits some of what I can do .
Could a netbook meet my needs ?
To some degree but the tablet form factor of the iPad is key for me .
I could purchase a different tablet computer but again , their form factors are larger than the iPad .
Plus , they usually cost more .
Besides , the iPad is competing with the Kindle to some degree and a Kindle with a 9.7 " screen is only $ 10 cheaper than the iPad .
I know the smaller Kindle is slightly more than 1/2 the price of the iPad but it does far less than 1/2 of what the iPad does ( but the Kindle is very good at what it is designed to do , so I hear ) .
I 'll probably purchase an iPad - maybe not this 1st rev .
but possibly when it is updated in a year or two .
I think Apple is going to sell a lot of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see what the iPad has to do with OS X. The iPhone OS is built for a completely different purpose than OS X is.
iPads are meant to do a relatively few things (read books, consume media, browse web, play games, etc.
) very well and intuitively.
OS X does a lot of things very well and is incredibly powerful.
In our neuroimaging lab we used to run Linux as our main processing OS (we still use it a lot) but we are transitioning over to OS X because we can do everything we need to do that Linux can do plus much more.
As someone in academia, the iPad would be perfect for much of what I do.
I can take notes on it (including notes when I do therapy or psychological assessments), check my email, write papers and reports, read articles and books, listen to music, run all sorts of other apps (including terminal ones with ssh support), transfer and display brain images, and more.
With the right adapter I could use the iPad to run Keynote presentations from.
I do some of these things on my iPod Touch - I use it all the time for my work - but the screen size limits some of what I can do.
Could a netbook meet my needs?
To some degree but the tablet form factor of the iPad is key for me.
I could purchase a different tablet computer but again, their form factors are larger than the iPad.
Plus, they usually cost more.
Besides, the iPad is competing with the Kindle to some degree and a Kindle with a 9.7" screen is only $10 cheaper than the iPad.
I know the smaller Kindle is slightly more than 1/2 the price of the iPad but it does far less than 1/2 of what the iPad does (but the Kindle is very good at what it is designed to do, so I hear).
I'll probably purchase an iPad - maybe not this 1st rev.
but possibly when it is updated in a year or two.
I think Apple is going to sell a lot of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937714</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Alphathon</author>
	<datestamp>1264707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is absolutelly nothing stoping anyone from making a tablet that doesn't have an app-store. They've been around for years, just havn't been that popular. What they can't do is use Apples patented UI elements. That's it. Apple has no patent on "tablet computing", only specific ways to interact with tablet computers (and many of them are only valid in the US as said methods aren't covered under most countries patent laws. Pinch to zoom is a prime example, which isn't available on a lot of US smartphones, but is on their European counterparts)</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is absolutelly nothing stoping anyone from making a tablet that does n't have an app-store .
They 've been around for years , just hav n't been that popular .
What they ca n't do is use Apples patented UI elements .
That 's it .
Apple has no patent on " tablet computing " , only specific ways to interact with tablet computers ( and many of them are only valid in the US as said methods are n't covered under most countries patent laws .
Pinch to zoom is a prime example , which is n't available on a lot of US smartphones , but is on their European counterparts )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is absolutelly nothing stoping anyone from making a tablet that doesn't have an app-store.
They've been around for years, just havn't been that popular.
What they can't do is use Apples patented UI elements.
That's it.
Apple has no patent on "tablet computing", only specific ways to interact with tablet computers (and many of them are only valid in the US as said methods aren't covered under most countries patent laws.
Pinch to zoom is a prime example, which isn't available on a lot of US smartphones, but is on their European counterparts)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940802</id>
	<title>Re:Not a PC - More like TV + Cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264672200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection."</p><p>Spot on. And that's what, about 99\% of the folks out there?</p><p>You're correct, not for MANY of US...but perfect for MOST of THEM.</p><p>Apple wins...again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection .
" Spot on .
And that 's what , about 99 \ % of the folks out there ? You 're correct , not for MANY of US...but perfect for MOST of THEM.Apple wins...again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection.
"Spot on.
And that's what, about 99\% of the folks out there?You're correct, not for MANY of US...but perfect for MOST of THEM.Apple wins...again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934678</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1264699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook. The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple's vision of the iPad.</p></div><p>the more apt comparison is with the multitude of android-based tablets that will be released around the same time as the ipad. comparing the ipad OS to android is night and day. android is an open operating system. there's a nice app store from google with just about everything you want, but there's also 3rd party app stores, and of course you can download any app you want from any source and install it directly. android is open source. android is true multitasking.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Except that Apple is actually \_less\_ connected in to your device than Google would be.</p></div><p>i don't know. the fact that i have to use itunes to get any content onto my apple portable device seems to make it pretty much connected to apple.</p><p>it's a common mistake to say android == google. the prominent android-based phones ship google apps, but that's only because those companies have a licensing agreement with google. there are many android devices (archos) that haven no connection to google whatsoever. they are pure google-less android devices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook .
The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple 's vision of the iPad.the more apt comparison is with the multitude of android-based tablets that will be released around the same time as the ipad .
comparing the ipad OS to android is night and day .
android is an open operating system .
there 's a nice app store from google with just about everything you want , but there 's also 3rd party app stores , and of course you can download any app you want from any source and install it directly .
android is open source .
android is true multitasking .
Except that Apple is actually \ _less \ _ connected in to your device than Google would be.i do n't know .
the fact that i have to use itunes to get any content onto my apple portable device seems to make it pretty much connected to apple.it 's a common mistake to say android = = google .
the prominent android-based phones ship google apps , but that 's only because those companies have a licensing agreement with google .
there are many android devices ( archos ) that haven no connection to google whatsoever .
they are pure google-less android devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook.
The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple's vision of the iPad.the more apt comparison is with the multitude of android-based tablets that will be released around the same time as the ipad.
comparing the ipad OS to android is night and day.
android is an open operating system.
there's a nice app store from google with just about everything you want, but there's also 3rd party app stores, and of course you can download any app you want from any source and install it directly.
android is open source.
android is true multitasking.
Except that Apple is actually \_less\_ connected in to your device than Google would be.i don't know.
the fact that i have to use itunes to get any content onto my apple portable device seems to make it pretty much connected to apple.it's a common mistake to say android == google.
the prominent android-based phones ship google apps, but that's only because those companies have a licensing agreement with google.
there are many android devices (archos) that haven no connection to google whatsoever.
they are pure google-less android devices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934910</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1264699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear Google plans to make something even smaller and more useful - a fully functional 1 dimensional computer! I think they plan to call it "gString"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear Google plans to make something even smaller and more useful - a fully functional 1 dimensional computer !
I think they plan to call it " gString "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear Google plans to make something even smaller and more useful - a fully functional 1 dimensional computer!
I think they plan to call it "gString"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935172</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! So, whom is going to say who is an average user? Steve Jobs? I have to agree with the FSF. Average user or not, we want to use our toys the way we want. Apple offers a slick option, but by going down this path we are entering into a world of control and close source. Feed me Apple..I will follow your lead...In your reference to the Google vision, what has become apparent is that the majority of users like the ability to run their own systems. And the Google approach will fail. This is already evident or the MAC OS would have more than 6\% of the OS market. If people wanted to buy what Job's is selling Windows 7 would not have already passed its marketshare. The market is speaking. People are NOT buying MAC OS computers. Linux increasd its OS marketshare as well. And all this put together shows people do not want to be given limitations to a product they purchase.<br>The limitations to what Apple is selling is starting to show thru the marketing.</p><p>This table will fail...but I personally belive all tablets are useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
So , whom is going to say who is an average user ?
Steve Jobs ?
I have to agree with the FSF .
Average user or not , we want to use our toys the way we want .
Apple offers a slick option , but by going down this path we are entering into a world of control and close source .
Feed me Apple..I will follow your lead...In your reference to the Google vision , what has become apparent is that the majority of users like the ability to run their own systems .
And the Google approach will fail .
This is already evident or the MAC OS would have more than 6 \ % of the OS market .
If people wanted to buy what Job 's is selling Windows 7 would not have already passed its marketshare .
The market is speaking .
People are NOT buying MAC OS computers .
Linux increasd its OS marketshare as well .
And all this put together shows people do not want to be given limitations to a product they purchase.The limitations to what Apple is selling is starting to show thru the marketing.This table will fail...but I personally belive all tablets are useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
So, whom is going to say who is an average user?
Steve Jobs?
I have to agree with the FSF.
Average user or not, we want to use our toys the way we want.
Apple offers a slick option, but by going down this path we are entering into a world of control and close source.
Feed me Apple..I will follow your lead...In your reference to the Google vision, what has become apparent is that the majority of users like the ability to run their own systems.
And the Google approach will fail.
This is already evident or the MAC OS would have more than 6\% of the OS market.
If people wanted to buy what Job's is selling Windows 7 would not have already passed its marketshare.
The market is speaking.
People are NOT buying MAC OS computers.
Linux increasd its OS marketshare as well.
And all this put together shows people do not want to be given limitations to a product they purchase.The limitations to what Apple is selling is starting to show thru the marketing.This table will fail...but I personally belive all tablets are useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936418</id>
	<title>It is not a computer, it is an iPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My brother-in-law had been whining that he couldn't get such a product for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My brother-in-law had been whining that he could n't get such a product for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brother-in-law had been whining that he couldn't get such a product for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935116</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Cronock</author>
	<datestamp>1264700340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where are all the articles claiming this same thing about every other cellphone, console gaming system, or solar powered calculator? Jeez, if you want the device so open and think there's a market for that... MAKE IT, get rich!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are all the articles claiming this same thing about every other cellphone , console gaming system , or solar powered calculator ?
Jeez , if you want the device so open and think there 's a market for that... MAKE IT , get rich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are all the articles claiming this same thing about every other cellphone, console gaming system, or solar powered calculator?
Jeez, if you want the device so open and think there's a market for that... MAKE IT, get rich!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937334</id>
	<title>Hippocratic Oath for Engineers</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1264706280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time to introduce the Hippocratic Oath for software and hardware engineers.</p><p>It is under development, but for now it reads:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I swear by Hephaestus, god of technology, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:</p><p><b>I shall not create locked down software and machines of any form.</b></p><p>If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to introduce the Hippocratic Oath for software and hardware engineers.It is under development , but for now it reads : I swear by Hephaestus , god of technology , and I take to witness all the gods , all the goddesses , to keep according to my ability and my judgment , the following Oath and agreement : I shall not create locked down software and machines of any form.If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it , may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art , being honored with fame among all men for all time to come ; if I transgress it and swear falsely , may the opposite of all this be my lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to introduce the Hippocratic Oath for software and hardware engineers.It is under development, but for now it reads:I swear by Hephaestus, god of technology, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:I shall not create locked down software and machines of any form.If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938186</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Moheeheeko</author>
	<datestamp>1264708260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.....you get phone viruses?  WTF do you do with your phone?....wait....I dont want to know</htmltext>
<tokenext>.....you get phone viruses ?
WTF do you do with your phone ? ....wait....I dont want to know</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....you get phone viruses?
WTF do you do with your phone?....wait....I dont want to know</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</id>
	<title>Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPad <b>is not a general-purpose computing device</b>.  It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers.  This is like saying that the segway is a major step backward in international travel because it can't fly.</p><p>If the next version of OSX were to have similar limitations, that would be worthy of this line of criticism.  Of course, the criticism would then be unnecessary, as the Mac would drop out of the PC market promptly of its own accord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device .
It can not be compared to , nor can it show the direction of , the market for general-purpose computers .
This is like saying that the segway is a major step backward in international travel because it ca n't fly.If the next version of OSX were to have similar limitations , that would be worthy of this line of criticism .
Of course , the criticism would then be unnecessary , as the Mac would drop out of the PC market promptly of its own accord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device.
It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers.
This is like saying that the segway is a major step backward in international travel because it can't fly.If the next version of OSX were to have similar limitations, that would be worthy of this line of criticism.
Of course, the criticism would then be unnecessary, as the Mac would drop out of the PC market promptly of its own accord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939328</id>
	<title>Are they going to do another DOS attack?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are the same people that did a DOS on the Genius bars to protest the iPhone (they tried to book every appointment slot at every store for a weekend, encouraging people to make multiple appointments at multiple stores).</p><p>I wonder if they'll try that again (it got a lot of negative reaction in the press and here on Slashdot), or if they will come up with something new? Maybe borrow a page from the animal rights groups, and toss fake blood at people, chanting "iPad is Murder" or some such?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the same people that did a DOS on the Genius bars to protest the iPhone ( they tried to book every appointment slot at every store for a weekend , encouraging people to make multiple appointments at multiple stores ) .I wonder if they 'll try that again ( it got a lot of negative reaction in the press and here on Slashdot ) , or if they will come up with something new ?
Maybe borrow a page from the animal rights groups , and toss fake blood at people , chanting " iPad is Murder " or some such ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the same people that did a DOS on the Genius bars to protest the iPhone (they tried to book every appointment slot at every store for a weekend, encouraging people to make multiple appointments at multiple stores).I wonder if they'll try that again (it got a lot of negative reaction in the press and here on Slashdot), or if they will come up with something new?
Maybe borrow a page from the animal rights groups, and toss fake blood at people, chanting "iPad is Murder" or some such?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935064</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer, and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices.  The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).</p><p>Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices, for $250/year.</p><p>Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker, instead they realize that for <i> <b>most users</b> </i>, having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants: it means they have confidence in the system.</p><p>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store?  Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"</p></div><p>But why should I pay extra to load MY code on MY device?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone , its only $ 99/year more to be a certified developer , and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices .
The process to become a developer is pretty painless ( I did it for my own iPod touch , simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road ) .Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices , for $ 250/year.Apple really is n't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker , instead they realize that for most users , having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants : it means they have confidence in the system.How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store ?
Would they have the same attitude if they did n't have apple saying " we 've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps wo n't * BLEEP * you up the rear " But why should I pay extra to load MY code on MY device ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer, and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices.
The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices, for $250/year.Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker, instead they realize that for  most users , having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants: it means they have confidence in the system.How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store?
Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"But why should I pay extra to load MY code on MY device?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935974</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But before you don't buy it, make some snarky remark that will look really stupid two years from now--No wireless...storage....blah blah...lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But before you do n't buy it , make some snarky remark that will look really stupid two years from now--No wireless...storage....blah blah...lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But before you don't buy it, make some snarky remark that will look really stupid two years from now--No wireless...storage....blah blah...lame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936130</id>
	<title>Mac OS X is getting more and more locked down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac OS X is beginning to get locked down. In Snow Leopard, the play/pause key (F8) is locked into iTunes. Press play/pause and iTunes opens. So whenever you have Spotify open and press F8 to pause, Apple launches iTunes for you. There is no way for the user to configure this. Only solution: delete iTunes (clever move Apple, now I cant use the iTunes Store even if I did want to!)</p><p>The remote has always been locked into Front Row, and the API is not published. You have to install a third party driver (Candelair) to be able to use the remote in Plex or Voddler. In Leopard (not Snow), the applications were able to steal access to the remote without third party drivers. Not so anymore.</p><p>The API for hardware accelerated video decoding is not published, meaning that only Quicktime can play back full hd video without excessive CPU utilization.</p><p>So Mac OS X is clearly getting more and more locked down in the areas where Apple is positioning itself (movies, music etc).</p><p>I just bought my fourth mac, and if it continues on like this with Mac OS 10.7 then I'll be buying a Linux PC the next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS X is beginning to get locked down .
In Snow Leopard , the play/pause key ( F8 ) is locked into iTunes .
Press play/pause and iTunes opens .
So whenever you have Spotify open and press F8 to pause , Apple launches iTunes for you .
There is no way for the user to configure this .
Only solution : delete iTunes ( clever move Apple , now I cant use the iTunes Store even if I did want to !
) The remote has always been locked into Front Row , and the API is not published .
You have to install a third party driver ( Candelair ) to be able to use the remote in Plex or Voddler .
In Leopard ( not Snow ) , the applications were able to steal access to the remote without third party drivers .
Not so anymore.The API for hardware accelerated video decoding is not published , meaning that only Quicktime can play back full hd video without excessive CPU utilization.So Mac OS X is clearly getting more and more locked down in the areas where Apple is positioning itself ( movies , music etc ) .I just bought my fourth mac , and if it continues on like this with Mac OS 10.7 then I 'll be buying a Linux PC the next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS X is beginning to get locked down.
In Snow Leopard, the play/pause key (F8) is locked into iTunes.
Press play/pause and iTunes opens.
So whenever you have Spotify open and press F8 to pause, Apple launches iTunes for you.
There is no way for the user to configure this.
Only solution: delete iTunes (clever move Apple, now I cant use the iTunes Store even if I did want to!
)The remote has always been locked into Front Row, and the API is not published.
You have to install a third party driver (Candelair) to be able to use the remote in Plex or Voddler.
In Leopard (not Snow), the applications were able to steal access to the remote without third party drivers.
Not so anymore.The API for hardware accelerated video decoding is not published, meaning that only Quicktime can play back full hd video without excessive CPU utilization.So Mac OS X is clearly getting more and more locked down in the areas where Apple is positioning itself (movies, music etc).I just bought my fourth mac, and if it continues on like this with Mac OS 10.7 then I'll be buying a Linux PC the next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937986</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Moheeheeko</author>
	<datestamp>1264707840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yep yep. People (especially here) missing the point of Apple is pretty common. Skimmed the iPad article yesterday and had nothing but iPhone flashbacks.</p><p>"It's derivative."</p><p>"It's the same as (crappy, unpolished, user-hostile device that didn't sell) so no one is going to buy one."</p><p>"The hardware has been out for (absurd number of years) so Apple has utterly stopped innovating and will be going out of business next year."</p><p>"No one wants (feature that everyone wants)."</p><p>"It doesn't have (feature that only ubergeeks care about) so no one is going to buy one."</p></div><p>1. the crappy unpolished user-hostile device in this case being.....the ipod touch?</p><p>

2. We wouldnt care about them using old hardware if they didn't use words such as "revolutionary" and "magical" (yes, they said magical) to describe it.</p><p>

3.  About the only feature being added is the book reader, which you pay more for.</p><p>

4.  Right because only ubergeeks care about flash support.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep yep .
People ( especially here ) missing the point of Apple is pretty common .
Skimmed the iPad article yesterday and had nothing but iPhone flashbacks .
" It 's derivative .
" " It 's the same as ( crappy , unpolished , user-hostile device that did n't sell ) so no one is going to buy one .
" " The hardware has been out for ( absurd number of years ) so Apple has utterly stopped innovating and will be going out of business next year .
" " No one wants ( feature that everyone wants ) .
" " It does n't have ( feature that only ubergeeks care about ) so no one is going to buy one. " 1 .
the crappy unpolished user-hostile device in this case being.....the ipod touch ?
2. We wouldnt care about them using old hardware if they did n't use words such as " revolutionary " and " magical " ( yes , they said magical ) to describe it .
3. About the only feature being added is the book reader , which you pay more for .
4. Right because only ubergeeks care about flash support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep yep.
People (especially here) missing the point of Apple is pretty common.
Skimmed the iPad article yesterday and had nothing but iPhone flashbacks.
"It's derivative.
""It's the same as (crappy, unpolished, user-hostile device that didn't sell) so no one is going to buy one.
""The hardware has been out for (absurd number of years) so Apple has utterly stopped innovating and will be going out of business next year.
""No one wants (feature that everyone wants).
""It doesn't have (feature that only ubergeeks care about) so no one is going to buy one."1.
the crappy unpolished user-hostile device in this case being.....the ipod touch?
2. We wouldnt care about them using old hardware if they didn't use words such as "revolutionary" and "magical" (yes, they said magical) to describe it.
3.  About the only feature being added is the book reader, which you pay more for.
4.  Right because only ubergeeks care about flash support.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936476</id>
	<title>Slashdot has been overrun...</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1264704060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Slashdot has been overrun by a new type of person...  I can't believe how many people are posting in favor of this locked down, DRM ridden piece of steve jobs crap.  It flies in the face of everything I learned reading this site for the last 10+ years.  Now I don't know what to believe.  This thing can't even run Linux!  What's going on??!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Slashdot has been overrun by a new type of person... I ca n't believe how many people are posting in favor of this locked down , DRM ridden piece of steve jobs crap .
It flies in the face of everything I learned reading this site for the last 10 + years .
Now I do n't know what to believe .
This thing ca n't even run Linux !
What 's going on ? ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Slashdot has been overrun by a new type of person...  I can't believe how many people are posting in favor of this locked down, DRM ridden piece of steve jobs crap.
It flies in the face of everything I learned reading this site for the last 10+ years.
Now I don't know what to believe.
This thing can't even run Linux!
What's going on??!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937730</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You miss the point, it's a step backwards just because it will be popular, because they'll screw everyone and will get away with it, next versions will get locked down tighter and tighter, until only a few truly free pads/phones/netbooks etc will exist and those for the very few geeks that you find here. When it comes out I'll want to buy one, but so far to me it looks like an iPhone on viagra, so I'll wait another year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You miss the point , it 's a step backwards just because it will be popular , because they 'll screw everyone and will get away with it , next versions will get locked down tighter and tighter , until only a few truly free pads/phones/netbooks etc will exist and those for the very few geeks that you find here .
When it comes out I 'll want to buy one , but so far to me it looks like an iPhone on viagra , so I 'll wait another year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You miss the point, it's a step backwards just because it will be popular, because they'll screw everyone and will get away with it, next versions will get locked down tighter and tighter, until only a few truly free pads/phones/netbooks etc will exist and those for the very few geeks that you find here.
When it comes out I'll want to buy one, but so far to me it looks like an iPhone on viagra, so I'll wait another year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939096</id>
	<title>Re:Not a PC - More like TV + Cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The open clones already did appear, in some cases years before the Apple thing did.  Didn't Archos announce a similar tablet running Android just a week or two ago?  I'd guess the Archos is probably a better product than the iPad (actually I should say "definitely" since it isn't locked up), but there's a huge difference: Archos doesn't get free front page newspaper stories or the top story on every web site when they announce a product!</p><p>So nobody knows that the Archos exists or that they have already had something like 7 generations of tablet things.  But Apple comes along with a "magical" new product and you'd have to be dead not to have heard about it!</p><p>There is no justice in the world of techno-hype.  Does any other company in the world get all the free advertising Apple does?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The open clones already did appear , in some cases years before the Apple thing did .
Did n't Archos announce a similar tablet running Android just a week or two ago ?
I 'd guess the Archos is probably a better product than the iPad ( actually I should say " definitely " since it is n't locked up ) , but there 's a huge difference : Archos does n't get free front page newspaper stories or the top story on every web site when they announce a product ! So nobody knows that the Archos exists or that they have already had something like 7 generations of tablet things .
But Apple comes along with a " magical " new product and you 'd have to be dead not to have heard about it ! There is no justice in the world of techno-hype .
Does any other company in the world get all the free advertising Apple does ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The open clones already did appear, in some cases years before the Apple thing did.
Didn't Archos announce a similar tablet running Android just a week or two ago?
I'd guess the Archos is probably a better product than the iPad (actually I should say "definitely" since it isn't locked up), but there's a huge difference: Archos doesn't get free front page newspaper stories or the top story on every web site when they announce a product!So nobody knows that the Archos exists or that they have already had something like 7 generations of tablet things.
But Apple comes along with a "magical" new product and you'd have to be dead not to have heard about it!There is no justice in the world of techno-hype.
Does any other company in the world get all the free advertising Apple does?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934394</id>
	<title>Re:Mac World</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, sir, should run for president of the world.</p><p>Felt like I was reading an adaptation of 1984, where Big Brother was replaced by Steve Jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , should run for president of the world.Felt like I was reading an adaptation of 1984 , where Big Brother was replaced by Steve Jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, should run for president of the world.Felt like I was reading an adaptation of 1984, where Big Brother was replaced by Steve Jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</id>
	<title>Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264700700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2.  What the hell?!?!??!  So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?  I'm going to have to hack the damn thing just so I can run an unapproved application?  Great.  Thanks for that, Apple.</p><p>Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/), no flash support, no multitasking (oh great, so I can't have AIM and Safari open at the same time?  Epic Fail.)...it just seems to be an extremely restricted device considering the $500 entry price.</p><p>Third, what exactly are you getting for that price?  Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version.  For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade.  For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop!  But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.</p><p>Fourth (and this isn't that big of a deal, but it is still a missed opportunity) Apple should have included a stylus with the system.  Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers.  If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet.  Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus.  Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.</p><p>Honestly, my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system.  By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing...they should have either ported over OSX (which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes) or just built a new operating system from the ground up.  But no, they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they'll buy it!  They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it!</p><p>Basically, this COULD have been an amazing device...but regardless of what they did right, Apple made some unbelievably stupid decisions that puts it firmly in the "what's the point" category for me.</p><p>It is also worth mentioning that if this tablet had been announced with all the same features (both missing and included), but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo, people would be treating it like the plague. Fanboyism is a terrible disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , it is based on iPhone OS 3.2 .
What the hell ? ! ? ! ? ? !
So you 're telling me I 'm going to spend at minimum $ 500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone ?
I 'm going to have to hack the damn thing just so I can run an unapproved application ?
Great. Thanks for that , Apple.Secondly , it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports ( except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories : / ) , no flash support , no multitasking ( oh great , so I ca n't have AIM and Safari open at the same time ?
Epic Fail .
) ...it just seems to be an extremely restricted device considering the $ 500 entry price.Third , what exactly are you getting for that price ?
Let 's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version .
For roughly $ 800 , you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options , zero USB ports or flash card readers , and no way to upgrade .
For $ 800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell , you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop !
But no , with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.Fourth ( and this is n't that big of a deal , but it is still a missed opportunity ) Apple should have included a stylus with the system .
Think about the people that use Wacom tablets , like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers .
If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software , this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet .
Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus .
Nope , that 's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.Honestly , my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system .
By keeping it locked down like that , they have severely limited the appeal of this thing...they should have either ported over OSX ( which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes ) or just built a new operating system from the ground up .
But no , they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they 'll buy it !
They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it ! Basically , this COULD have been an amazing device...but regardless of what they did right , Apple made some unbelievably stupid decisions that puts it firmly in the " what 's the point " category for me.It is also worth mentioning that if this tablet had been announced with all the same features ( both missing and included ) , but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo , people would be treating it like the plague .
Fanboyism is a terrible disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2.
What the hell?!?!??!
So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
I'm going to have to hack the damn thing just so I can run an unapproved application?
Great.  Thanks for that, Apple.Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories :/), no flash support, no multitasking (oh great, so I can't have AIM and Safari open at the same time?
Epic Fail.
)...it just seems to be an extremely restricted device considering the $500 entry price.Third, what exactly are you getting for that price?
Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version.
For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade.
For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop!
But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.Fourth (and this isn't that big of a deal, but it is still a missed opportunity) Apple should have included a stylus with the system.
Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers.
If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet.
Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus.
Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.Honestly, my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system.
By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing...they should have either ported over OSX (which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes) or just built a new operating system from the ground up.
But no, they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they'll buy it!
They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it!Basically, this COULD have been an amazing device...but regardless of what they did right, Apple made some unbelievably stupid decisions that puts it firmly in the "what's the point" category for me.It is also worth mentioning that if this tablet had been announced with all the same features (both missing and included), but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo, people would be treating it like the plague.
Fanboyism is a terrible disease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936304</id>
	<title>New standards</title>
	<author>DemonBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264703520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh my, I am so amazing, I'm a total hacker, I run Windows! I mean, it's so open, and lets me do anything I want with it, I can write my own programs for it too! It's the hackers choice of OS!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my , I am so amazing , I 'm a total hacker , I run Windows !
I mean , it 's so open , and lets me do anything I want with it , I can write my own programs for it too !
It 's the hackers choice of OS !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my, I am so amazing, I'm a total hacker, I run Windows!
I mean, it's so open, and lets me do anything I want with it, I can write my own programs for it too!
It's the hackers choice of OS!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933630</id>
	<title>That's obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple fans want computers easy to use! Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple fans want computers easy to use !
Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple fans want computers easy to use!
Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939228</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>kencurry</author>
	<datestamp>1264710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating. The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.</p></div><p>Something I've learned: you can't take quotes like this and apply it everywhere all the time. The Hacker is going to create some consume some etc. <br> <br>

This device is not meant to be a laptop. This is meant for those looking for something a bit more than a phone but not a crappy laptop; which admittedly is not everyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating .
The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.Something I 've learned : you ca n't take quotes like this and apply it everywhere all the time .
The Hacker is going to create some consume some etc .
This device is not meant to be a laptop .
This is meant for those looking for something a bit more than a phone but not a crappy laptop ; which admittedly is not everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating.
The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.Something I've learned: you can't take quotes like this and apply it everywhere all the time.
The Hacker is going to create some consume some etc.
This device is not meant to be a laptop.
This is meant for those looking for something a bit more than a phone but not a crappy laptop; which admittedly is not everyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938454</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do Geeks assume all computing devices are made for them?  Geeks are the minority of the world's population.  Almost every NON-IT person I know uses a web browser and email. Period. Which is one in the same for many of them.  The iPad already has more features and capabilities than MOST people will use.</p><p>So just because it won't fit every obscure need of the power user doesn't mean it's a bad device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do Geeks assume all computing devices are made for them ?
Geeks are the minority of the world 's population .
Almost every NON-IT person I know uses a web browser and email .
Period. Which is one in the same for many of them .
The iPad already has more features and capabilities than MOST people will use.So just because it wo n't fit every obscure need of the power user does n't mean it 's a bad device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do Geeks assume all computing devices are made for them?
Geeks are the minority of the world's population.
Almost every NON-IT person I know uses a web browser and email.
Period. Which is one in the same for many of them.
The iPad already has more features and capabilities than MOST people will use.So just because it won't fit every obscure need of the power user doesn't mean it's a bad device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933964</id>
	<title>Freedom is the enemy for content makers.</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1264697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's big advantage in their recent Great Leap Forward was that they entered through the iPod.  The iPod required the aquiesence of the big group of Free computing haters in the MPAA/RIAA.  The fact is, that by being their freedom hating Apple selves, they managed to get these companies to release their precious content whereas before the only way to get such  content (apart from buying media and ripping it yourself) was, well, illegal..</p><p>Now, I suspect that the iPad is intended as a shot across the bow in the eBook market, which Amazon created the "iPod" for in the form of the Kindle.  Apple has an uphill struggle versus the Kindle, so they've given the iPad functionality that the Kindle doesn't have.  Will it be enough to dethrone the Kindle?  Time will tell.</p><p>In the meantime, poor engineer types like myself will troll around for discounted Chinese hardware that does the same type of thing in a less elegant way but for a fraction of the cost while preserving my precious freedom to tinker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's big advantage in their recent Great Leap Forward was that they entered through the iPod .
The iPod required the aquiesence of the big group of Free computing haters in the MPAA/RIAA .
The fact is , that by being their freedom hating Apple selves , they managed to get these companies to release their precious content whereas before the only way to get such content ( apart from buying media and ripping it yourself ) was , well , illegal..Now , I suspect that the iPad is intended as a shot across the bow in the eBook market , which Amazon created the " iPod " for in the form of the Kindle .
Apple has an uphill struggle versus the Kindle , so they 've given the iPad functionality that the Kindle does n't have .
Will it be enough to dethrone the Kindle ?
Time will tell.In the meantime , poor engineer types like myself will troll around for discounted Chinese hardware that does the same type of thing in a less elegant way but for a fraction of the cost while preserving my precious freedom to tinker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's big advantage in their recent Great Leap Forward was that they entered through the iPod.
The iPod required the aquiesence of the big group of Free computing haters in the MPAA/RIAA.
The fact is, that by being their freedom hating Apple selves, they managed to get these companies to release their precious content whereas before the only way to get such  content (apart from buying media and ripping it yourself) was, well, illegal..Now, I suspect that the iPad is intended as a shot across the bow in the eBook market, which Amazon created the "iPod" for in the form of the Kindle.
Apple has an uphill struggle versus the Kindle, so they've given the iPad functionality that the Kindle doesn't have.
Will it be enough to dethrone the Kindle?
Time will tell.In the meantime, poor engineer types like myself will troll around for discounted Chinese hardware that does the same type of thing in a less elegant way but for a fraction of the cost while preserving my precious freedom to tinker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947262</id>
	<title>Re:They can't possibly believe this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264760820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jobs was also on record saying there would not be a video iPod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs was also on record saying there would not be a video iPod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs was also on record saying there would not be a video iPod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935990</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife and I have said for years that tablets are stupid and will never be more than niche (we used to work together at a place the provided tablets as an option and very few people took advantage, many who did regretted it). The only people who *might* need (Wacom-like) tablets are artists. Otherwise the interface blows. Any competent person types faster than they write, and if you move to voice control there's no point in a tablet format to begin with. I think there's more future in something like MS Surface (cost and size regardless, future applications will probably use projection) for multi-touch manipulation than a tablet, simply because a tablet is too small a workspace to get more than one object and two fingers into comfortably.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife and I have said for years that tablets are stupid and will never be more than niche ( we used to work together at a place the provided tablets as an option and very few people took advantage , many who did regretted it ) .
The only people who * might * need ( Wacom-like ) tablets are artists .
Otherwise the interface blows .
Any competent person types faster than they write , and if you move to voice control there 's no point in a tablet format to begin with .
I think there 's more future in something like MS Surface ( cost and size regardless , future applications will probably use projection ) for multi-touch manipulation than a tablet , simply because a tablet is too small a workspace to get more than one object and two fingers into comfortably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife and I have said for years that tablets are stupid and will never be more than niche (we used to work together at a place the provided tablets as an option and very few people took advantage, many who did regretted it).
The only people who *might* need (Wacom-like) tablets are artists.
Otherwise the interface blows.
Any competent person types faster than they write, and if you move to voice control there's no point in a tablet format to begin with.
I think there's more future in something like MS Surface (cost and size regardless, future applications will probably use projection) for multi-touch manipulation than a tablet, simply because a tablet is too small a workspace to get more than one object and two fingers into comfortably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936220</id>
	<title>The iPad is</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1264703220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A product in search of a market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A product in search of a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A product in search of a market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935436</id>
	<title>Expensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the hell should we pay $500-800 for a tablet?</p><p>Tablet PCs aren't that much are they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell should we pay $ 500-800 for a tablet ? Tablet PCs are n't that much are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell should we pay $500-800 for a tablet?Tablet PCs aren't that much are they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948756</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264777320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"It doesn't have (feature that only ubergeeks care about) so no one is going to buy one."</p></div><p>Flash is only used by ubergeeks? Right.</p><p>I'd like to buy one for surfing from my coach but the lack of Flash kills it for casual surfing. I don't really like Flash but the fact is that a significant amount of sites I frequent use it, and many absolutely require it.</p><p>This is not a problem with my iPhone since with it I consume web content in a different way than I do from a "couchtop" browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It does n't have ( feature that only ubergeeks care about ) so no one is going to buy one .
" Flash is only used by ubergeeks ?
Right.I 'd like to buy one for surfing from my coach but the lack of Flash kills it for casual surfing .
I do n't really like Flash but the fact is that a significant amount of sites I frequent use it , and many absolutely require it.This is not a problem with my iPhone since with it I consume web content in a different way than I do from a " couchtop " browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It doesn't have (feature that only ubergeeks care about) so no one is going to buy one.
"Flash is only used by ubergeeks?
Right.I'd like to buy one for surfing from my coach but the lack of Flash kills it for casual surfing.
I don't really like Flash but the fact is that a significant amount of sites I frequent use it, and many absolutely require it.This is not a problem with my iPhone since with it I consume web content in a different way than I do from a "couchtop" browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936608</id>
	<title>They dont want a computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264704420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want a secretary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want a secretary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want a secretary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933726</id>
	<title>Over time...</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1264696380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the iPhone OS and OSX will merge (OS-XI) and the MacBook and the iPad form factors will merge.  In the future all Macs will look like the iPad, they will all run Apple manufactured chips, and the only content and programs they will run will be from an Apple app store.  Steve will then have realized his dream of being able to take a cut of everything that happens on an Apple device.  And it will be a consumers choice to be alright about this or not.  I'll probably be sort of alright with it on a (jailbroken) phone, but not on my main computing device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the iPhone OS and OSX will merge ( OS-XI ) and the MacBook and the iPad form factors will merge .
In the future all Macs will look like the iPad , they will all run Apple manufactured chips , and the only content and programs they will run will be from an Apple app store .
Steve will then have realized his dream of being able to take a cut of everything that happens on an Apple device .
And it will be a consumers choice to be alright about this or not .
I 'll probably be sort of alright with it on a ( jailbroken ) phone , but not on my main computing device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the iPhone OS and OSX will merge (OS-XI) and the MacBook and the iPad form factors will merge.
In the future all Macs will look like the iPad, they will all run Apple manufactured chips, and the only content and programs they will run will be from an Apple app store.
Steve will then have realized his dream of being able to take a cut of everything that happens on an Apple device.
And it will be a consumers choice to be alright about this or not.
I'll probably be sort of alright with it on a (jailbroken) phone, but not on my main computing device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1264698300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple keeps it simple: Here's what this does. It's elegant and does what it does very well. We don't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval. If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yep yep.  I've hated on Apple from the beginning, because I'm a hacker (in the take-it-apart/tinker/design/build sense) from way back and I very very much like to control all of the assets in my world.  And I too was offended at the iPhone's integrated battery.
</p><p>BUT...
</p><p>I bought an iPhone this year.  This is one asset that is so important that I just want it to WORK.  I don't want to worry about viruses, or ongoing maintenance.  This is my ONLY TELEPHONE LINE, and so I finally do approve of somebody keeping it locked down and pristine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple keeps it simple : Here 's what this does .
It 's elegant and does what it does very well .
We do n't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval .
If you want open and free , go somewhere else and take your chances.Yep yep .
I 've hated on Apple from the beginning , because I 'm a hacker ( in the take-it-apart/tinker/design/build sense ) from way back and I very very much like to control all of the assets in my world .
And I too was offended at the iPhone 's integrated battery .
BUT.. . I bought an iPhone this year .
This is one asset that is so important that I just want it to WORK .
I do n't want to worry about viruses , or ongoing maintenance .
This is my ONLY TELEPHONE LINE , and so I finally do approve of somebody keeping it locked down and pristine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple keeps it simple: Here's what this does.
It's elegant and does what it does very well.
We don't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval.
If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.Yep yep.
I've hated on Apple from the beginning, because I'm a hacker (in the take-it-apart/tinker/design/build sense) from way back and I very very much like to control all of the assets in my world.
And I too was offended at the iPhone's integrated battery.
BUT...
I bought an iPhone this year.
This is one asset that is so important that I just want it to WORK.
I don't want to worry about viruses, or ongoing maintenance.
This is my ONLY TELEPHONE LINE, and so I finally do approve of somebody keeping it locked down and pristine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947220</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264760280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the ipad works well, you can be sure apple will extend the concept to laptops. Oh wait, they've already announced a keyboard extension for the iPad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Personally, the more I look at the iPad, the more I like Android, Linux, even Windows!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ipad works well , you can be sure apple will extend the concept to laptops .
Oh wait , they 've already announced a keyboard extension for the iPad ...Personally , the more I look at the iPad , the more I like Android , Linux , even Windows !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ipad works well, you can be sure apple will extend the concept to laptops.
Oh wait, they've already announced a keyboard extension for the iPad ...Personally, the more I look at the iPad, the more I like Android, Linux, even Windows!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936450</id>
	<title>Maybe we need a new term for what this thing is..</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1264704000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a general purpose computer--it's severely restricted if you are comparing it to those standards.</p><p>It's more like a dedicated device--like a book reader, gaming platform, music player, GPS, DVD Player or a dedicated web browser--Just with the ability to switch modes.</p><p>If you look at it that way, it's pretty reasonable, it does many more functions than any of the other dedicated platforms.</p><p>It's really just a big iPod touch.  I didn't hear anyone say that the iPod touch set computing back--but this device is because it has a larger screen?</p><p>Still--it's not a replacement for a laptop or computer.  If anything, it should operate in conjunction with a computer--like the other iProducts do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a general purpose computer--it 's severely restricted if you are comparing it to those standards.It 's more like a dedicated device--like a book reader , gaming platform , music player , GPS , DVD Player or a dedicated web browser--Just with the ability to switch modes.If you look at it that way , it 's pretty reasonable , it does many more functions than any of the other dedicated platforms.It 's really just a big iPod touch .
I did n't hear anyone say that the iPod touch set computing back--but this device is because it has a larger screen ? Still--it 's not a replacement for a laptop or computer .
If anything , it should operate in conjunction with a computer--like the other iProducts do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a general purpose computer--it's severely restricted if you are comparing it to those standards.It's more like a dedicated device--like a book reader, gaming platform, music player, GPS, DVD Player or a dedicated web browser--Just with the ability to switch modes.If you look at it that way, it's pretty reasonable, it does many more functions than any of the other dedicated platforms.It's really just a big iPod touch.
I didn't hear anyone say that the iPod touch set computing back--but this device is because it has a larger screen?Still--it's not a replacement for a laptop or computer.
If anything, it should operate in conjunction with a computer--like the other iProducts do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937200</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's the same as iPod so no one is going to buy one."</p><p>"No one wants locked down software."</p><p>"It doesn't have a camera or standard ports, so no one is going to buy one."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's the same as iPod so no one is going to buy one .
" " No one wants locked down software .
" " It does n't have a camera or standard ports , so no one is going to buy one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's the same as iPod so no one is going to buy one.
""No one wants locked down software.
""It doesn't have a camera or standard ports, so no one is going to buy one.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938052</id>
	<title>Re:Nah, it is just a replay</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference. For one, Android is open source. Google is obviously not interested in controlling it at the level of Microsoft. Yes, they are pushing it forward, for now.</p><p>Yes, competition brings on lower prices, but it's also been very good for many companies. The smart phone market was overall boring and failing in many areas before Apple sparked it up again. Android is like MS-DOS in the sense of being something anyone can use, but it's not, in the sense of being inferior to Apple's product at the time. Android isn't yet as polished as some aspects of iPhone OS, but it's overall a better OS, better design, and hey... open source.</p><p>MS-DOS was pretty horrible, but it did a few useful things -- it allowed multiple companies to enter the computer business, under a common software platform. It let hardware guys innovate like hardware guys, without also having to be OS authors, too. There are big advantages to not allowing one vendor have too much power over you. I like the smart phone idea, but I don't necessarily want to move to a whole new set of applications, new OS, etc. every time I change network providers.</p><p>Google can't dominate software in the same way Microsoft did. Microsoft used MS-DOS and later Windows as the club by which to beat hardware companies into submission and get them to take Office, too. Google doesn't have a club, and so far, they don't seem to be interesting in selling apps, but rather making good ones you prefer to use. If they actually win by being better, it's hard to complain too loudly. And it's not like the iPxx devices... if you don't like Apple's browser, get a different phone. Otherwise, you're SOL. That's far, far worse than anything Microsoft inflicts on Windows users, even if the software is currently better (eg, Safari vs. IE).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference .
For one , Android is open source .
Google is obviously not interested in controlling it at the level of Microsoft .
Yes , they are pushing it forward , for now.Yes , competition brings on lower prices , but it 's also been very good for many companies .
The smart phone market was overall boring and failing in many areas before Apple sparked it up again .
Android is like MS-DOS in the sense of being something anyone can use , but it 's not , in the sense of being inferior to Apple 's product at the time .
Android is n't yet as polished as some aspects of iPhone OS , but it 's overall a better OS , better design , and hey... open source.MS-DOS was pretty horrible , but it did a few useful things -- it allowed multiple companies to enter the computer business , under a common software platform .
It let hardware guys innovate like hardware guys , without also having to be OS authors , too .
There are big advantages to not allowing one vendor have too much power over you .
I like the smart phone idea , but I do n't necessarily want to move to a whole new set of applications , new OS , etc .
every time I change network providers.Google ca n't dominate software in the same way Microsoft did .
Microsoft used MS-DOS and later Windows as the club by which to beat hardware companies into submission and get them to take Office , too .
Google does n't have a club , and so far , they do n't seem to be interesting in selling apps , but rather making good ones you prefer to use .
If they actually win by being better , it 's hard to complain too loudly .
And it 's not like the iPxx devices... if you do n't like Apple 's browser , get a different phone .
Otherwise , you 're SOL .
That 's far , far worse than anything Microsoft inflicts on Windows users , even if the software is currently better ( eg , Safari vs. IE ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference.
For one, Android is open source.
Google is obviously not interested in controlling it at the level of Microsoft.
Yes, they are pushing it forward, for now.Yes, competition brings on lower prices, but it's also been very good for many companies.
The smart phone market was overall boring and failing in many areas before Apple sparked it up again.
Android is like MS-DOS in the sense of being something anyone can use, but it's not, in the sense of being inferior to Apple's product at the time.
Android isn't yet as polished as some aspects of iPhone OS, but it's overall a better OS, better design, and hey... open source.MS-DOS was pretty horrible, but it did a few useful things -- it allowed multiple companies to enter the computer business, under a common software platform.
It let hardware guys innovate like hardware guys, without also having to be OS authors, too.
There are big advantages to not allowing one vendor have too much power over you.
I like the smart phone idea, but I don't necessarily want to move to a whole new set of applications, new OS, etc.
every time I change network providers.Google can't dominate software in the same way Microsoft did.
Microsoft used MS-DOS and later Windows as the club by which to beat hardware companies into submission and get them to take Office, too.
Google doesn't have a club, and so far, they don't seem to be interesting in selling apps, but rather making good ones you prefer to use.
If they actually win by being better, it's hard to complain too loudly.
And it's not like the iPxx devices... if you don't like Apple's browser, get a different phone.
Otherwise, you're SOL.
That's far, far worse than anything Microsoft inflicts on Windows users, even if the software is currently better (eg, Safari vs. IE).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939020</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if hacking were a chore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if hacking were a chore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if hacking were a chore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942158</id>
	<title>that about sums it up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pretty much agree read my blog<br>http://schwiz.net/blog/2010/macs-ipad/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pretty much agree read my bloghttp : //schwiz.net/blog/2010/macs-ipad/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pretty much agree read my bloghttp://schwiz.net/blog/2010/macs-ipad/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942052</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot has been overrun...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wah! Wah! People who bathe and speak to people in the real world are invading Mom's basement!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wah !
Wah ! People who bathe and speak to people in the real world are invading Mom 's basement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wah!
Wah! People who bathe and speak to people in the real world are invading Mom's basement!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945968</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because these people were wrong from a business standpoint doesn't make their argument generally wrong.  But there's always someone who wants to make a crayon color unavailable or even illegal.</p><p>I don't own an iphone.</p><p>And I look at anyone who owns one as if they are someone who regularly uses the word "technophile" to describe herself.  They are simply choosing and using a popular item, thinking it makes them look cool or is a neat tech solution, when it really simply shows how they wanted a status symbol, an "in" product, and other cliquish behavior otherwise indicating their inability to choose and decide amongst the plethora of available and often better products.</p><p>People who own ipods, the iphone, and even itouch--these people are fans.  Nothing more.  They aren't geeks.  This criticism does not extend to the desktop or laptop users--I only hope they release an ipad that isn't locked down.</p><p>People bash the whole "ipod" versus Creative solutions and the history of how those thought the ipod would fail were wrong--but they were right.  The masses chose a generally inferior solution because of the reputation of company that otherwise usually puts out good devices.  But the fact remains, Creative had a better device, not a platform.  Apple delivered an on demand store for music.  Basically, people who weren't creative or patient, bought into DRM when an electronic, non-DRM formats was available (CDs), and now Apple has this juggernaut where there are fucking over the entire tech segment.  Technophile luddites if you will.</p><p>If you have an iphone or itouch or ipod, I look down at you even more than someone using some version of MS Vista.</p><p>Apple IS what people were afraid MS was going to be in the mid to late 90s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because these people were wrong from a business standpoint does n't make their argument generally wrong .
But there 's always someone who wants to make a crayon color unavailable or even illegal.I do n't own an iphone.And I look at anyone who owns one as if they are someone who regularly uses the word " technophile " to describe herself .
They are simply choosing and using a popular item , thinking it makes them look cool or is a neat tech solution , when it really simply shows how they wanted a status symbol , an " in " product , and other cliquish behavior otherwise indicating their inability to choose and decide amongst the plethora of available and often better products.People who own ipods , the iphone , and even itouch--these people are fans .
Nothing more .
They are n't geeks .
This criticism does not extend to the desktop or laptop users--I only hope they release an ipad that is n't locked down.People bash the whole " ipod " versus Creative solutions and the history of how those thought the ipod would fail were wrong--but they were right .
The masses chose a generally inferior solution because of the reputation of company that otherwise usually puts out good devices .
But the fact remains , Creative had a better device , not a platform .
Apple delivered an on demand store for music .
Basically , people who were n't creative or patient , bought into DRM when an electronic , non-DRM formats was available ( CDs ) , and now Apple has this juggernaut where there are fucking over the entire tech segment .
Technophile luddites if you will.If you have an iphone or itouch or ipod , I look down at you even more than someone using some version of MS Vista.Apple IS what people were afraid MS was going to be in the mid to late 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because these people were wrong from a business standpoint doesn't make their argument generally wrong.
But there's always someone who wants to make a crayon color unavailable or even illegal.I don't own an iphone.And I look at anyone who owns one as if they are someone who regularly uses the word "technophile" to describe herself.
They are simply choosing and using a popular item, thinking it makes them look cool or is a neat tech solution, when it really simply shows how they wanted a status symbol, an "in" product, and other cliquish behavior otherwise indicating their inability to choose and decide amongst the plethora of available and often better products.People who own ipods, the iphone, and even itouch--these people are fans.
Nothing more.
They aren't geeks.
This criticism does not extend to the desktop or laptop users--I only hope they release an ipad that isn't locked down.People bash the whole "ipod" versus Creative solutions and the history of how those thought the ipod would fail were wrong--but they were right.
The masses chose a generally inferior solution because of the reputation of company that otherwise usually puts out good devices.
But the fact remains, Creative had a better device, not a platform.
Apple delivered an on demand store for music.
Basically, people who weren't creative or patient, bought into DRM when an electronic, non-DRM formats was available (CDs), and now Apple has this juggernaut where there are fucking over the entire tech segment.
Technophile luddites if you will.If you have an iphone or itouch or ipod, I look down at you even more than someone using some version of MS Vista.Apple IS what people were afraid MS was going to be in the mid to late 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937838</id>
	<title>you missed the point on appliances vs compters.</title>
	<author>rcleme05</author>
	<datestamp>1264707420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ipad is not a computer, it's a digital media appliance, as is most every modern phone, gps, e-reader, digital media player, and dedicated gaming platform on the market. <b> This class of function-specific digital devices is about reliability, user experience and performance. </b> A controlled operating environment attempts to consistently deliver those things by restricting the entropy induced by random user code. Boiled down, unbounded tweak-ability = break-ability. Do most consumers want to debug an appliance every time they add a feature?

If you want a general purpose computer, use a general purpose computer. I want my game box and my phone to just work, as the iPhone does. I want some simple customization THAT DOESN'T BREAK ANYTHING, which I get now from the app store. It's exactly the right model for 95\% of the user base who just wants the d@mn thing to work. GPS units proved it. The ipod proved it. The iPhone proved it again.

If I can get a fast web browser and digital media player on a cheap, reliable, gorgeous large-screen internet appliance that works through an entire trans-continental flight, without the liabilities of a conventional 'open' operating system, why the h3ll not?  Sign me up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ipad is not a computer , it 's a digital media appliance , as is most every modern phone , gps , e-reader , digital media player , and dedicated gaming platform on the market .
This class of function-specific digital devices is about reliability , user experience and performance .
A controlled operating environment attempts to consistently deliver those things by restricting the entropy induced by random user code .
Boiled down , unbounded tweak-ability = break-ability .
Do most consumers want to debug an appliance every time they add a feature ?
If you want a general purpose computer , use a general purpose computer .
I want my game box and my phone to just work , as the iPhone does .
I want some simple customization THAT DOES N'T BREAK ANYTHING , which I get now from the app store .
It 's exactly the right model for 95 \ % of the user base who just wants the d @ mn thing to work .
GPS units proved it .
The ipod proved it .
The iPhone proved it again .
If I can get a fast web browser and digital media player on a cheap , reliable , gorgeous large-screen internet appliance that works through an entire trans-continental flight , without the liabilities of a conventional 'open ' operating system , why the h3ll not ?
Sign me up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ipad is not a computer, it's a digital media appliance, as is most every modern phone, gps, e-reader, digital media player, and dedicated gaming platform on the market.
This class of function-specific digital devices is about reliability, user experience and performance.
A controlled operating environment attempts to consistently deliver those things by restricting the entropy induced by random user code.
Boiled down, unbounded tweak-ability = break-ability.
Do most consumers want to debug an appliance every time they add a feature?
If you want a general purpose computer, use a general purpose computer.
I want my game box and my phone to just work, as the iPhone does.
I want some simple customization THAT DOESN'T BREAK ANYTHING, which I get now from the app store.
It's exactly the right model for 95\% of the user base who just wants the d@mn thing to work.
GPS units proved it.
The ipod proved it.
The iPhone proved it again.
If I can get a fast web browser and digital media player on a cheap, reliable, gorgeous large-screen internet appliance that works through an entire trans-continental flight, without the liabilities of a conventional 'open' operating system, why the h3ll not?
Sign me up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944024</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1264685340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Tivo-ization" was never a threat to anyone's freedom.  It was a threat to RMS's agenda.  Tivo never advertised its hardware as able to run arbitrary software and it complied fully with the GPL.</p><p>The iPad is what GPL fanatics work themselves into a frenzy pretending the Tivo to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Tivo-ization " was never a threat to anyone 's freedom .
It was a threat to RMS 's agenda .
Tivo never advertised its hardware as able to run arbitrary software and it complied fully with the GPL.The iPad is what GPL fanatics work themselves into a frenzy pretending the Tivo to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Tivo-ization" was never a threat to anyone's freedom.
It was a threat to RMS's agenda.
Tivo never advertised its hardware as able to run arbitrary software and it complied fully with the GPL.The iPad is what GPL fanatics work themselves into a frenzy pretending the Tivo to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935850</id>
	<title>Subject : terminated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't be 6 months before we have it cracked and replace the whole god-dammed mess with proper linux. Then we'll get some virtualization going and put some windows on the fucker. And then and only then I'll buy one. I hated microsoft for so many years for their lack of creativity and efficiency.. But I love microsoft now compared to apple. Applites are like the elfs from terry pratchett's series: cold, sterile , "perfect" creations. I'm sorry, but as a famous fictional researcher said once , "perfect" leaves no room for improvement. I'd rather not be perfect. So I sit here and hack away day after day on my colinux/windows installation and try to transcend the bits and the bytes and the API's and the DLL's and the rings of my processor, until we are one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be 6 months before we have it cracked and replace the whole god-dammed mess with proper linux .
Then we 'll get some virtualization going and put some windows on the fucker .
And then and only then I 'll buy one .
I hated microsoft for so many years for their lack of creativity and efficiency.. But I love microsoft now compared to apple .
Applites are like the elfs from terry pratchett 's series : cold , sterile , " perfect " creations .
I 'm sorry , but as a famous fictional researcher said once , " perfect " leaves no room for improvement .
I 'd rather not be perfect .
So I sit here and hack away day after day on my colinux/windows installation and try to transcend the bits and the bytes and the API 's and the DLL 's and the rings of my processor , until we are one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be 6 months before we have it cracked and replace the whole god-dammed mess with proper linux.
Then we'll get some virtualization going and put some windows on the fucker.
And then and only then I'll buy one.
I hated microsoft for so many years for their lack of creativity and efficiency.. But I love microsoft now compared to apple.
Applites are like the elfs from terry pratchett's series: cold, sterile , "perfect" creations.
I'm sorry, but as a famous fictional researcher said once , "perfect" leaves no room for improvement.
I'd rather not be perfect.
So I sit here and hack away day after day on my colinux/windows installation and try to transcend the bits and the bytes and the API's and the DLL's and the rings of my processor, until we are one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934130</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1264697520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hate to break it to you but Microsoft does the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate to break it to you but Microsoft does the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate to break it to you but Microsoft does the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947322</id>
	<title>Re:They can't possibly believe this...</title>
	<author>richaemry</author>
	<datestamp>1264761480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jobs is only against DRM when it suits him. EFI is just hardware enabled DRM. No arguments about its superiority to BIOS hold water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs is only against DRM when it suits him .
EFI is just hardware enabled DRM .
No arguments about its superiority to BIOS hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs is only against DRM when it suits him.
EFI is just hardware enabled DRM.
No arguments about its superiority to BIOS hold water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936568</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264704300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tempted to mod you up just because you made it through the entire rant without saying, "sheeple."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tempted to mod you up just because you made it through the entire rant without saying , " sheeple .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tempted to mod you up just because you made it through the entire rant without saying, "sheeple.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938644</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Cheech Wizard</author>
	<datestamp>1264709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2.  What the hell?!?!??!  So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?</p></div><p> No one is making you buy anything. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? It's an *appliance* that you obviously aren't interested in. No more and no less. Bitching at Apple because they didn't design a device for you personally, with everything you personally want, is a bit silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , it is based on iPhone OS 3.2 .
What the hell ? ! ? ! ? ? !
So you 're telling me I 'm going to spend at minimum $ 500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone ?
No one is making you buy anything .
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning ?
It 's an * appliance * that you obviously are n't interested in .
No more and no less .
Bitching at Apple because they did n't design a device for you personally , with everything you personally want , is a bit silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2.
What the hell?!?!??!
So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
No one is making you buy anything.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
It's an *appliance* that you obviously aren't interested in.
No more and no less.
Bitching at Apple because they didn't design a device for you personally, with everything you personally want, is a bit silly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939452</id>
	<title>Shakeout in locked-down devices</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264711440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are now too many locked-down mostly-read devices, and there's going to be a shakeout.  Pick the wrong one and you're going to be screwed.
</p><ul>
<li>Kindle - slaved to Amazon</li>
<li>Nook - slaved to Barnes and Noble</li>
<li>Sony E-Reader - slaved to Sony, then Adobe</li>
<li>Bookeen - slaved to Adobe or Mobipocket, but not both; <a href="http://www.bookeen.com/overview/ebook-content.aspx" title="bookeen.com">"For legal reasons Mobipocket and Adobe DRM can not co-exist in the same device."</a> [bookeen.com]</li>
<li>PocketBook - "supports PDF, RTF, FB2, FB2.ZIP, TXT, HTML, DJVU, CHM, PRC, EPUB, DOC, TCR."</li>
<li>HanLin eBook - "PDF, TXT, RTF, DOC, CHM, FB2, HTM, WOLF, DJVU, LIT, EPUB, PPT, Mobipocket."</li>
<li>Apple tablet - Slaved to Apple</li>
<li>That new "publisher-friendly" e-books standard. (?)</li>
</ul><p>
There's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book\_device" title="wikipedia.org">table of what reads what</a> [wikipedia.org].
</p><p>
This incompatibility isn't going to last.  The market will support one or two incompatible standards.  Not five or ten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are now too many locked-down mostly-read devices , and there 's going to be a shakeout .
Pick the wrong one and you 're going to be screwed .
Kindle - slaved to Amazon Nook - slaved to Barnes and Noble Sony E-Reader - slaved to Sony , then Adobe Bookeen - slaved to Adobe or Mobipocket , but not both ; " For legal reasons Mobipocket and Adobe DRM can not co-exist in the same device .
" [ bookeen.com ] PocketBook - " supports PDF , RTF , FB2 , FB2.ZIP , TXT , HTML , DJVU , CHM , PRC , EPUB , DOC , TCR .
" HanLin eBook - " PDF , TXT , RTF , DOC , CHM , FB2 , HTM , WOLF , DJVU , LIT , EPUB , PPT , Mobipocket .
" Apple tablet - Slaved to Apple That new " publisher-friendly " e-books standard .
( ? ) There 's a table of what reads what [ wikipedia.org ] .
This incompatibility is n't going to last .
The market will support one or two incompatible standards .
Not five or ten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are now too many locked-down mostly-read devices, and there's going to be a shakeout.
Pick the wrong one and you're going to be screwed.
Kindle - slaved to Amazon
Nook - slaved to Barnes and Noble
Sony E-Reader - slaved to Sony, then Adobe
Bookeen - slaved to Adobe or Mobipocket, but not both; "For legal reasons Mobipocket and Adobe DRM can not co-exist in the same device.
" [bookeen.com]
PocketBook - "supports PDF, RTF, FB2, FB2.ZIP, TXT, HTML, DJVU, CHM, PRC, EPUB, DOC, TCR.
"
HanLin eBook - "PDF, TXT, RTF, DOC, CHM, FB2, HTM, WOLF, DJVU, LIT, EPUB, PPT, Mobipocket.
"
Apple tablet - Slaved to Apple
That new "publisher-friendly" e-books standard.
(?)

There's a table of what reads what [wikipedia.org].
This incompatibility isn't going to last.
The market will support one or two incompatible standards.
Not five or ten.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939386</id>
	<title>Backwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically the complaint is that computers are getting more like consumer appliances? How is that a bad thing? Appliance computing, well certainly not a one-size-fits-all solution, is likely to appeal to a lot of people who are not, and don't want to be, highly computer literate.</p><p>Strikes me as a huge step to the side, offering a parallel way of doing things. Does it do less than a typical personal computer? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Wholly depends on the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically the complaint is that computers are getting more like consumer appliances ?
How is that a bad thing ?
Appliance computing , well certainly not a one-size-fits-all solution , is likely to appeal to a lot of people who are not , and do n't want to be , highly computer literate.Strikes me as a huge step to the side , offering a parallel way of doing things .
Does it do less than a typical personal computer ?
Yes. Is that a bad thing ?
Wholly depends on the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically the complaint is that computers are getting more like consumer appliances?
How is that a bad thing?
Appliance computing, well certainly not a one-size-fits-all solution, is likely to appeal to a lot of people who are not, and don't want to be, highly computer literate.Strikes me as a huge step to the side, offering a parallel way of doing things.
Does it do less than a typical personal computer?
Yes. Is that a bad thing?
Wholly depends on the user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30957540</id>
	<title>I'm SO sick of car analogies</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1264771140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm SO sick of car analogies</p><p>
If I read one more car analogy I'm going to run out to my car, get it rolling in neutral and lay my head in front of the wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm SO sick of car analogies If I read one more car analogy I 'm going to run out to my car , get it rolling in neutral and lay my head in front of the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm SO sick of car analogies
If I read one more car analogy I'm going to run out to my car, get it rolling in neutral and lay my head in front of the wheel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945236</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Webz</author>
	<datestamp>1264694880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cried... So beautiful, this comment. Baa on, my brother. Baa on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cried... So beautiful , this comment .
Baa on , my brother .
Baa on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cried... So beautiful, this comment.
Baa on, my brother.
Baa on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</id>
	<title>I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but anyone who buys an Apple product *NOT* expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter's vagina deserves to be disappointed. Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like buying something from Sony and being shocked when it only supports some bullshit propriety storage or media format than only Sony makes. Apple is about doing what Steve tells you to do, or at least says is okay for you to do. If Apple could get away with locking down their Macbooks and other PC's so that you could only download their approved software, they probably would.</p><p>Apple keeps it simple: Here's what this does. It's elegant and does what it does very well. We don't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval. If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I honestly do n't mean this as a troll , but anyone who buys an Apple product * NOT * expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter 's vagina deserves to be disappointed .
Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like buying something from Sony and being shocked when it only supports some bullshit propriety storage or media format than only Sony makes .
Apple is about doing what Steve tells you to do , or at least says is okay for you to do .
If Apple could get away with locking down their Macbooks and other PC 's so that you could only download their approved software , they probably would.Apple keeps it simple : Here 's what this does .
It 's elegant and does what it does very well .
We do n't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval .
If you want open and free , go somewhere else and take your chances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but anyone who buys an Apple product *NOT* expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter's vagina deserves to be disappointed.
Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like buying something from Sony and being shocked when it only supports some bullshit propriety storage or media format than only Sony makes.
Apple is about doing what Steve tells you to do, or at least says is okay for you to do.
If Apple could get away with locking down their Macbooks and other PC's so that you could only download their approved software, they probably would.Apple keeps it simple: Here's what this does.
It's elegant and does what it does very well.
We don't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval.
If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933830</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1264696620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?</p></div><p>Because you can't.  See, the problem is not the lockdown.  I'd be OK with that as some people <i>need</i> to be locked down, and they know it.  These are the same people who will purchase this product.  That's what choice is all about.</p><p>Except,there really is no choice.  If I were to "design" (copy) the iPad with all the neat little features the iPad has (multitouch, the way you slide objects and pages around etc.) and release it with a fully open OS with no restrictions on how it is used or what it runs, I wouldn't get my first one out the door before a horde of Apple lawyers break down my door with a flurry of patent infringement lawsuits.  Even if I could beat some or all of them, the court costs and the years waiting for a resolution would bankrupt me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Attacking Apple 's products is one thing .
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete , and let the marketplace decide ? Because you ca n't .
See , the problem is not the lockdown .
I 'd be OK with that as some people need to be locked down , and they know it .
These are the same people who will purchase this product .
That 's what choice is all about.Except,there really is no choice .
If I were to " design " ( copy ) the iPad with all the neat little features the iPad has ( multitouch , the way you slide objects and pages around etc .
) and release it with a fully open OS with no restrictions on how it is used or what it runs , I would n't get my first one out the door before a horde of Apple lawyers break down my door with a flurry of patent infringement lawsuits .
Even if I could beat some or all of them , the court costs and the years waiting for a resolution would bankrupt me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attacking Apple's products is one thing.
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?Because you can't.
See, the problem is not the lockdown.
I'd be OK with that as some people need to be locked down, and they know it.
These are the same people who will purchase this product.
That's what choice is all about.Except,there really is no choice.
If I were to "design" (copy) the iPad with all the neat little features the iPad has (multitouch, the way you slide objects and pages around etc.
) and release it with a fully open OS with no restrictions on how it is used or what it runs, I wouldn't get my first one out the door before a horde of Apple lawyers break down my door with a flurry of patent infringement lawsuits.
Even if I could beat some or all of them, the court costs and the years waiting for a resolution would bankrupt me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946654</id>
	<title>Re:Consumers vs. Programmers</title>
	<author>Bynrdskynrd</author>
	<datestamp>1264796700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this is where we get that "consumer vs. programmer" argument. If that's the case, would a lot of *nix fans that like CoD be bitching at the company for NOT making a version that is compatible? Where's the target audience? <br>
And yes, you can say that the general public isn't aware of alternatives, but if the OSS crowd doesn't make a user-friendly product (HELLO! WI-FI DRIVERS!!!111), then why are they still the 'Third Wheel'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is where we get that " consumer vs. programmer " argument .
If that 's the case , would a lot of * nix fans that like CoD be bitching at the company for NOT making a version that is compatible ?
Where 's the target audience ?
And yes , you can say that the general public is n't aware of alternatives , but if the OSS crowd does n't make a user-friendly product ( HELLO !
WI-FI DRIVERS ! !
! 111 ) , then why are they still the 'Third Wheel ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is where we get that "consumer vs. programmer" argument.
If that's the case, would a lot of *nix fans that like CoD be bitching at the company for NOT making a version that is compatible?
Where's the target audience?
And yes, you can say that the general public isn't aware of alternatives, but if the OSS crowd doesn't make a user-friendly product (HELLO!
WI-FI DRIVERS!!
!111), then why are they still the 'Third Wheel'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934490</id>
	<title>It's Apple...</title>
	<author>PottedMeat</author>
	<datestamp>1264698540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have an Apple device and never have specifically because I'm not given enough control over them.  This is nothing new.  If this device doesn't offer me the openness that I want, I'll pass without letting it hurt my feelings.
<br> <br>
Each year there seems to be more whiners and squeakers complaining that some new device isn't what they wanted it to be or doesn't have this or that.  The iPad is what is is!  You now know what it is!  Acknowledge that and move on!
<br> <br>
Geez, don't stand next to a Porsche and bitch about the mileage!  Don't stand next to a Kia and bitch about its lack of performance!
<br> <br>
And please tell me that so many "smart" people didn't really expect some miracle, magic bullet device that executed all other Apple products?! LOL</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have an Apple device and never have specifically because I 'm not given enough control over them .
This is nothing new .
If this device does n't offer me the openness that I want , I 'll pass without letting it hurt my feelings .
Each year there seems to be more whiners and squeakers complaining that some new device is n't what they wanted it to be or does n't have this or that .
The iPad is what is is !
You now know what it is !
Acknowledge that and move on !
Geez , do n't stand next to a Porsche and bitch about the mileage !
Do n't stand next to a Kia and bitch about its lack of performance !
And please tell me that so many " smart " people did n't really expect some miracle , magic bullet device that executed all other Apple products ? !
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have an Apple device and never have specifically because I'm not given enough control over them.
This is nothing new.
If this device doesn't offer me the openness that I want, I'll pass without letting it hurt my feelings.
Each year there seems to be more whiners and squeakers complaining that some new device isn't what they wanted it to be or doesn't have this or that.
The iPad is what is is!
You now know what it is!
Acknowledge that and move on!
Geez, don't stand next to a Porsche and bitch about the mileage!
Don't stand next to a Kia and bitch about its lack of performance!
And please tell me that so many "smart" people didn't really expect some miracle, magic bullet device that executed all other Apple products?!
LOL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep yep. People (especially here) missing the point of Apple is pretty common. Skimmed the iPad article yesterday and had nothing but iPhone flashbacks.</p><p>"It's derivative."</p><p>"It's the same as (crappy, unpolished, user-hostile device that didn't sell) so no one is going to buy one."</p><p>"The hardware has been out for (absurd number of years) so Apple has utterly stopped innovating and will be going out of business next year."</p><p>"No one wants (feature that everyone wants)."</p><p>"It doesn't have (feature that only ubergeeks care about) so no one is going to buy one."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep yep .
People ( especially here ) missing the point of Apple is pretty common .
Skimmed the iPad article yesterday and had nothing but iPhone flashbacks .
" It 's derivative .
" " It 's the same as ( crappy , unpolished , user-hostile device that did n't sell ) so no one is going to buy one .
" " The hardware has been out for ( absurd number of years ) so Apple has utterly stopped innovating and will be going out of business next year .
" " No one wants ( feature that everyone wants ) .
" " It does n't have ( feature that only ubergeeks care about ) so no one is going to buy one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep yep.
People (especially here) missing the point of Apple is pretty common.
Skimmed the iPad article yesterday and had nothing but iPhone flashbacks.
"It's derivative.
""It's the same as (crappy, unpolished, user-hostile device that didn't sell) so no one is going to buy one.
""The hardware has been out for (absurd number of years) so Apple has utterly stopped innovating and will be going out of business next year.
""No one wants (feature that everyone wants).
""It doesn't have (feature that only ubergeeks care about) so no one is going to buy one.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934068</id>
	<title>iPad is the Kindle Killer not a computer</title>
	<author>HommeDeJava</author>
	<datestamp>1264697340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The troll did not understand or he pretended not to understand. The iPad is a consumer device not a computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The troll did not understand or he pretended not to understand .
The iPad is a consumer device not a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The troll did not understand or he pretended not to understand.
The iPad is a consumer device not a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936804</id>
	<title>As usual the greater /. community is...</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264704900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much utterly clueless.</p><p>The opinions of the typical<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'r represnt maybe 1/10000 of the general population of computer users.  Yes you all want to tinker with the bits under the hood, you all want to be able to do xyz, but guess what, YOU are not the intended users of this thing.</p><p>I can see this thing in doctors offices in a big hurry.  Right now if you go to Kaiser or a lot of hospitals or doctors offices they aer either dragging you into a room with a Dell something or other, or they are dragging around a laptop of various sizes to be able to take notes.</p><p>It has a high res screen, look at your x-rays at your bedside.  Note the chart at your bedside, send in the pharmacy order, etc. etc.</p><p>An architect with all the designes on-line at at 3G speeds showing you his latest rendering, etc. etc.</p><p>There will be new apps to go along with the over 100000 apps that already exist for this device and they will be coming fast.</p><p>You want $$$ shell out your 99 bucks and start coding big important apps and you will be doing very well.  You don;t need the app store you just code, compile and test and upload to the device. </p><p>Stop bitching because you can't make it run whatever app and make some money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much utterly clueless.The opinions of the typical / .
'r represnt maybe 1/10000 of the general population of computer users .
Yes you all want to tinker with the bits under the hood , you all want to be able to do xyz , but guess what , YOU are not the intended users of this thing.I can see this thing in doctors offices in a big hurry .
Right now if you go to Kaiser or a lot of hospitals or doctors offices they aer either dragging you into a room with a Dell something or other , or they are dragging around a laptop of various sizes to be able to take notes.It has a high res screen , look at your x-rays at your bedside .
Note the chart at your bedside , send in the pharmacy order , etc .
etc.An architect with all the designes on-line at at 3G speeds showing you his latest rendering , etc .
etc.There will be new apps to go along with the over 100000 apps that already exist for this device and they will be coming fast.You want $ $ $ shell out your 99 bucks and start coding big important apps and you will be doing very well .
You don ; t need the app store you just code , compile and test and upload to the device .
Stop bitching because you ca n't make it run whatever app and make some money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much utterly clueless.The opinions of the typical /.
'r represnt maybe 1/10000 of the general population of computer users.
Yes you all want to tinker with the bits under the hood, you all want to be able to do xyz, but guess what, YOU are not the intended users of this thing.I can see this thing in doctors offices in a big hurry.
Right now if you go to Kaiser or a lot of hospitals or doctors offices they aer either dragging you into a room with a Dell something or other, or they are dragging around a laptop of various sizes to be able to take notes.It has a high res screen, look at your x-rays at your bedside.
Note the chart at your bedside, send in the pharmacy order, etc.
etc.An architect with all the designes on-line at at 3G speeds showing you his latest rendering, etc.
etc.There will be new apps to go along with the over 100000 apps that already exist for this device and they will be coming fast.You want $$$ shell out your 99 bucks and start coding big important apps and you will be doing very well.
You don;t need the app store you just code, compile and test and upload to the device.
Stop bitching because you can't make it run whatever app and make some money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939438</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is also worth mentioning that if this tablet had been announced with all the same features (both missing and included), but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo, people would be treating it like the plague. Fanboyism is a terrible disease.</p></div><p>Quite the opposite: if Microsoft made intuitive and functional objects like Apple's series of iStuff, then Microsoft products wouldn't be treated like the plague.</p><p>If Google or somebody wrote the code to put a highly functional Linux distribution (inc. multitouch, etc) on a tablet, I would buy that. But Chrome OS on a netbook looks like the best we're going to get.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also worth mentioning that if this tablet had been announced with all the same features ( both missing and included ) , but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo , people would be treating it like the plague .
Fanboyism is a terrible disease.Quite the opposite : if Microsoft made intuitive and functional objects like Apple 's series of iStuff , then Microsoft products would n't be treated like the plague.If Google or somebody wrote the code to put a highly functional Linux distribution ( inc. multitouch , etc ) on a tablet , I would buy that .
But Chrome OS on a netbook looks like the best we 're going to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also worth mentioning that if this tablet had been announced with all the same features (both missing and included), but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo, people would be treating it like the plague.
Fanboyism is a terrible disease.Quite the opposite: if Microsoft made intuitive and functional objects like Apple's series of iStuff, then Microsoft products wouldn't be treated like the plague.If Google or somebody wrote the code to put a highly functional Linux distribution (inc. multitouch, etc) on a tablet, I would buy that.
But Chrome OS on a netbook looks like the best we're going to get.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934876</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. It's not a general computing device. Like the iPhone, it's a douche bag identification aid for the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
It 's not a general computing device .
Like the iPhone , it 's a douche bag identification aid for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
It's not a general computing device.
Like the iPhone, it's a douche bag identification aid for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933624</id>
	<title>Pronostics</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264696080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like</p></div><p>A brain-implanted chip that makes clients REALLY "think different" ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look likeA brain-implanted chip that makes clients REALLY " think different " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look likeA brain-implanted chip that makes clients REALLY "think different" ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935518</id>
	<title>Comparison to laptops instead of Kindle</title>
	<author>homesnatch</author>
	<datestamp>1264701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can choose to look at this compared to a laptop, which would make it "defective" or you could look at this compared to a Kindle, which makes it far superior.  I don't want it for</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can choose to look at this compared to a laptop , which would make it " defective " or you could look at this compared to a Kindle , which makes it far superior .
I do n't want it for</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can choose to look at this compared to a laptop, which would make it "defective" or you could look at this compared to a Kindle, which makes it far superior.
I don't want it for</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934172</id>
	<title>Yeah, epic failure.</title>
	<author>Ohmaar</author>
	<datestamp>1264697580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because we've all seen what a dismal failure the iPod/iPhone/Touch devices and the App store have been.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we 've all seen what a dismal failure the iPod/iPhone/Touch devices and the App store have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we've all seen what a dismal failure the iPod/iPhone/Touch devices and the App store have been.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945624</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating. The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.</p></div><p>He's not selling this device to the boons of society. He's selling it to the drains.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating .
The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.He 's not selling this device to the boons of society .
He 's selling it to the drains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating.
The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.He's not selling this device to the boons of society.
He's selling it to the drains.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945110</id>
	<title>Apple wants out of X86</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264693800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>OS X is not locked down. This is something that started with the iPhone.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It will make it there, by hook or by crook they will lock it down.<br> <br>

People accepting the lock-in on the iphone is just the beginning, as another said on this thread buying Apple is accepting that you will do as Apple say you will with your devices.<br> <br>

The Ipad is the first step towards weaning you off any kind of freedom with your computer, Apple would like nothing better then to wall up every device you own. This is the first sign that Apple wants out of the X86 market, I wouldn't be surprised if the Macbook and Mac mini make a disappearance soon, then the Macbook pro's and Imac's convert to Arm Architecture using a similar OS. Of course the fanboys will lap this up. Apple no longer makes computers, not that they did as they have only sold the iMage for the last decade.<br> <br>

Mark my words, the x86 mac is dying, Adobe have seen the writing and are putting more effort into CS on Windows and it's not like Apple have never switched processor arch's before without caring about the consequences, Apple only went to x86 in the first place because IBM couldn't supply them with the PPC chips they wanted (remember that IBM supplies the PPC chips in the Xbox360, PS3 and Wii, so loosing apple was like a mossie bite to them). Now they will make the switch to ARM and you fanboys will like it.<br> <br>

I have other shocking predictions but you aren't ready for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is not locked down .
This is something that started with the iPhone .
It will make it there , by hook or by crook they will lock it down .
People accepting the lock-in on the iphone is just the beginning , as another said on this thread buying Apple is accepting that you will do as Apple say you will with your devices .
The Ipad is the first step towards weaning you off any kind of freedom with your computer , Apple would like nothing better then to wall up every device you own .
This is the first sign that Apple wants out of the X86 market , I would n't be surprised if the Macbook and Mac mini make a disappearance soon , then the Macbook pro 's and Imac 's convert to Arm Architecture using a similar OS .
Of course the fanboys will lap this up .
Apple no longer makes computers , not that they did as they have only sold the iMage for the last decade .
Mark my words , the x86 mac is dying , Adobe have seen the writing and are putting more effort into CS on Windows and it 's not like Apple have never switched processor arch 's before without caring about the consequences , Apple only went to x86 in the first place because IBM could n't supply them with the PPC chips they wanted ( remember that IBM supplies the PPC chips in the Xbox360 , PS3 and Wii , so loosing apple was like a mossie bite to them ) .
Now they will make the switch to ARM and you fanboys will like it .
I have other shocking predictions but you are n't ready for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is not locked down.
This is something that started with the iPhone.
It will make it there, by hook or by crook they will lock it down.
People accepting the lock-in on the iphone is just the beginning, as another said on this thread buying Apple is accepting that you will do as Apple say you will with your devices.
The Ipad is the first step towards weaning you off any kind of freedom with your computer, Apple would like nothing better then to wall up every device you own.
This is the first sign that Apple wants out of the X86 market, I wouldn't be surprised if the Macbook and Mac mini make a disappearance soon, then the Macbook pro's and Imac's convert to Arm Architecture using a similar OS.
Of course the fanboys will lap this up.
Apple no longer makes computers, not that they did as they have only sold the iMage for the last decade.
Mark my words, the x86 mac is dying, Adobe have seen the writing and are putting more effort into CS on Windows and it's not like Apple have never switched processor arch's before without caring about the consequences, Apple only went to x86 in the first place because IBM couldn't supply them with the PPC chips they wanted (remember that IBM supplies the PPC chips in the Xbox360, PS3 and Wii, so loosing apple was like a mossie bite to them).
Now they will make the switch to ARM and you fanboys will like it.
I have other shocking predictions but you aren't ready for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933822</id>
	<title>Limited sharing without App Store</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Apple's site (http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/distribute.html) describing the iPhone developer program:</p><blockquote><div><p>The Standard and Enterprise Programs allow you to share your application with up to 100 other iPhone or iPod touch users with Ad Hoc distribution. Share your application through email or by posting it to a web site or server.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, by implication, you can get apps onto it without a copy of the SDK and without going via the App store. I presume that the iPad will work the same way. Not ideal, but not completely closed either.</p><p>I don't know how or if they police the 100-copy limit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Apple 's site ( http : //developer.apple.com/iphone/program/distribute.html ) describing the iPhone developer program : The Standard and Enterprise Programs allow you to share your application with up to 100 other iPhone or iPod touch users with Ad Hoc distribution .
Share your application through email or by posting it to a web site or server.So , by implication , you can get apps onto it without a copy of the SDK and without going via the App store .
I presume that the iPad will work the same way .
Not ideal , but not completely closed either.I do n't know how or if they police the 100-copy limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Apple's site (http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/distribute.html) describing the iPhone developer program:The Standard and Enterprise Programs allow you to share your application with up to 100 other iPhone or iPod touch users with Ad Hoc distribution.
Share your application through email or by posting it to a web site or server.So, by implication, you can get apps onto it without a copy of the SDK and without going via the App store.
I presume that the iPad will work the same way.
Not ideal, but not completely closed either.I don't know how or if they police the 100-copy limit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934084</id>
	<title>Still lacking in just three areas....</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1264697400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>A high-contrast non-emissive display that, like paper, gains improved readability in brighter light... readable under any conditions from a desk-lamp to direct sunlight.</li>
<li>A zero-power display, also like paper... consuming *NO* battery power while the display is not updating and the user is not actively interacting with the device in some way such as touching the screen.  Battery life could then go from hours to days, or even weeks.  To be frank, I'd be quite satisfied with a system that only consumed as much power as standby mode when the display isn't updating and the user isn't touching the screen.</li>
<li>Letter sized form factor...  Most of the stuff I read is formatted for 8.5x11" (that would be about a 14" diagonal, according to pythagoras) and I would strongly prefer to look at such documents without having to zoom or pan around the display.</li>
</ol><p>
As long as the device is capable of opening user-documents that don't have any DRM, I don't really care if it's got DRM everywhere else.
</p><p>
For what it's worth, my wife saw Apple's press release video and she heavily hinted that I ought to be buying her one for our next anniversary.
</p><p>
I admit that I'm almost sold too... but it needs to achieve the points I remarked above before I'll put my money down on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A high-contrast non-emissive display that , like paper , gains improved readability in brighter light... readable under any conditions from a desk-lamp to direct sunlight .
A zero-power display , also like paper... consuming * NO * battery power while the display is not updating and the user is not actively interacting with the device in some way such as touching the screen .
Battery life could then go from hours to days , or even weeks .
To be frank , I 'd be quite satisfied with a system that only consumed as much power as standby mode when the display is n't updating and the user is n't touching the screen .
Letter sized form factor... Most of the stuff I read is formatted for 8.5x11 " ( that would be about a 14 " diagonal , according to pythagoras ) and I would strongly prefer to look at such documents without having to zoom or pan around the display .
As long as the device is capable of opening user-documents that do n't have any DRM , I do n't really care if it 's got DRM everywhere else .
For what it 's worth , my wife saw Apple 's press release video and she heavily hinted that I ought to be buying her one for our next anniversary .
I admit that I 'm almost sold too... but it needs to achieve the points I remarked above before I 'll put my money down on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A high-contrast non-emissive display that, like paper, gains improved readability in brighter light... readable under any conditions from a desk-lamp to direct sunlight.
A zero-power display, also like paper... consuming *NO* battery power while the display is not updating and the user is not actively interacting with the device in some way such as touching the screen.
Battery life could then go from hours to days, or even weeks.
To be frank, I'd be quite satisfied with a system that only consumed as much power as standby mode when the display isn't updating and the user isn't touching the screen.
Letter sized form factor...  Most of the stuff I read is formatted for 8.5x11" (that would be about a 14" diagonal, according to pythagoras) and I would strongly prefer to look at such documents without having to zoom or pan around the display.
As long as the device is capable of opening user-documents that don't have any DRM, I don't really care if it's got DRM everywhere else.
For what it's worth, my wife saw Apple's press release video and she heavily hinted that I ought to be buying her one for our next anniversary.
I admit that I'm almost sold too... but it needs to achieve the points I remarked above before I'll put my money down on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934302</id>
	<title>End users..</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1264698060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has choice done? It's given us the chaos of spam, malware, worms etc...</p><p>The average consumer should get a locked down device such as what Apple are proposing, a limited device with a closed market. And you do realise this is really no different to a games console.</p><p>Full blown computers should be reserved for those of us who know how to manage them responsibly.</p><p>The only thing they should do, is ensure that the locked down devices and the apps on them use standard APIs and formats, so that those of us with full blown machines and the knowledge to use them can still easily communicate with the non technically literate.</p><p>Computers as they are today are simply too complex and difficult to manage for the average consumer, so you either give them something simple or you take the management out of their hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has choice done ?
It 's given us the chaos of spam , malware , worms etc...The average consumer should get a locked down device such as what Apple are proposing , a limited device with a closed market .
And you do realise this is really no different to a games console.Full blown computers should be reserved for those of us who know how to manage them responsibly.The only thing they should do , is ensure that the locked down devices and the apps on them use standard APIs and formats , so that those of us with full blown machines and the knowledge to use them can still easily communicate with the non technically literate.Computers as they are today are simply too complex and difficult to manage for the average consumer , so you either give them something simple or you take the management out of their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has choice done?
It's given us the chaos of spam, malware, worms etc...The average consumer should get a locked down device such as what Apple are proposing, a limited device with a closed market.
And you do realise this is really no different to a games console.Full blown computers should be reserved for those of us who know how to manage them responsibly.The only thing they should do, is ensure that the locked down devices and the apps on them use standard APIs and formats, so that those of us with full blown machines and the knowledge to use them can still easily communicate with the non technically literate.Computers as they are today are simply too complex and difficult to manage for the average consumer, so you either give them something simple or you take the management out of their hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935000</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control. Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?</p><p>Doesn't migrating to the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch model mean that social engineering has much less of an impact to the security of a system? I would think this would be a good thing.</p></div><p>Isnt free will what allows people to commit crimes.  Perhaps the state should take that away from us.</p><p>Yes, control over ones own computer has resulted in proliferation of viruses, but it also allows a lot of people to do a lot of cool things with their computers that the manufacturer never intended. There are too many corner cases of users for any one manufacturer to satisfy them all.  The standard configuration can not possibly meet the needs of all consumers.</p><p>Secondly, most software engineers and IT people I know started out tinkering on their own computers.  Thats what sparked their interest.  Locking down a device prevents people from playing around and trying different things on them.  If all computer manufacturers did this then we would probably have a lot less people getting interested in technical careers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control .
Why should average users have control over their computer ?
Is n't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows ? Does n't migrating to the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch model mean that social engineering has much less of an impact to the security of a system ?
I would think this would be a good thing.Isnt free will what allows people to commit crimes .
Perhaps the state should take that away from us.Yes , control over ones own computer has resulted in proliferation of viruses , but it also allows a lot of people to do a lot of cool things with their computers that the manufacturer never intended .
There are too many corner cases of users for any one manufacturer to satisfy them all .
The standard configuration can not possibly meet the needs of all consumers.Secondly , most software engineers and IT people I know started out tinkering on their own computers .
Thats what sparked their interest .
Locking down a device prevents people from playing around and trying different things on them .
If all computer manufacturers did this then we would probably have a lot less people getting interested in technical careers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control.
Why should average users have control over their computer?
Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?Doesn't migrating to the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch model mean that social engineering has much less of an impact to the security of a system?
I would think this would be a good thing.Isnt free will what allows people to commit crimes.
Perhaps the state should take that away from us.Yes, control over ones own computer has resulted in proliferation of viruses, but it also allows a lot of people to do a lot of cool things with their computers that the manufacturer never intended.
There are too many corner cases of users for any one manufacturer to satisfy them all.
The standard configuration can not possibly meet the needs of all consumers.Secondly, most software engineers and IT people I know started out tinkering on their own computers.
Thats what sparked their interest.
Locking down a device prevents people from playing around and trying different things on them.
If all computer manufacturers did this then we would probably have a lot less people getting interested in technical careers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30977802</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about finding a way of just doing nothing without getting bored: Can you people do that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about finding a way of just doing nothing without getting bored : Can you people do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about finding a way of just doing nothing without getting bored: Can you people do that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937344</id>
	<title>Re:Not a PC - More like TV + Cable</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1264706340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.</p></div><p>
The phrase I am beginning to like is "mobile computing device". Yeah, it smacks a bit of marketing lingo but it has a lot of accuracy to it. It's a mobile device that's easily portable (more so than a laptop) and it is more powerful than a phone but not as powerful as a laptop - mobile computing device.<br> <br>
Other than that, I agree with most of your post. This is a yet another product that demonstrates Apple doesn't necessarily target the uber geeks of society and we, most certainly, do not represent the majority. Should be interesting to see if Apple set their target right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance .
The phrase I am beginning to like is " mobile computing device " .
Yeah , it smacks a bit of marketing lingo but it has a lot of accuracy to it .
It 's a mobile device that 's easily portable ( more so than a laptop ) and it is more powerful than a phone but not as powerful as a laptop - mobile computing device .
Other than that , I agree with most of your post .
This is a yet another product that demonstrates Apple does n't necessarily target the uber geeks of society and we , most certainly , do not represent the majority .
Should be interesting to see if Apple set their target right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.
The phrase I am beginning to like is "mobile computing device".
Yeah, it smacks a bit of marketing lingo but it has a lot of accuracy to it.
It's a mobile device that's easily portable (more so than a laptop) and it is more powerful than a phone but not as powerful as a laptop - mobile computing device.
Other than that, I agree with most of your post.
This is a yet another product that demonstrates Apple doesn't necessarily target the uber geeks of society and we, most certainly, do not represent the majority.
Should be interesting to see if Apple set their target right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934620</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>bieber</author>
	<datestamp>1264698900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How wonderful!  For only $99, I can purchase the privilege of running my own code on my own hardware?  Where can I sign up for one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How wonderful !
For only $ 99 , I can purchase the privilege of running my own code on my own hardware ?
Where can I sign up for one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How wonderful!
For only $99, I can purchase the privilege of running my own code on my own hardware?
Where can I sign up for one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939520</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1264711620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*BAMMMMMM* somebody understands...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* BAMMMMMM * somebody understands.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*BAMMMMMM* somebody understands...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934418</id>
	<title>What about Open eBooks?</title>
	<author>pcaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1264698360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You would think that the FSF would have at least given Apple credit for using the open, non-DRMed ePub format.  Getting major book and periodical publishers to sign up for an Open standard is a big plus.  Yes, Apple didn't eliminate all DRM and release a GNU/Herd based platform yesterday, but with the iPad Apple continues to move (slightly) in the direction of more open media, which is good for everyone.<br>
<br>
In short, the FSF should give Apple credit for what they did right and encourage them to do more instead of haranguing them for not doing everything you want at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would think that the FSF would have at least given Apple credit for using the open , non-DRMed ePub format .
Getting major book and periodical publishers to sign up for an Open standard is a big plus .
Yes , Apple did n't eliminate all DRM and release a GNU/Herd based platform yesterday , but with the iPad Apple continues to move ( slightly ) in the direction of more open media , which is good for everyone .
In short , the FSF should give Apple credit for what they did right and encourage them to do more instead of haranguing them for not doing everything you want at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would think that the FSF would have at least given Apple credit for using the open, non-DRMed ePub format.
Getting major book and periodical publishers to sign up for an Open standard is a big plus.
Yes, Apple didn't eliminate all DRM and release a GNU/Herd based platform yesterday, but with the iPad Apple continues to move (slightly) in the direction of more open media, which is good for everyone.
In short, the FSF should give Apple credit for what they did right and encourage them to do more instead of haranguing them for not doing everything you want at once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934294</id>
	<title>Many people *like* appliances</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1264698000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can certainly understand and support the idea that users should be allowed to do whatever they want with their general purpose computer. But it's absurd to suggest that Apple has to make that machine. At best the argument is "they shouldn't do this because it's a slippery slope", but even that seems a bit of a stretch given the current state of the market.</p><p>Now if you wanted to make this argument in a market where locked-down was the only option -- like cell phones or DVD players -- I might have more sympathy. But this particular instance just makes the whole movement look whiny.</p><p>Your microwave oven doesn't allow any third-party software to be run, has no data interface ports, and in general is quite difficult to modify even though it's controlled by generic, programmable digital electronics. But that's exactly how most people want it. There are certainly some users who would like to be able to reprogram their microwave, but the vast majority of users prefer the completely locked-down version they currently have.</p><p>Why should computers be any different? Yes, it is physically capable of running other programs. And I count myself among those who would actually run other programs on such a device, if given the opportunity. But we aren't (or at least shouldn't be) in the market for an iPad, or any similarly-restricted device. Just as the electronics market supports the sale of both general-purpose magnetrons on purpose-built microwave oven the computer market can support both general-purpose and purpose-built workstations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can certainly understand and support the idea that users should be allowed to do whatever they want with their general purpose computer .
But it 's absurd to suggest that Apple has to make that machine .
At best the argument is " they should n't do this because it 's a slippery slope " , but even that seems a bit of a stretch given the current state of the market.Now if you wanted to make this argument in a market where locked-down was the only option -- like cell phones or DVD players -- I might have more sympathy .
But this particular instance just makes the whole movement look whiny.Your microwave oven does n't allow any third-party software to be run , has no data interface ports , and in general is quite difficult to modify even though it 's controlled by generic , programmable digital electronics .
But that 's exactly how most people want it .
There are certainly some users who would like to be able to reprogram their microwave , but the vast majority of users prefer the completely locked-down version they currently have.Why should computers be any different ?
Yes , it is physically capable of running other programs .
And I count myself among those who would actually run other programs on such a device , if given the opportunity .
But we are n't ( or at least should n't be ) in the market for an iPad , or any similarly-restricted device .
Just as the electronics market supports the sale of both general-purpose magnetrons on purpose-built microwave oven the computer market can support both general-purpose and purpose-built workstations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can certainly understand and support the idea that users should be allowed to do whatever they want with their general purpose computer.
But it's absurd to suggest that Apple has to make that machine.
At best the argument is "they shouldn't do this because it's a slippery slope", but even that seems a bit of a stretch given the current state of the market.Now if you wanted to make this argument in a market where locked-down was the only option -- like cell phones or DVD players -- I might have more sympathy.
But this particular instance just makes the whole movement look whiny.Your microwave oven doesn't allow any third-party software to be run, has no data interface ports, and in general is quite difficult to modify even though it's controlled by generic, programmable digital electronics.
But that's exactly how most people want it.
There are certainly some users who would like to be able to reprogram their microwave, but the vast majority of users prefer the completely locked-down version they currently have.Why should computers be any different?
Yes, it is physically capable of running other programs.
And I count myself among those who would actually run other programs on such a device, if given the opportunity.
But we aren't (or at least shouldn't be) in the market for an iPad, or any similarly-restricted device.
Just as the electronics market supports the sale of both general-purpose magnetrons on purpose-built microwave oven the computer market can support both general-purpose and purpose-built workstations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934042</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>BradleyAndersen</author>
	<datestamp>1264697280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Hear, hear!</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear , hear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear, hear!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937716</id>
	<title>Apple Same old Different outcome</title>
	<author>jriding</author>
	<datestamp>1264707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most interesting thing I have noticed about all of this is that this is what they did with their computer market. If you make an application you must pay a royalty. That is the reason dos then windows pcs out paced apple.<br>Application people wanted to be able to design apps and not have to pay a royalty to the OS manufacturer.<br>This was for the most part the downfall of apple computers in the apple vs pc race.</p><p>Flash forward.<br>Apple comes out with a smart phone. Looks good has good hardware. Locked down so if you design for the iphone then you must pay royalty. Amazingly this time all the application developers jump on board. Interesting enough is that some application developers are starting to question this as apple denies their app and produces one of their own.</p><p>Either the Devs will start to wise up and the i-anything will start to go they way of the apple computer again or it will become the next form of how an OS gets designed.</p><p>The people buying computers in the beginning were just as non informed as they are today. The difference is the developers started making the decisions.<br>Buy a computer.. well apple only has 5 applications you can use, while this Dos PC has over 10,000 applications.</p><p>which one did everyone buy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most interesting thing I have noticed about all of this is that this is what they did with their computer market .
If you make an application you must pay a royalty .
That is the reason dos then windows pcs out paced apple.Application people wanted to be able to design apps and not have to pay a royalty to the OS manufacturer.This was for the most part the downfall of apple computers in the apple vs pc race.Flash forward.Apple comes out with a smart phone .
Looks good has good hardware .
Locked down so if you design for the iphone then you must pay royalty .
Amazingly this time all the application developers jump on board .
Interesting enough is that some application developers are starting to question this as apple denies their app and produces one of their own.Either the Devs will start to wise up and the i-anything will start to go they way of the apple computer again or it will become the next form of how an OS gets designed.The people buying computers in the beginning were just as non informed as they are today .
The difference is the developers started making the decisions.Buy a computer.. well apple only has 5 applications you can use , while this Dos PC has over 10,000 applications.which one did everyone buy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most interesting thing I have noticed about all of this is that this is what they did with their computer market.
If you make an application you must pay a royalty.
That is the reason dos then windows pcs out paced apple.Application people wanted to be able to design apps and not have to pay a royalty to the OS manufacturer.This was for the most part the downfall of apple computers in the apple vs pc race.Flash forward.Apple comes out with a smart phone.
Looks good has good hardware.
Locked down so if you design for the iphone then you must pay royalty.
Amazingly this time all the application developers jump on board.
Interesting enough is that some application developers are starting to question this as apple denies their app and produces one of their own.Either the Devs will start to wise up and the i-anything will start to go they way of the apple computer again or it will become the next form of how an OS gets designed.The people buying computers in the beginning were just as non informed as they are today.
The difference is the developers started making the decisions.Buy a computer.. well apple only has 5 applications you can use, while this Dos PC has over 10,000 applications.which one did everyone buy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939924</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264669860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch.</p></div><p>And your basis for this statement is what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch.And your basis for this statement is what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch.And your basis for this statement is what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944076</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1264685640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that the very feature that Apple told us we didn't want and the iPhone couldn't afford, namely "3rd party" (and I use the term loosely) apps, is now one of the biggest differentiators and selling points of the platform and the kingpin for Apple's lockdown strategy (app store) with the iPad.  Talk about an epic flipflop...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that the very feature that Apple told us we did n't want and the iPhone could n't afford , namely " 3rd party " ( and I use the term loosely ) apps , is now one of the biggest differentiators and selling points of the platform and the kingpin for Apple 's lockdown strategy ( app store ) with the iPad .
Talk about an epic flipflop.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that the very feature that Apple told us we didn't want and the iPhone couldn't afford, namely "3rd party" (and I use the term loosely) apps, is now one of the biggest differentiators and selling points of the platform and the kingpin for Apple's lockdown strategy (app store) with the iPad.
Talk about an epic flipflop...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938986</id>
	<title>why is lock-down needed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the complaint misses the point of the device.  It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer.  It's supposed to be an iPod for documents (including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore), doing for them what the iPod did for music: let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench.</p></div><p>Why can't it be an "iPod for documents" in an open-platform way? For that reason, why does the iPod / iPhone need to be DRM?</p><p><em>That's</em> the point / question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the complaint misses the point of the device .
It 's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer .
It 's supposed to be an iPod for documents ( including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore ) , doing for them what the iPod did for music : let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench.Why ca n't it be an " iPod for documents " in an open-platform way ?
For that reason , why does the iPod / iPhone need to be DRM ? That 's the point / question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the complaint misses the point of the device.
It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer.
It's supposed to be an iPod for documents (including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore), doing for them what the iPod did for music: let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench.Why can't it be an "iPod for documents" in an open-platform way?
For that reason, why does the iPod / iPhone need to be DRM?That's the point / question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935080</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>its only $99/year more to be a certified developer</p></div><p>And that's the problem. Apple are charging you at every step to unlock artifical roadblocks. How about a simple choice when you turn on your iPad for the first time:<br>"Would you like to remove the training wheels: Yes or No?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>its only $ 99/year more to be a certified developerAnd that 's the problem .
Apple are charging you at every step to unlock artifical roadblocks .
How about a simple choice when you turn on your iPad for the first time : " Would you like to remove the training wheels : Yes or No ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its only $99/year more to be a certified developerAnd that's the problem.
Apple are charging you at every step to unlock artifical roadblocks.
How about a simple choice when you turn on your iPad for the first time:"Would you like to remove the training wheels: Yes or No?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934076</id>
	<title>Nah, it is just a replay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is exactly the same thing as it happened in PC. Apple makes an innovative product and makes it an expensive niche product. In 1980s, Microsoft brought a copycat product, it controlled the software, and let the hardware manufacturers duke it out for shrinking profit margins. In 2010s, Google will being Android, the MS-DOS of ultra portables, it controls the OS, the hardware manufacturers will duke it out again for ever shrinking profit margins. Once an installed base is large enough, Google brings out its own applications, and supplants all other competing apps, and it will consolidate its grip like Microsoft did back then. <p>
Microsoft wanted money for its products. Google just wants to know a lot about you. Most people don't care about privacy. So Google is shaping up to be Microsoft+{Nielsen+Gallup}+{Madison Avenue} all rolled into one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is exactly the same thing as it happened in PC .
Apple makes an innovative product and makes it an expensive niche product .
In 1980s , Microsoft brought a copycat product , it controlled the software , and let the hardware manufacturers duke it out for shrinking profit margins .
In 2010s , Google will being Android , the MS-DOS of ultra portables , it controls the OS , the hardware manufacturers will duke it out again for ever shrinking profit margins .
Once an installed base is large enough , Google brings out its own applications , and supplants all other competing apps , and it will consolidate its grip like Microsoft did back then .
Microsoft wanted money for its products .
Google just wants to know a lot about you .
Most people do n't care about privacy .
So Google is shaping up to be Microsoft + { Nielsen + Gallup } + { Madison Avenue } all rolled into one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is exactly the same thing as it happened in PC.
Apple makes an innovative product and makes it an expensive niche product.
In 1980s, Microsoft brought a copycat product, it controlled the software, and let the hardware manufacturers duke it out for shrinking profit margins.
In 2010s, Google will being Android, the MS-DOS of ultra portables, it controls the OS, the hardware manufacturers will duke it out again for ever shrinking profit margins.
Once an installed base is large enough, Google brings out its own applications, and supplants all other competing apps, and it will consolidate its grip like Microsoft did back then.
Microsoft wanted money for its products.
Google just wants to know a lot about you.
Most people don't care about privacy.
So Google is shaping up to be Microsoft+{Nielsen+Gallup}+{Madison Avenue} all rolled into one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935714</id>
	<title>Creditcard needed for free updates?</title>
	<author>Spliffster</author>
	<datestamp>1264701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My employer bought me an iPod touch, because I should write a client for it for our in-house software.<br><br>The device was delivered with os v 2.x but 3.0 was already out. so I had to fire up a virtual machine, install itunes to get the update. No updates for you it said, until you are registered. well i started registering an itunes acc and found out they want my credit card (just in case?) for the free update and free apps i want to install.<br><br>This was a real WTF moment!<br><br>iAnything? not with me any more. If they start pulling stunts like this with OSX<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i will replace my private mbp as soon as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My employer bought me an iPod touch , because I should write a client for it for our in-house software.The device was delivered with os v 2.x but 3.0 was already out .
so I had to fire up a virtual machine , install itunes to get the update .
No updates for you it said , until you are registered .
well i started registering an itunes acc and found out they want my credit card ( just in case ?
) for the free update and free apps i want to install.This was a real WTF moment ! iAnything ?
not with me any more .
If they start pulling stunts like this with OSX ... i will replace my private mbp as soon as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My employer bought me an iPod touch, because I should write a client for it for our in-house software.The device was delivered with os v 2.x but 3.0 was already out.
so I had to fire up a virtual machine, install itunes to get the update.
No updates for you it said, until you are registered.
well i started registering an itunes acc and found out they want my credit card (just in case?
) for the free update and free apps i want to install.This was a real WTF moment!iAnything?
not with me any more.
If they start pulling stunts like this with OSX ... i will replace my private mbp as soon as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939238</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is not immune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OS X is not locked down.  This is something that started with the iPhone.</p></div><p>Of course OS X is locked down, it's only available on a Apple Hardware. Duh...</p><p>If OS/X was truly not locked down, you could install it on cheap Acer hardware.</p><p>Apple fan boys selectively forget that there exists a world outside of the Apple Ecosystem when making an argument on behalf of Steve Jobs.</p><p>"Think Different"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is not locked down .
This is something that started with the iPhone.Of course OS X is locked down , it 's only available on a Apple Hardware .
Duh...If OS/X was truly not locked down , you could install it on cheap Acer hardware.Apple fan boys selectively forget that there exists a world outside of the Apple Ecosystem when making an argument on behalf of Steve Jobs .
" Think Different "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is not locked down.
This is something that started with the iPhone.Of course OS X is locked down, it's only available on a Apple Hardware.
Duh...If OS/X was truly not locked down, you could install it on cheap Acer hardware.Apple fan boys selectively forget that there exists a world outside of the Apple Ecosystem when making an argument on behalf of Steve Jobs.
"Think Different"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938944</id>
	<title>My CHOICE</title>
	<author>pbjones</author>
	<datestamp>1264710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's my choice to buy or not to buy the iPad (a ladies monthly thing?) so I understand the constraints placed on it. MY CHOICE, and consumers will make or break it. There are always restrictions on software, it may be minor, or major, like having an SDK that only the rich and famous can obtain, but times change and so does technology. If nothing else, we SHOULD see a pile of Linux based competitors, but I doubt it, MS will see to that, and introduce a lame, Win based clone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's my choice to buy or not to buy the iPad ( a ladies monthly thing ?
) so I understand the constraints placed on it .
MY CHOICE , and consumers will make or break it .
There are always restrictions on software , it may be minor , or major , like having an SDK that only the rich and famous can obtain , but times change and so does technology .
If nothing else , we SHOULD see a pile of Linux based competitors , but I doubt it , MS will see to that , and introduce a lame , Win based clone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's my choice to buy or not to buy the iPad (a ladies monthly thing?
) so I understand the constraints placed on it.
MY CHOICE, and consumers will make or break it.
There are always restrictions on software, it may be minor, or major, like having an SDK that only the rich and famous can obtain, but times change and so does technology.
If nothing else, we SHOULD see a pile of Linux based competitors, but I doubt it, MS will see to that, and introduce a lame, Win based clone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934836</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did the same, but $99/year seems somewhat steep to put my OWN apps on my OWN iPod Touch, but then when year was up and I didn't renew my apps stopped working!!! (WTF?)  It should be FREE for a "hobbyist" to develop apps for your OWN device (i.e. must connect the iPhone to the Xcode Organizer to install the apps).  $99/year for putting apps in the App Store is reasonable, although I think you should be able to put up free/non paid apps with the aforementioned free "hobbyist" signup.</p><p>They could at least throw in free MobileMe for the $99/year developer certificate, at least I'd feel like I was getting something for my $99 (other than access to something I already own!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the same , but $ 99/year seems somewhat steep to put my OWN apps on my OWN iPod Touch , but then when year was up and I did n't renew my apps stopped working ! ! !
( WTF ? ) It should be FREE for a " hobbyist " to develop apps for your OWN device ( i.e .
must connect the iPhone to the Xcode Organizer to install the apps ) .
$ 99/year for putting apps in the App Store is reasonable , although I think you should be able to put up free/non paid apps with the aforementioned free " hobbyist " signup.They could at least throw in free MobileMe for the $ 99/year developer certificate , at least I 'd feel like I was getting something for my $ 99 ( other than access to something I already own !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did the same, but $99/year seems somewhat steep to put my OWN apps on my OWN iPod Touch, but then when year was up and I didn't renew my apps stopped working!!!
(WTF?)  It should be FREE for a "hobbyist" to develop apps for your OWN device (i.e.
must connect the iPhone to the Xcode Organizer to install the apps).
$99/year for putting apps in the App Store is reasonable, although I think you should be able to put up free/non paid apps with the aforementioned free "hobbyist" signup.They could at least throw in free MobileMe for the $99/year developer certificate, at least I'd feel like I was getting something for my $99 (other than access to something I already own!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934706</id>
	<title>Presure Sensitive?</title>
	<author>muridae</author>
	<datestamp>1264699140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the multi touch is also pressure sensitive, these will be substantially cheaper than Wacom's Cintiq. Give these the ability to use Wacom pens, and even thought I am not a graphic artist by trade I would pick one up. On the other hand, news like this suggests Apple intends this to just be an over-sized iPhone, killing their chance at getting their artist market to fork over even more cash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the multi touch is also pressure sensitive , these will be substantially cheaper than Wacom 's Cintiq .
Give these the ability to use Wacom pens , and even thought I am not a graphic artist by trade I would pick one up .
On the other hand , news like this suggests Apple intends this to just be an over-sized iPhone , killing their chance at getting their artist market to fork over even more cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the multi touch is also pressure sensitive, these will be substantially cheaper than Wacom's Cintiq.
Give these the ability to use Wacom pens, and even thought I am not a graphic artist by trade I would pick one up.
On the other hand, news like this suggests Apple intends this to just be an over-sized iPhone, killing their chance at getting their artist market to fork over even more cash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936132</id>
	<title>iPad is exactly what we need.</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1264702980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand the iPad is exactly what I wanted. I can already buy a full Mac OS tablet and I don't want it. I want a bigger better iTouch and that is exactly what they are offering. The idea of a windowing desktop and the associated hassles is idiotic and a relic of the past. Us geeks can have a full system when we need it but the vast majority of people don't need or want that. Secure, easy to use, just works is what most people need and want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand the iPad is exactly what I wanted .
I can already buy a full Mac OS tablet and I do n't want it .
I want a bigger better iTouch and that is exactly what they are offering .
The idea of a windowing desktop and the associated hassles is idiotic and a relic of the past .
Us geeks can have a full system when we need it but the vast majority of people do n't need or want that .
Secure , easy to use , just works is what most people need and want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand the iPad is exactly what I wanted.
I can already buy a full Mac OS tablet and I don't want it.
I want a bigger better iTouch and that is exactly what they are offering.
The idea of a windowing desktop and the associated hassles is idiotic and a relic of the past.
Us geeks can have a full system when we need it but the vast majority of people don't need or want that.
Secure, easy to use, just works is what most people need and want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942604</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1264678140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSX has to exist as a platform to run the tools needed to develop iPhone OS apps<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX has to exist as a platform to run the tools needed to develop iPhone OS apps : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX has to exist as a platform to run the tools needed to develop iPhone OS apps :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934180</id>
	<title>Re:DEB repository.</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1264697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you have to pay a hefty price to be allowed to put things in the deb repository, and your submission can be rejected for silly crap such as," the color of the background of one of your icons is "ooky" REJECTED!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you have to pay a hefty price to be allowed to put things in the deb repository , and your submission can be rejected for silly crap such as , " the color of the background of one of your icons is " ooky " REJECTED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you have to pay a hefty price to be allowed to put things in the deb repository, and your submission can be rejected for silly crap such as," the color of the background of one of your icons is "ooky" REJECTED!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937782</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a hacker you run your OS X on an EFI PC and are happy with that, you have nothing to complain about.<br>I don't really belive Apple is happy with the AppStore model, they are doing it this way because they don't want to have those prolems Windows has ("I've installed this &#252;bercool app. from warez.site and now my computer went bananas.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a hacker you run your OS X on an EFI PC and are happy with that , you have nothing to complain about.I do n't really belive Apple is happy with the AppStore model , they are doing it this way because they do n't want to have those prolems Windows has ( " I 've installed this   bercool app .
from warez.site and now my computer went bananas .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a hacker you run your OS X on an EFI PC and are happy with that, you have nothing to complain about.I don't really belive Apple is happy with the AppStore model, they are doing it this way because they don't want to have those prolems Windows has ("I've installed this übercool app.
from warez.site and now my computer went bananas.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937392</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>rajafarian</author>
	<datestamp>1264706460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep. You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep. And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices."</i></p><p>It's so sad!  How do you make someone think critically (instead of merely think, which they do anyway)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will , but the masses are sheep and they 're happy as sheep .
You can not teach them to think , vote , raise children , or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD , only the sheep .
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices .
" It 's so sad !
How do you make someone think critically ( instead of merely think , which they do anyway ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep.
You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep.
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.
"It's so sad!
How do you make someone think critically (instead of merely think, which they do anyway)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945564</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>ekhben</author>
	<datestamp>1264699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Producing into a dead-end is not a boon.  Consumers should be using the consumed product to provide energy, knowledge or materials for more refined production.  Entertainment can fall into either category: entertainment to refresh and relax is good, entertainment to pass the time before death is not.  (Though frankly, I'm OK with people choosing to reap the benefits of living in an advanced society and going down the hedonism route!)

</p><p>But in terms of society, the hacker bent over his keyboard is wasting his time if he is only working to feed the desires of the couch potato.  At best, that's a means to sustain some other form of productivity that feeds back into a loop of production.  At worst, it's a means of funding his own hedonism<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Producing into a dead-end is not a boon .
Consumers should be using the consumed product to provide energy , knowledge or materials for more refined production .
Entertainment can fall into either category : entertainment to refresh and relax is good , entertainment to pass the time before death is not .
( Though frankly , I 'm OK with people choosing to reap the benefits of living in an advanced society and going down the hedonism route !
) But in terms of society , the hacker bent over his keyboard is wasting his time if he is only working to feed the desires of the couch potato .
At best , that 's a means to sustain some other form of productivity that feeds back into a loop of production .
At worst , it 's a means of funding his own hedonism : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Producing into a dead-end is not a boon.
Consumers should be using the consumed product to provide energy, knowledge or materials for more refined production.
Entertainment can fall into either category: entertainment to refresh and relax is good, entertainment to pass the time before death is not.
(Though frankly, I'm OK with people choosing to reap the benefits of living in an advanced society and going down the hedonism route!
)

But in terms of society, the hacker bent over his keyboard is wasting his time if he is only working to feed the desires of the couch potato.
At best, that's a means to sustain some other form of productivity that feeds back into a loop of production.
At worst, it's a means of funding his own hedonism :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936296</id>
	<title>Re:Central repository is good</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264703460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the things I love about Linux is a central repository for software, being able to find all software updates in one place, and having one simple way to install and remove apps.</p><p>The App Store is great in this regard. The issue isn't that the App Store restricts the user, but rather the App Store restricts the developer.</p></div><p>Actually, yes, it does restrict the user as well. While Linux distros have a "central repository", you're still free, as a user, to 1) use third-party repositories, and 2) install software without going through a repository. If at least one of those was supported by iPad (and iPhone, etc), it wouldn't have been an issue. Indeed, it's precisely what Android does - one "official" marketplace, but you can skip it altogether if you know how to get what you want otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I love about Linux is a central repository for software , being able to find all software updates in one place , and having one simple way to install and remove apps.The App Store is great in this regard .
The issue is n't that the App Store restricts the user , but rather the App Store restricts the developer.Actually , yes , it does restrict the user as well .
While Linux distros have a " central repository " , you 're still free , as a user , to 1 ) use third-party repositories , and 2 ) install software without going through a repository .
If at least one of those was supported by iPad ( and iPhone , etc ) , it would n't have been an issue .
Indeed , it 's precisely what Android does - one " official " marketplace , but you can skip it altogether if you know how to get what you want otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I love about Linux is a central repository for software, being able to find all software updates in one place, and having one simple way to install and remove apps.The App Store is great in this regard.
The issue isn't that the App Store restricts the user, but rather the App Store restricts the developer.Actually, yes, it does restrict the user as well.
While Linux distros have a "central repository", you're still free, as a user, to 1) use third-party repositories, and 2) install software without going through a repository.
If at least one of those was supported by iPad (and iPhone, etc), it wouldn't have been an issue.
Indeed, it's precisely what Android does - one "official" marketplace, but you can skip it altogether if you know how to get what you want otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934762</id>
	<title>content producers will be able to make a living</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a step in the right direction. finally content producers will be closer to making a living!!! yay to a quality content! yay to paying for it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a step in the right direction .
finally content producers will be closer to making a living ! ! !
yay to a quality content !
yay to paying for it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a step in the right direction.
finally content producers will be closer to making a living!!!
yay to a quality content!
yay to paying for it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935264</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1264700700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?</i>
<br> <br>
No, it isn't.  If it were, then there would be an even worse virus nightmare with Linux, OpenBSD, et cetera since these environments offer the users much more control over their systems than Windows does.
<br> <br>
The virus nightmare in Windows is therefore due to something else.  Let's call it being <i>defective by design</i>.  What idiots would design a system without privilege containment?  What idiots would design a system to automatically execute whatever content crosses its path?  Those issues have been identified and resolved ever since batch processing systems became popular in the 1960s.
<br> <br>
But Microsoft deliberately ignored industry practice and went ahead to build systems which it <i>knew</i> were vulnerable.  And I don't mean should have known, I mean knew.  I corresponded with Bill Gates on this subject in the early 1980s, when he was still answering his own emails.  His response?  It's not something that consumers are asking for.
<br> <br>
Interesting ethics there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should average users have control over their computer ?
Is n't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows ?
No , it is n't .
If it were , then there would be an even worse virus nightmare with Linux , OpenBSD , et cetera since these environments offer the users much more control over their systems than Windows does .
The virus nightmare in Windows is therefore due to something else .
Let 's call it being defective by design .
What idiots would design a system without privilege containment ?
What idiots would design a system to automatically execute whatever content crosses its path ?
Those issues have been identified and resolved ever since batch processing systems became popular in the 1960s .
But Microsoft deliberately ignored industry practice and went ahead to build systems which it knew were vulnerable .
And I do n't mean should have known , I mean knew .
I corresponded with Bill Gates on this subject in the early 1980s , when he was still answering his own emails .
His response ?
It 's not something that consumers are asking for .
Interesting ethics there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should average users have control over their computer?
Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?
No, it isn't.
If it were, then there would be an even worse virus nightmare with Linux, OpenBSD, et cetera since these environments offer the users much more control over their systems than Windows does.
The virus nightmare in Windows is therefore due to something else.
Let's call it being defective by design.
What idiots would design a system without privilege containment?
What idiots would design a system to automatically execute whatever content crosses its path?
Those issues have been identified and resolved ever since batch processing systems became popular in the 1960s.
But Microsoft deliberately ignored industry practice and went ahead to build systems which it knew were vulnerable.
And I don't mean should have known, I mean knew.
I corresponded with Bill Gates on this subject in the early 1980s, when he was still answering his own emails.
His response?
It's not something that consumers are asking for.
Interesting ethics there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937434</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker</p></div><p>$99 says otherwise</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple really is n't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker $ 99 says otherwise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker$99 says otherwise
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935134</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1264700340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel the MacOSX + some sort of "iPad" app would be just what this should be. Let me get full access if i want it. Bury it behind some scary message that should keep the "average users" from using anything else, but let me use it as a remote dumb terminal for my desktop. Extra points if the work something like that right into OSX. Let me use this standalone or "connect" to a mac and simply use it as the display/input device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel the MacOSX + some sort of " iPad " app would be just what this should be .
Let me get full access if i want it .
Bury it behind some scary message that should keep the " average users " from using anything else , but let me use it as a remote dumb terminal for my desktop .
Extra points if the work something like that right into OSX .
Let me use this standalone or " connect " to a mac and simply use it as the display/input device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel the MacOSX + some sort of "iPad" app would be just what this should be.
Let me get full access if i want it.
Bury it behind some scary message that should keep the "average users" from using anything else, but let me use it as a remote dumb terminal for my desktop.
Extra points if the work something like that right into OSX.
Let me use this standalone or "connect" to a mac and simply use it as the display/input device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937544</id>
	<title>Laff...</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1264706820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the last place anyone should complain about the iPad being locked down, it will be hacked, and sooner or later a linux variant will appear so you can do what you want with it.<br>The author should quit crying, or more likely, quite trying to gain readership by hopping on or hyping up the "I hate the iPad" crowd, ffs it hasn't even been released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the last place anyone should complain about the iPad being locked down , it will be hacked , and sooner or later a linux variant will appear so you can do what you want with it.The author should quit crying , or more likely , quite trying to gain readership by hopping on or hyping up the " I hate the iPad " crowd , ffs it has n't even been released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the last place anyone should complain about the iPad being locked down, it will be hacked, and sooner or later a linux variant will appear so you can do what you want with it.The author should quit crying, or more likely, quite trying to gain readership by hopping on or hyping up the "I hate the iPad" crowd, ffs it hasn't even been released.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933966</id>
	<title>iPadlock</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1264697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soo much other stuff to spend my money on.  I'll pass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soo much other stuff to spend my money on .
I 'll pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soo much other stuff to spend my money on.
I'll pass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934354</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely.. it's all about ensuring quality code.  Which is why Apple bans adult applications from the App Store.</p><p>Oh wait.. that sounds more like censorship.</p><p>Whops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely.. it 's all about ensuring quality code .
Which is why Apple bans adult applications from the App Store.Oh wait.. that sounds more like censorship.Whops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.. it's all about ensuring quality code.
Which is why Apple bans adult applications from the App Store.Oh wait.. that sounds more like censorship.Whops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934050</id>
	<title>iPhone vs iTouch vs iPad? Do I have it right?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1264697280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take the phone away from an iPhone, and you have an iTouch. Make an iTouch bigger, and you have an iPad.</p><p>Is that basically the way it works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the phone away from an iPhone , and you have an iTouch .
Make an iTouch bigger , and you have an iPad.Is that basically the way it works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the phone away from an iPhone, and you have an iTouch.
Make an iTouch bigger, and you have an iPad.Is that basically the way it works?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936080</id>
	<title>Longterm it doesn't matter if it's a closed system</title>
	<author>Tazz\_ben</author>
	<datestamp>1264702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you will assume with me that the iPad represents a new product line and not an extension to the iPhone or the iPod, then you need to view the product in the context of the coming decade, not the coming year. And in that context I highly doubt it matters much if the store is open.  Right now, on the iPhone/iPod Touch, you can write write a productivity app that works offline, is snappy and has a native look and feel: all with HTML5.  The only downside is that the performance is not as good as a native app.  Not very important for most apps, but it is a problem for graphics apps like games.  But given the trajectory of JavaScript performance, do you really think this is going to be an issue for much longer?
<br> <br>
HTML5 apps can't be prevented by Apple or anyone else.  And they have the added benefit for the developers that they work on multiple platforms.
<br> <br>
Further, I actually don't think that the primary target of the iPad is who we think it is.  It was announced as a media device because that is the market that Apple has experience with and because the press  loves consumer devices (most of them are so dumb that when a product isn't intended for them they claim it is useless).  Look at environments like hospitals, industry, etc. where "instant on" is a whole lot more important than speed.  The iPad, with the proper software (which won't be installed through a store - this would be managed by the enterprise agreement), would be a major step up compared to the current tablets in use.  Health care alone accounts for 17\% of GDP; this is likely to grow with  our aging population.  Do you really think Apple doesn't want part of that market?
<br> <br>
Anyhow, point is, it the store is open or closed, it doesn't really matter in the long term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you will assume with me that the iPad represents a new product line and not an extension to the iPhone or the iPod , then you need to view the product in the context of the coming decade , not the coming year .
And in that context I highly doubt it matters much if the store is open .
Right now , on the iPhone/iPod Touch , you can write write a productivity app that works offline , is snappy and has a native look and feel : all with HTML5 .
The only downside is that the performance is not as good as a native app .
Not very important for most apps , but it is a problem for graphics apps like games .
But given the trajectory of JavaScript performance , do you really think this is going to be an issue for much longer ?
HTML5 apps ca n't be prevented by Apple or anyone else .
And they have the added benefit for the developers that they work on multiple platforms .
Further , I actually do n't think that the primary target of the iPad is who we think it is .
It was announced as a media device because that is the market that Apple has experience with and because the press loves consumer devices ( most of them are so dumb that when a product is n't intended for them they claim it is useless ) .
Look at environments like hospitals , industry , etc .
where " instant on " is a whole lot more important than speed .
The iPad , with the proper software ( which wo n't be installed through a store - this would be managed by the enterprise agreement ) , would be a major step up compared to the current tablets in use .
Health care alone accounts for 17 \ % of GDP ; this is likely to grow with our aging population .
Do you really think Apple does n't want part of that market ?
Anyhow , point is , it the store is open or closed , it does n't really matter in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you will assume with me that the iPad represents a new product line and not an extension to the iPhone or the iPod, then you need to view the product in the context of the coming decade, not the coming year.
And in that context I highly doubt it matters much if the store is open.
Right now, on the iPhone/iPod Touch, you can write write a productivity app that works offline, is snappy and has a native look and feel: all with HTML5.
The only downside is that the performance is not as good as a native app.
Not very important for most apps, but it is a problem for graphics apps like games.
But given the trajectory of JavaScript performance, do you really think this is going to be an issue for much longer?
HTML5 apps can't be prevented by Apple or anyone else.
And they have the added benefit for the developers that they work on multiple platforms.
Further, I actually don't think that the primary target of the iPad is who we think it is.
It was announced as a media device because that is the market that Apple has experience with and because the press  loves consumer devices (most of them are so dumb that when a product isn't intended for them they claim it is useless).
Look at environments like hospitals, industry, etc.
where "instant on" is a whole lot more important than speed.
The iPad, with the proper software (which won't be installed through a store - this would be managed by the enterprise agreement), would be a major step up compared to the current tablets in use.
Health care alone accounts for 17\% of GDP; this is likely to grow with  our aging population.
Do you really think Apple doesn't want part of that market?
Anyhow, point is, it the store is open or closed, it doesn't really matter in the long term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</id>
	<title>Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1264696020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control. Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?

<br> <br>
Doesn't migrating to the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch model mean that social engineering has much less of an impact to the security of a system? I would think this would be a good thing.<br> <br>
I don't think Mac OS X will ever go away from giving you the control it does (and it is quite nice), but Mac OS X is not appropriate on a device like the iPad.
<br> <br>
In fact, I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook. The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple's vision of the iPad. Except that Apple is actually \_less\_ connected in to your device than Google would be.
<br> <br>
Sure, this is bad for the FSF, but what alternative vision of computing do they offer?
<br> <br>
Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control .
Why should average users have control over their computer ?
Is n't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows ?
Does n't migrating to the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch model mean that social engineering has much less of an impact to the security of a system ?
I would think this would be a good thing .
I do n't think Mac OS X will ever go away from giving you the control it does ( and it is quite nice ) , but Mac OS X is not appropriate on a device like the iPad .
In fact , I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook .
The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple 's vision of the iPad .
Except that Apple is actually \ _less \ _ connected in to your device than Google would be .
Sure , this is bad for the FSF , but what alternative vision of computing do they offer ?
Attacking Apple 's products is one thing .
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete , and let the marketplace decide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control.
Why should average users have control over their computer?
Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?
Doesn't migrating to the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch model mean that social engineering has much less of an impact to the security of a system?
I would think this would be a good thing.
I don't think Mac OS X will ever go away from giving you the control it does (and it is quite nice), but Mac OS X is not appropriate on a device like the iPad.
In fact, I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook.
The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple's vision of the iPad.
Except that Apple is actually \_less\_ connected in to your device than Google would be.
Sure, this is bad for the FSF, but what alternative vision of computing do they offer?
Attacking Apple's products is one thing.
Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948648</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1264776720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you saying that reading is the same as watching TV? Are you also implying that Steve Jobs thinks that TV is awful and has absolutely no place at all in people's lives? Because otherwise I don't get your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that reading is the same as watching TV ?
Are you also implying that Steve Jobs thinks that TV is awful and has absolutely no place at all in people 's lives ?
Because otherwise I do n't get your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that reading is the same as watching TV?
Are you also implying that Steve Jobs thinks that TV is awful and has absolutely no place at all in people's lives?
Because otherwise I don't get your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584</id>
	<title>Not a PC - More like TV + Cable</title>
	<author>MasterOfGoingFaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264701480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.</p><p>Sure it has computer components, but it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer.  It is a sealed-box with tightly controlled access to tools and data.  It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection.  They can only choose what is being offered to them.</p><p>This has been Job's dream since before the first Mac, when Jeff Raskin convinced him that computers were too hard for non-technical people to use. The smart thing about this design is (like a TV) it just works.  Most people will accept the limitations, because too much freedom may not be a good thing.  These are the same people who run as admin on a Windows PC, and click on any little thing that pops up.  Their "freedom" turns their PC into brick in short order.  So a limited device that just works is fine for them.</p><p>I'll wait for the more open clones to appear and do what I want.  Apple is rightly aimed at the crowd that is willing to cash for the comfort of not thinking.  The thinkers/doers will wait for something more open.  This is not a product meant for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.Sure it has computer components , but it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer .
It is a sealed-box with tightly controlled access to tools and data .
It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection .
They can only choose what is being offered to them.This has been Job 's dream since before the first Mac , when Jeff Raskin convinced him that computers were too hard for non-technical people to use .
The smart thing about this design is ( like a TV ) it just works .
Most people will accept the limitations , because too much freedom may not be a good thing .
These are the same people who run as admin on a Windows PC , and click on any little thing that pops up .
Their " freedom " turns their PC into brick in short order .
So a limited device that just works is fine for them.I 'll wait for the more open clones to appear and do what I want .
Apple is rightly aimed at the crowd that is willing to cash for the comfort of not thinking .
The thinkers/doers will wait for something more open .
This is not a product meant for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.Sure it has computer components, but it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer.
It is a sealed-box with tightly controlled access to tools and data.
It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection.
They can only choose what is being offered to them.This has been Job's dream since before the first Mac, when Jeff Raskin convinced him that computers were too hard for non-technical people to use.
The smart thing about this design is (like a TV) it just works.
Most people will accept the limitations, because too much freedom may not be a good thing.
These are the same people who run as admin on a Windows PC, and click on any little thing that pops up.
Their "freedom" turns their PC into brick in short order.
So a limited device that just works is fine for them.I'll wait for the more open clones to appear and do what I want.
Apple is rightly aimed at the crowd that is willing to cash for the comfort of not thinking.
The thinkers/doers will wait for something more open.
This is not a product meant for us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935978</id>
	<title>This drama is silly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article, and several posts here, seem very over-dramatic.</p><p>It's a $500 gadget. Most of us have electronics in this price range in several different rooms and in our offices.</p><p>Apple created this product and it is what it is. Why is the author freaking out about it? You can still use a laptop, a Mac with OSX, Windows, Linux, etc. No one is shoving this new product down the author's throat.</p><p>This is not a step backward on anything. WTF is he being so dramatic? Don't buy one and get on with your life. Apple has customers who are going to shit themselves and go buy one as soon as possible. That sounds like good business to me.</p><p>Maybe the author should compare Apple stock to other companies during the recession. They are pretty good at selling shit. Apple customers are extremely loyal and many will love this new product for the exact reasons you hate it. For Apple and Apple customers this is a step forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article , and several posts here , seem very over-dramatic.It 's a $ 500 gadget .
Most of us have electronics in this price range in several different rooms and in our offices.Apple created this product and it is what it is .
Why is the author freaking out about it ?
You can still use a laptop , a Mac with OSX , Windows , Linux , etc .
No one is shoving this new product down the author 's throat.This is not a step backward on anything .
WTF is he being so dramatic ?
Do n't buy one and get on with your life .
Apple has customers who are going to shit themselves and go buy one as soon as possible .
That sounds like good business to me.Maybe the author should compare Apple stock to other companies during the recession .
They are pretty good at selling shit .
Apple customers are extremely loyal and many will love this new product for the exact reasons you hate it .
For Apple and Apple customers this is a step forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article, and several posts here, seem very over-dramatic.It's a $500 gadget.
Most of us have electronics in this price range in several different rooms and in our offices.Apple created this product and it is what it is.
Why is the author freaking out about it?
You can still use a laptop, a Mac with OSX, Windows, Linux, etc.
No one is shoving this new product down the author's throat.This is not a step backward on anything.
WTF is he being so dramatic?
Don't buy one and get on with your life.
Apple has customers who are going to shit themselves and go buy one as soon as possible.
That sounds like good business to me.Maybe the author should compare Apple stock to other companies during the recession.
They are pretty good at selling shit.
Apple customers are extremely loyal and many will love this new product for the exact reasons you hate it.
For Apple and Apple customers this is a step forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944918</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1264691940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say users are sheep?</p><p>Well, in just about every area of your life, you're a sheep as well.</p><p>Do you fix your own car? Hell, did you build it yourself?<br>Do you work for yourself, with tools you made?<br>Are you content to let some doctor look after you when you're ill? Are you on a health care plan with everyone else?<br>Are you happy to let some lawyer represent you in court?<br>(etc ad nauseum)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The point is not to deride your lack of ability in most areas of life - we're all like that. The point is that when you call people sheep in your chosen field, there are many, many fields of life where you're the dependant little sheep, meekly following someone else.</p><p>Perhaps it might be better to think of people as normal, instead of somewhere below you. Unless you're a true polymath (and I'd bet that no-one on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is, the odds are well in my favour) then you're on exactly the same footing in most areas of your life.</p><p>I generally agree with your point, but take issue with that bit about people being sheep. It's wooly thinking promulgated on sites like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and really needs to stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say users are sheep ? Well , in just about every area of your life , you 're a sheep as well.Do you fix your own car ?
Hell , did you build it yourself ? Do you work for yourself , with tools you made ? Are you content to let some doctor look after you when you 're ill ?
Are you on a health care plan with everyone else ? Are you happy to let some lawyer represent you in court ?
( etc ad nauseum ) ...The point is not to deride your lack of ability in most areas of life - we 're all like that .
The point is that when you call people sheep in your chosen field , there are many , many fields of life where you 're the dependant little sheep , meekly following someone else.Perhaps it might be better to think of people as normal , instead of somewhere below you .
Unless you 're a true polymath ( and I 'd bet that no-one on / .
is , the odds are well in my favour ) then you 're on exactly the same footing in most areas of your life.I generally agree with your point , but take issue with that bit about people being sheep .
It 's wooly thinking promulgated on sites like / .
and really needs to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say users are sheep?Well, in just about every area of your life, you're a sheep as well.Do you fix your own car?
Hell, did you build it yourself?Do you work for yourself, with tools you made?Are you content to let some doctor look after you when you're ill?
Are you on a health care plan with everyone else?Are you happy to let some lawyer represent you in court?
(etc ad nauseum) ...The point is not to deride your lack of ability in most areas of life - we're all like that.
The point is that when you call people sheep in your chosen field, there are many, many fields of life where you're the dependant little sheep, meekly following someone else.Perhaps it might be better to think of people as normal, instead of somewhere below you.
Unless you're a true polymath (and I'd bet that no-one on /.
is, the odds are well in my favour) then you're on exactly the same footing in most areas of your life.I generally agree with your point, but take issue with that bit about people being sheep.
It's wooly thinking promulgated on sites like /.
and really needs to stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940906</id>
	<title>Others will innovate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264672500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The release of the iPad will be good because it means the other companies will try to release better tablets without the resources of an app store. Thus the iPad may not be the end-all-be-all of tablet computers but the stepping stone to better tablet computers (albeit from other companies). Not unlike how the iPod started the race for the best MP3 player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The release of the iPad will be good because it means the other companies will try to release better tablets without the resources of an app store .
Thus the iPad may not be the end-all-be-all of tablet computers but the stepping stone to better tablet computers ( albeit from other companies ) .
Not unlike how the iPod started the race for the best MP3 player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The release of the iPad will be good because it means the other companies will try to release better tablets without the resources of an app store.
Thus the iPad may not be the end-all-be-all of tablet computers but the stepping stone to better tablet computers (albeit from other companies).
Not unlike how the iPod started the race for the best MP3 player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935150</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of a silly argument</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1264700400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jailbreaking is quite illegal, unless you forgot about the DMCA?  In a book you can read the contents, which you can't for software, especially DRM encrypted software.  For a doodad, even if you don't know how it was made, if you know how the parts work together, you can fix it if it breaks.  Except for the DMCA, of course, which makes it illegal.  Recipes?  Really?  How exactly do you plan on using the recipe to keep your plate in working order?  That's just absurd.  Plus...ummm...they do have to tell you the ingredients if you ask, just like if you buy packaged food at the Megamart.  Historically,  you've been legally entitled to maintain your car.  Car companies have tried to lock people out by putting DRM on as much as they could, tying it all to their proprietary computer systems.  They've been slapped on the wrist, though.  The idea that you should have a right to the source code, in order to maintain it, is pretty well supported by existing law and morality.  It doesn't follow that you then somehow have the right to redistribute the software, but hey, the FSF isn't saying that the iPad should only run GPL software.  They're complaining about how its DRM doesn't let you run anything that isn't Apple signed code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jailbreaking is quite illegal , unless you forgot about the DMCA ?
In a book you can read the contents , which you ca n't for software , especially DRM encrypted software .
For a doodad , even if you do n't know how it was made , if you know how the parts work together , you can fix it if it breaks .
Except for the DMCA , of course , which makes it illegal .
Recipes ? Really ?
How exactly do you plan on using the recipe to keep your plate in working order ?
That 's just absurd .
Plus...ummm...they do have to tell you the ingredients if you ask , just like if you buy packaged food at the Megamart .
Historically , you 've been legally entitled to maintain your car .
Car companies have tried to lock people out by putting DRM on as much as they could , tying it all to their proprietary computer systems .
They 've been slapped on the wrist , though .
The idea that you should have a right to the source code , in order to maintain it , is pretty well supported by existing law and morality .
It does n't follow that you then somehow have the right to redistribute the software , but hey , the FSF is n't saying that the iPad should only run GPL software .
They 're complaining about how its DRM does n't let you run anything that is n't Apple signed code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jailbreaking is quite illegal, unless you forgot about the DMCA?
In a book you can read the contents, which you can't for software, especially DRM encrypted software.
For a doodad, even if you don't know how it was made, if you know how the parts work together, you can fix it if it breaks.
Except for the DMCA, of course, which makes it illegal.
Recipes?  Really?
How exactly do you plan on using the recipe to keep your plate in working order?
That's just absurd.
Plus...ummm...they do have to tell you the ingredients if you ask, just like if you buy packaged food at the Megamart.
Historically,  you've been legally entitled to maintain your car.
Car companies have tried to lock people out by putting DRM on as much as they could, tying it all to their proprietary computer systems.
They've been slapped on the wrist, though.
The idea that you should have a right to the source code, in order to maintain it, is pretty well supported by existing law and morality.
It doesn't follow that you then somehow have the right to redistribute the software, but hey, the FSF isn't saying that the iPad should only run GPL software.
They're complaining about how its DRM doesn't let you run anything that isn't Apple signed code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937536</id>
	<title>No!  The iPad is Good, and I want one!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>People, this is not something you would use as your primary computer.  I see the iPad as a recreational device, something to get information to me.  I would never use this as a device to produce anything, let alone as my main computer.   This blog takes a realistic perspective.  <a href="http://williamfink.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow"> Bill on IT </a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>People , this is not something you would use as your primary computer .
I see the iPad as a recreational device , something to get information to me .
I would never use this as a device to produce anything , let alone as my main computer .
This blog takes a realistic perspective .
Bill on IT [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, this is not something you would use as your primary computer.
I see the iPad as a recreational device, something to get information to me.
I would never use this as a device to produce anything, let alone as my main computer.
This blog takes a realistic perspective.
Bill on IT  [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</id>
	<title>FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer, and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices.  The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).</p><p>Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices, for $250/year.</p><p>Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker, instead they realize that for <i> <b>most users</b> </i>, having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants: it means they have confidence in the system.</p><p>How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store?  Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone , its only $ 99/year more to be a certified developer , and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices .
The process to become a developer is pretty painless ( I did it for my own iPod touch , simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road ) .Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices , for $ 250/year.Apple really is n't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker , instead they realize that for most users , having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants : it means they have confidence in the system.How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store ?
Would they have the same attitude if they did n't have apple saying " we 've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps wo n't * BLEEP * you up the rear "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer, and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices.
The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices, for $250/year.Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker, instead they realize that for  most users , having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants: it means they have confidence in the system.How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store?
Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>happyfrogcow</author>
	<datestamp>1264698540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I have to buy the hardware, then I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to? I call BS.</p><p>So many people are playing the "FSF is Looney" card. I fully support them in this effort to raise awareness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I have to buy the hardware , then I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to ?
I call BS.So many people are playing the " FSF is Looney " card .
I fully support them in this effort to raise awareness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I have to buy the hardware, then I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to?
I call BS.So many people are playing the "FSF is Looney" card.
I fully support them in this effort to raise awareness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946146</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264704900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you understand the word sheep.</p><p>Sheep need to be taken care of.  Sheep need things to just work.  Sheep can't fix it themselves.  Sheep want things to be easy.  Sheep don't understand.  Sheep can't defend themselves very well.  Sheep have very little understanding of the world or the way things are.  Sheep are ignorant of how things work.  Sheep merely exist.  Sheep are surely dependent, needing things, as you say, to just work with minimum hassle.  Sheep are even sometimes phracked by other species.  Sheep shit where they eat, and are penned in or directed by the herder, and are always nervous and scared, worried about the predator.</p><p>But I agree with your arguments otherwise, just not your characterization that the programmers, tinkerers, hackers, and the knowledgeable are the wrong here.  I understand your sentiment though, since, after all, you are, indeed, part of the herd and don't care or know to do better.  I know, I know, you have to think of yourself as better because it's you, and you don't want to feel brainwashed because you are normal and can't get along with your tech devices, and your frustration born from dealing with crappy devices because you, just as you believe the ipad is great, can't look through the plethora of tech devices and choose one that isn't locked down and still usable.</p><p>Myself, I'd rather struggle in my life and know than be munching mad on a patch of grass next to the pile of shit I just dumped.  Even being the big bad wolf doing wrong and part of a much smaller social group is better than being part of the "bah" generation.  You even have your own song, "Good Girls Gone Bad/Bah."</p><p>For me, building the car, even simply knowing the process of steel development, is far better than grinning like a fucking idiot driving a BMW or Audi with nearly full ignorance of why I chose the vehicle, except for it as a status symbol.  I far more admire those who know the tech behind the gear, and even more so those who engineered and maintain the product, no matter what general mass society may think of these people.</p><p>It's people like you 5 years from now who will demand rights or wonder why they are paying out the nose for content transfer or an upgrade because they can't access their device or are buy 3x what someone else is on another platform.  Consider that a netbook, which have been popular for more than 2 years, is now $300 cheaper with only 176 lines less resolution and more open than than the ipad.</p><p>So you are saying you are so incompetent, you can't manage to figure out a netbook.  Bah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand the word sheep.Sheep need to be taken care of .
Sheep need things to just work .
Sheep ca n't fix it themselves .
Sheep want things to be easy .
Sheep do n't understand .
Sheep ca n't defend themselves very well .
Sheep have very little understanding of the world or the way things are .
Sheep are ignorant of how things work .
Sheep merely exist .
Sheep are surely dependent , needing things , as you say , to just work with minimum hassle .
Sheep are even sometimes phracked by other species .
Sheep shit where they eat , and are penned in or directed by the herder , and are always nervous and scared , worried about the predator.But I agree with your arguments otherwise , just not your characterization that the programmers , tinkerers , hackers , and the knowledgeable are the wrong here .
I understand your sentiment though , since , after all , you are , indeed , part of the herd and do n't care or know to do better .
I know , I know , you have to think of yourself as better because it 's you , and you do n't want to feel brainwashed because you are normal and ca n't get along with your tech devices , and your frustration born from dealing with crappy devices because you , just as you believe the ipad is great , ca n't look through the plethora of tech devices and choose one that is n't locked down and still usable.Myself , I 'd rather struggle in my life and know than be munching mad on a patch of grass next to the pile of shit I just dumped .
Even being the big bad wolf doing wrong and part of a much smaller social group is better than being part of the " bah " generation .
You even have your own song , " Good Girls Gone Bad/Bah .
" For me , building the car , even simply knowing the process of steel development , is far better than grinning like a fucking idiot driving a BMW or Audi with nearly full ignorance of why I chose the vehicle , except for it as a status symbol .
I far more admire those who know the tech behind the gear , and even more so those who engineered and maintain the product , no matter what general mass society may think of these people.It 's people like you 5 years from now who will demand rights or wonder why they are paying out the nose for content transfer or an upgrade because they ca n't access their device or are buy 3x what someone else is on another platform .
Consider that a netbook , which have been popular for more than 2 years , is now $ 300 cheaper with only 176 lines less resolution and more open than than the ipad.So you are saying you are so incompetent , you ca n't manage to figure out a netbook .
Bah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand the word sheep.Sheep need to be taken care of.
Sheep need things to just work.
Sheep can't fix it themselves.
Sheep want things to be easy.
Sheep don't understand.
Sheep can't defend themselves very well.
Sheep have very little understanding of the world or the way things are.
Sheep are ignorant of how things work.
Sheep merely exist.
Sheep are surely dependent, needing things, as you say, to just work with minimum hassle.
Sheep are even sometimes phracked by other species.
Sheep shit where they eat, and are penned in or directed by the herder, and are always nervous and scared, worried about the predator.But I agree with your arguments otherwise, just not your characterization that the programmers, tinkerers, hackers, and the knowledgeable are the wrong here.
I understand your sentiment though, since, after all, you are, indeed, part of the herd and don't care or know to do better.
I know, I know, you have to think of yourself as better because it's you, and you don't want to feel brainwashed because you are normal and can't get along with your tech devices, and your frustration born from dealing with crappy devices because you, just as you believe the ipad is great, can't look through the plethora of tech devices and choose one that isn't locked down and still usable.Myself, I'd rather struggle in my life and know than be munching mad on a patch of grass next to the pile of shit I just dumped.
Even being the big bad wolf doing wrong and part of a much smaller social group is better than being part of the "bah" generation.
You even have your own song, "Good Girls Gone Bad/Bah.
"For me, building the car, even simply knowing the process of steel development, is far better than grinning like a fucking idiot driving a BMW or Audi with nearly full ignorance of why I chose the vehicle, except for it as a status symbol.
I far more admire those who know the tech behind the gear, and even more so those who engineered and maintain the product, no matter what general mass society may think of these people.It's people like you 5 years from now who will demand rights or wonder why they are paying out the nose for content transfer or an upgrade because they can't access their device or are buy 3x what someone else is on another platform.
Consider that a netbook, which have been popular for more than 2 years, is now $300 cheaper with only 176 lines less resolution and more open than than the ipad.So you are saying you are so incompetent, you can't manage to figure out a netbook.
Bah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939338</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, we used to HACK Apple machines from the beginning -- my Apple I board came with a circuit diagram.</p><p>And I still hack Apple hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , we used to HACK Apple machines from the beginning -- my Apple I board came with a circuit diagram.And I still hack Apple hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, we used to HACK Apple machines from the beginning -- my Apple I board came with a circuit diagram.And I still hack Apple hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936072</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>gobbo</author>
	<datestamp>1264702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This is my ONLY TELEPHONE LINE, and so I finally do approve of somebody keeping it locked down and pristine.</p></div><p>You contradict yourself. I find this interesting: an abdication of power and responsibility, in an independent minded nerd.</p><p>If you have to manually install all apps, why do you need Apple to lock down your phone for you? Wouldn't a thorough and reliable certification process for approved apps be enough? You could simply ignore all the uncertified apps, and only choose the app-store supplied software, and achieve the same result.</p><p>The rest of us, who have landlines and can risk hacking around with our handset, could install uncertified apps as we see fit, and risk bricking through our own incompetence, instead of through Overlord Steve's malice.</p><p>You can have your lockdown, we can have our limited freedom on what could be a great platform, Apple still gets profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is my ONLY TELEPHONE LINE , and so I finally do approve of somebody keeping it locked down and pristine.You contradict yourself .
I find this interesting : an abdication of power and responsibility , in an independent minded nerd.If you have to manually install all apps , why do you need Apple to lock down your phone for you ?
Would n't a thorough and reliable certification process for approved apps be enough ?
You could simply ignore all the uncertified apps , and only choose the app-store supplied software , and achieve the same result.The rest of us , who have landlines and can risk hacking around with our handset , could install uncertified apps as we see fit , and risk bricking through our own incompetence , instead of through Overlord Steve 's malice.You can have your lockdown , we can have our limited freedom on what could be a great platform , Apple still gets profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is my ONLY TELEPHONE LINE, and so I finally do approve of somebody keeping it locked down and pristine.You contradict yourself.
I find this interesting: an abdication of power and responsibility, in an independent minded nerd.If you have to manually install all apps, why do you need Apple to lock down your phone for you?
Wouldn't a thorough and reliable certification process for approved apps be enough?
You could simply ignore all the uncertified apps, and only choose the app-store supplied software, and achieve the same result.The rest of us, who have landlines and can risk hacking around with our handset, could install uncertified apps as we see fit, and risk bricking through our own incompetence, instead of through Overlord Steve's malice.You can have your lockdown, we can have our limited freedom on what could be a great platform, Apple still gets profits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936058</id>
	<title>Changing People not Computing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sick of this "If YOU don't like it then YOU don't have buy it" people keep saying because one day it might just lead to that, my only option. I dislike the iPad, and I'm not polite enough not to stop myself from bashing it. It's worse than an ereader for books, it's worse than a netbook for the internet, it's worse than a DS for gaming, it's closed and apple controlled. These are known facts and that's what sticks out to me the most. To someone else, possibly the general market, what they see is that it's better than a ereader for the internet, better than a netbook for books, better than an MP3 player for gaming and is controlled by apple so it "just works". If it penetrates the general market and everyone buys into it then the people who agree that they're "interested in portable computing" gets left behind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sick of this " If YOU do n't like it then YOU do n't have buy it " people keep saying because one day it might just lead to that , my only option .
I dislike the iPad , and I 'm not polite enough not to stop myself from bashing it .
It 's worse than an ereader for books , it 's worse than a netbook for the internet , it 's worse than a DS for gaming , it 's closed and apple controlled .
These are known facts and that 's what sticks out to me the most .
To someone else , possibly the general market , what they see is that it 's better than a ereader for the internet , better than a netbook for books , better than an MP3 player for gaming and is controlled by apple so it " just works " .
If it penetrates the general market and everyone buys into it then the people who agree that they 're " interested in portable computing " gets left behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sick of this "If YOU don't like it then YOU don't have buy it" people keep saying because one day it might just lead to that, my only option.
I dislike the iPad, and I'm not polite enough not to stop myself from bashing it.
It's worse than an ereader for books, it's worse than a netbook for the internet, it's worse than a DS for gaming, it's closed and apple controlled.
These are known facts and that's what sticks out to me the most.
To someone else, possibly the general market, what they see is that it's better than a ereader for the internet, better than a netbook for books, better than an MP3 player for gaming and is controlled by apple so it "just works".
If it penetrates the general market and everyone buys into it then the people who agree that they're "interested in portable computing" gets left behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942142</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1264676340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give wish you could rate the parent a 6, he nailed the whole thing.  Apple really does not care about the people who see this as an issue.  This device is not aimed at the hacker niche, it is aimed at the rest of the planet.</p><p>The app store is great and combined with the touch and iPhone has completely changed the face of mobile media and gaming.  This is the next step in that chain.  Why no flash?  It is an archaic and pointless waste of resources that adds absolutely nothing to the end user experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give wish you could rate the parent a 6 , he nailed the whole thing .
Apple really does not care about the people who see this as an issue .
This device is not aimed at the hacker niche , it is aimed at the rest of the planet.The app store is great and combined with the touch and iPhone has completely changed the face of mobile media and gaming .
This is the next step in that chain .
Why no flash ?
It is an archaic and pointless waste of resources that adds absolutely nothing to the end user experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give wish you could rate the parent a 6, he nailed the whole thing.
Apple really does not care about the people who see this as an issue.
This device is not aimed at the hacker niche, it is aimed at the rest of the planet.The app store is great and combined with the touch and iPhone has completely changed the face of mobile media and gaming.
This is the next step in that chain.
Why no flash?
It is an archaic and pointless waste of resources that adds absolutely nothing to the end user experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933864</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264696740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be amusing to see a video of a Victorian orphanage/poorhouse full of ragamuffins each getting handed an iP*d.  Then one looks up at the grizzled, warty man handing them out and says "Please, sir, may I have something different?"</p><p>Then he could either scowl and bellow "Different, not at Apple!" and clout the kid.</p><p>Or he could break into a gleaming, toothpaste-commercial smile and say "but of course" and hand the kid something from Asus or Marvell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be amusing to see a video of a Victorian orphanage/poorhouse full of ragamuffins each getting handed an iP * d. Then one looks up at the grizzled , warty man handing them out and says " Please , sir , may I have something different ?
" Then he could either scowl and bellow " Different , not at Apple !
" and clout the kid.Or he could break into a gleaming , toothpaste-commercial smile and say " but of course " and hand the kid something from Asus or Marvell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be amusing to see a video of a Victorian orphanage/poorhouse full of ragamuffins each getting handed an iP*d.  Then one looks up at the grizzled, warty man handing them out and says "Please, sir, may I have something different?
"Then he could either scowl and bellow "Different, not at Apple!
" and clout the kid.Or he could break into a gleaming, toothpaste-commercial smile and say "but of course" and hand the kid something from Asus or Marvell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938244</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly why I will not be buying it.  It is a supper iPod.  I have an ipod already.  Which is something I want to be small.</p><p>The iPhone I get that being locked down.  I do not want people jacking up my phone.</p><p>Now the iPad (which btw sounds like a feminine product) I have a meh attitude towards.  If its a bigger iPod then so what.  If it is a bigger phone then so what.  BOTH of those need to be somewhat small.</p><p>I cant really figure out what niche this device fills.  If it had been a full out OSX on there.  THAT I would have got.  Is it going after the kindle market?  I think this is a solution looking for a problem.  Which nearly always fail in the market.</p><p>But like most computer products skip gen 1 and 2 wait for 3 or better 4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why I will not be buying it .
It is a supper iPod .
I have an ipod already .
Which is something I want to be small.The iPhone I get that being locked down .
I do not want people jacking up my phone.Now the iPad ( which btw sounds like a feminine product ) I have a meh attitude towards .
If its a bigger iPod then so what .
If it is a bigger phone then so what .
BOTH of those need to be somewhat small.I cant really figure out what niche this device fills .
If it had been a full out OSX on there .
THAT I would have got .
Is it going after the kindle market ?
I think this is a solution looking for a problem .
Which nearly always fail in the market.But like most computer products skip gen 1 and 2 wait for 3 or better 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why I will not be buying it.
It is a supper iPod.
I have an ipod already.
Which is something I want to be small.The iPhone I get that being locked down.
I do not want people jacking up my phone.Now the iPad (which btw sounds like a feminine product) I have a meh attitude towards.
If its a bigger iPod then so what.
If it is a bigger phone then so what.
BOTH of those need to be somewhat small.I cant really figure out what niche this device fills.
If it had been a full out OSX on there.
THAT I would have got.
Is it going after the kindle market?
I think this is a solution looking for a problem.
Which nearly always fail in the market.But like most computer products skip gen 1 and 2 wait for 3 or better 4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30966330</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264853460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's so damn accurate!  Here I am leaning back, mouse in hand, reading slashdot while I should be crouched forward and doing work!  Okay now, back to work.  Cheers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's so damn accurate !
Here I am leaning back , mouse in hand , reading slashdot while I should be crouched forward and doing work !
Okay now , back to work .
Cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's so damn accurate!
Here I am leaning back, mouse in hand, reading slashdot while I should be crouched forward and doing work!
Okay now, back to work.
Cheers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933808</id>
	<title>Step forward?</title>
	<author>findoutmoretoday</author>
	<datestamp>1264696560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>As the app store is a new concept it is more like a&nbsp; step forward,&nbsp; but maybe not in the right direction.&nbsp; </tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the app store is a new concept it is more like a   step forward ,   but maybe not in the right direction.  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the app store is a new concept it is more like a  step forward,  but maybe not in the right direction.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30950902</id>
	<title>Totally Unacceptable</title>
	<author>ikeman32</author>
	<datestamp>1264786560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never like Apple any way. This move just sends the message that Apple thinks the end-user is a complete moron and in capable of accepting the responsibility for their own computing decisions. </p><p>Software Licensing issues asside, when I buy computer it is mine and absoluely no one is going to tell me what I can and can not put in it. I and I alone am responsible for its computing health. No matter how hard they try to idiot proof something there will always be at least one idiot to prove them wrong. Beside safes computing isn't Rocket Science and it is even simpler than A^2 + B^2 = C^2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never like Apple any way .
This move just sends the message that Apple thinks the end-user is a complete moron and in capable of accepting the responsibility for their own computing decisions .
Software Licensing issues asside , when I buy computer it is mine and absoluely no one is going to tell me what I can and can not put in it .
I and I alone am responsible for its computing health .
No matter how hard they try to idiot proof something there will always be at least one idiot to prove them wrong .
Beside safes computing is n't Rocket Science and it is even simpler than A ^ 2 + B ^ 2 = C ^ 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never like Apple any way.
This move just sends the message that Apple thinks the end-user is a complete moron and in capable of accepting the responsibility for their own computing decisions.
Software Licensing issues asside, when I buy computer it is mine and absoluely no one is going to tell me what I can and can not put in it.
I and I alone am responsible for its computing health.
No matter how hard they try to idiot proof something there will always be at least one idiot to prove them wrong.
Beside safes computing isn't Rocket Science and it is even simpler than A^2 + B^2 = C^2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935534</id>
	<title>Etch-a-Sketch redux</title>
	<author>clyde\_cadiddlehopper</author>
	<datestamp>1264701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All patents are negated by this prior art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All patents are negated by this prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All patents are negated by this prior art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935168</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"sheep-friendly"</p><p>Best description of Apple products ever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" sheep-friendly " Best description of Apple products ever ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"sheep-friendly"Best description of Apple products ever ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936806</id>
	<title>Re:That's obvious</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264704900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple fans want computers easy to use! Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive.</p></div><p>Or far out of line with the things they concern themselves with in their daily lives. Between the two options, I'm voting for the latter. For the vast majority of computer users, the computer is a means to an end - not an end in itself. The more convenient that means is, and the more unobtrusive into their daily lives, the better.  (I rather envy that, actually)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple fans want computers easy to use !
Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive.Or far out of line with the things they concern themselves with in their daily lives .
Between the two options , I 'm voting for the latter .
For the vast majority of computer users , the computer is a means to an end - not an end in itself .
The more convenient that means is , and the more unobtrusive into their daily lives , the better .
( I rather envy that , actually )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple fans want computers easy to use!
Actually CHOOSE what software your computer will run is too much skill-intensive.Or far out of line with the things they concern themselves with in their daily lives.
Between the two options, I'm voting for the latter.
For the vast majority of computer users, the computer is a means to an end - not an end in itself.
The more convenient that means is, and the more unobtrusive into their daily lives, the better.
(I rather envy that, actually)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938912</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel pretty safe using apt-get and that's free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel pretty safe using apt-get and that 's free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel pretty safe using apt-get and that's free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944766</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1264690800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yep yep. I've hated on Apple from the beginning, because I'm a hacker (in the take-it-apart/tinker/design/build sense) from way back and I very very much like to control all of the assets in my world. And I too was offended at the iPhone's integrated battery. </i></p><p>No, you hate Apple only recently, perhaps the last four years or so. Before that you just hated a different choice that some people made, and back in the pre-Mac days, any self-respecting hacker would've thought quite well of Apple. The hardware was simple to interface with, easy to programme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep yep .
I 've hated on Apple from the beginning , because I 'm a hacker ( in the take-it-apart/tinker/design/build sense ) from way back and I very very much like to control all of the assets in my world .
And I too was offended at the iPhone 's integrated battery .
No , you hate Apple only recently , perhaps the last four years or so .
Before that you just hated a different choice that some people made , and back in the pre-Mac days , any self-respecting hacker would 've thought quite well of Apple .
The hardware was simple to interface with , easy to programme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep yep.
I've hated on Apple from the beginning, because I'm a hacker (in the take-it-apart/tinker/design/build sense) from way back and I very very much like to control all of the assets in my world.
And I too was offended at the iPhone's integrated battery.
No, you hate Apple only recently, perhaps the last four years or so.
Before that you just hated a different choice that some people made, and back in the pre-Mac days, any self-respecting hacker would've thought quite well of Apple.
The hardware was simple to interface with, easy to programme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942096</id>
	<title>Re:Consumers vs. Programmers</title>
	<author>Groovus</author>
	<datestamp>1264676220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The average consumer has no way to utilise the sort of programming freedom that Stallman would like to see people have.  They need <b>a checked-out, validated, "App Store" where both useful and useless things can be downloaded and will never, ever compromise their computer.  And if an application is found to be bad after it is released it can be "recalled".  Period.</b> </p></div><p>Call me crazy but I think you just described GNU/Linux. And call me crazy again, but I think the average person can utilize that sort of programming freedom right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average consumer has no way to utilise the sort of programming freedom that Stallman would like to see people have .
They need a checked-out , validated , " App Store " where both useful and useless things can be downloaded and will never , ever compromise their computer .
And if an application is found to be bad after it is released it can be " recalled " .
Period. Call me crazy but I think you just described GNU/Linux .
And call me crazy again , but I think the average person can utilize that sort of programming freedom right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average consumer has no way to utilise the sort of programming freedom that Stallman would like to see people have.
They need a checked-out, validated, "App Store" where both useful and useless things can be downloaded and will never, ever compromise their computer.
And if an application is found to be bad after it is released it can be "recalled".
Period. Call me crazy but I think you just described GNU/Linux.
And call me crazy again, but I think the average person can utilize that sort of programming freedom right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947834</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for bringing some sanity to the conversation.  I don't know where people get the idea the Apple iPad is supposed to be a general computing device.  It isn't that at all.  It is an appliance more than it is a PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for bringing some sanity to the conversation .
I do n't know where people get the idea the Apple iPad is supposed to be a general computing device .
It is n't that at all .
It is an appliance more than it is a PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for bringing some sanity to the conversation.
I don't know where people get the idea the Apple iPad is supposed to be a general computing device.
It isn't that at all.
It is an appliance more than it is a PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937856</id>
	<title>What everyone is missing about this launch</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1264707480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What everyone is missing about this launch, is what I think will make the ipad a RAGING success.<br><br>Apple now [arguably] has a better eBook than the Kindle (If Stanza on the Touch is anything to go on), color, with WiFi, and 3G, and a boatload of storage.<br><br>Apple has a well-known DRM chain.  Apple is popular with the kids.<br><br>Apple is going to get textbook manufacturers to create iPad-only content for kids heading off to college, making the iPad a mandatory tool to have for school, and finally allowing the textbook publishers to kill the used-book market for good.<br><br>That's my prediction.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What everyone is missing about this launch , is what I think will make the ipad a RAGING success.Apple now [ arguably ] has a better eBook than the Kindle ( If Stanza on the Touch is anything to go on ) , color , with WiFi , and 3G , and a boatload of storage.Apple has a well-known DRM chain .
Apple is popular with the kids.Apple is going to get textbook manufacturers to create iPad-only content for kids heading off to college , making the iPad a mandatory tool to have for school , and finally allowing the textbook publishers to kill the used-book market for good.That 's my prediction .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What everyone is missing about this launch, is what I think will make the ipad a RAGING success.Apple now [arguably] has a better eBook than the Kindle (If Stanza on the Touch is anything to go on), color, with WiFi, and 3G, and a boatload of storage.Apple has a well-known DRM chain.
Apple is popular with the kids.Apple is going to get textbook manufacturers to create iPad-only content for kids heading off to college, making the iPad a mandatory tool to have for school, and finally allowing the textbook publishers to kill the used-book market for good.That's my prediction.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935366</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1264700940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.</i></p><p>With no-one to consume the hacker's output, there is no reason for it to exist, and thus there is no boon.</p><p>Never forget that supply and demand are linked; without one, the other is worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.With no-one to consume the hacker 's output , there is no reason for it to exist , and thus there is no boon.Never forget that supply and demand are linked ; without one , the other is worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.With no-one to consume the hacker's output, there is no reason for it to exist, and thus there is no boon.Never forget that supply and demand are linked; without one, the other is worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940302</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1264670880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, no... you don't have to buy the hardware at all.  It is strictly a luxury item.  Very important distinction.  You may want the device, but that is a totally different ball of wax.</p><p>I do think the FSF has a good point, I just think that point has a vanishing applicability.  When it comes to software freedom, most people simply don't care and never will, so the organization alternates between preaching to the choir and screaming into the wind.  Not terribly productive in either case - hence, loony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , no... you do n't have to buy the hardware at all .
It is strictly a luxury item .
Very important distinction .
You may want the device , but that is a totally different ball of wax.I do think the FSF has a good point , I just think that point has a vanishing applicability .
When it comes to software freedom , most people simply do n't care and never will , so the organization alternates between preaching to the choir and screaming into the wind .
Not terribly productive in either case - hence , loony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, no... you don't have to buy the hardware at all.
It is strictly a luxury item.
Very important distinction.
You may want the device, but that is a totally different ball of wax.I do think the FSF has a good point, I just think that point has a vanishing applicability.
When it comes to software freedom, most people simply don't care and never will, so the organization alternates between preaching to the choir and screaming into the wind.
Not terribly productive in either case - hence, loony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937970</id>
	<title>MESSAGE TRUNCATED</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1264707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T NO CARRIER</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T NO CARRIER</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T NO CARRIER</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934098</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1264697400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. How many iPhone clones have hit the market in the last 2 years? The hardware is virtually identical.</p><p>It's not about the hardware, it's about the software. And if you want the software, you've got to drink the Kool-aid, because as soon as you start screwing with the software, it just doesn't work as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
How many iPhone clones have hit the market in the last 2 years ?
The hardware is virtually identical.It 's not about the hardware , it 's about the software .
And if you want the software , you 've got to drink the Kool-aid , because as soon as you start screwing with the software , it just does n't work as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
How many iPhone clones have hit the market in the last 2 years?
The hardware is virtually identical.It's not about the hardware, it's about the software.
And if you want the software, you've got to drink the Kool-aid, because as soon as you start screwing with the software, it just doesn't work as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940738</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264672020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, average users don't want to hassle with weekly updates, crapulent Microsoft products, and bloated OSes.   BAAAAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , average users do n't want to hassle with weekly updates , crapulent Microsoft products , and bloated OSes .
BAAAAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, average users don't want to hassle with weekly updates, crapulent Microsoft products, and bloated OSes.
BAAAAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934212</id>
	<title>Wrong</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1264697700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can install any application you want on an iPod Touch, iPhone and presumably the iPad as well.  If you own or manage the device you have 2 options.  You can either get the development environment and install applications directly to each device or you can set up a server (intended for but not restricted to enterprises) that manages all the devices in your control.  You can install and remove any application, backup and restore data and setting, etc.  What you cannot do without jail breaking the device is violate certain restrictions on using some OS APIs or distribute applications to devices you do not directly manage.  You can distribute applications to others without jail broken phones who either have a developer set up or enterprise server.  You can distribute pretty much anything to people with jail broken devices.  </p><p>
As far as I know, Apple doesn&rsquo;t arrest, prosecute or sue people who jailbreak their devices.  They just don&rsquo;t support them.  Fair enough. If you use unsupported APIs on any OS or application you&rsquo;ll generally find that you won&rsquo;t get vendor support or cooperation doing that. No one can stand behind a product that is not being used as it was intended.  As a customer, your reasonable expectations about a product and its support are those expressed by the vendor.  They don&rsquo;t include anything that the vendor expressly does not support.  They don&rsquo;t include whatever you can dream up. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can install any application you want on an iPod Touch , iPhone and presumably the iPad as well .
If you own or manage the device you have 2 options .
You can either get the development environment and install applications directly to each device or you can set up a server ( intended for but not restricted to enterprises ) that manages all the devices in your control .
You can install and remove any application , backup and restore data and setting , etc .
What you can not do without jail breaking the device is violate certain restrictions on using some OS APIs or distribute applications to devices you do not directly manage .
You can distribute applications to others without jail broken phones who either have a developer set up or enterprise server .
You can distribute pretty much anything to people with jail broken devices .
As far as I know , Apple doesn    t arrest , prosecute or sue people who jailbreak their devices .
They just don    t support them .
Fair enough .
If you use unsupported APIs on any OS or application you    ll generally find that you won    t get vendor support or cooperation doing that .
No one can stand behind a product that is not being used as it was intended .
As a customer , your reasonable expectations about a product and its support are those expressed by the vendor .
They don    t include anything that the vendor expressly does not support .
They don    t include whatever you can dream up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can install any application you want on an iPod Touch, iPhone and presumably the iPad as well.
If you own or manage the device you have 2 options.
You can either get the development environment and install applications directly to each device or you can set up a server (intended for but not restricted to enterprises) that manages all the devices in your control.
You can install and remove any application, backup and restore data and setting, etc.
What you cannot do without jail breaking the device is violate certain restrictions on using some OS APIs or distribute applications to devices you do not directly manage.
You can distribute applications to others without jail broken phones who either have a developer set up or enterprise server.
You can distribute pretty much anything to people with jail broken devices.
As far as I know, Apple doesn’t arrest, prosecute or sue people who jailbreak their devices.
They just don’t support them.
Fair enough.
If you use unsupported APIs on any OS or application you’ll generally find that you won’t get vendor support or cooperation doing that.
No one can stand behind a product that is not being used as it was intended.
As a customer, your reasonable expectations about a product and its support are those expressed by the vendor.
They don’t include anything that the vendor expressly does not support.
They don’t include whatever you can dream up. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935090</id>
	<title>Give me a break - this is asinine.</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264700220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The computers in my refrigerator, car, DVR, television, telephone, microwave, and assorted other appliances only let me do what they were designed to do, and nothing more.</p><p>Harmph...</p><p>The iPad is NOT a general purpose computing device.  Get used to it.  As computers become more integrated into our lives, they will look more like appliances.</p><p>Geez, if you want a computer, buy a computer, NOT AN APPLIANCE.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The computers in my refrigerator , car , DVR , television , telephone , microwave , and assorted other appliances only let me do what they were designed to do , and nothing more.Harmph...The iPad is NOT a general purpose computing device .
Get used to it .
As computers become more integrated into our lives , they will look more like appliances.Geez , if you want a computer , buy a computer , NOT AN APPLIANCE.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The computers in my refrigerator, car, DVR, television, telephone, microwave, and assorted other appliances only let me do what they were designed to do, and nothing more.Harmph...The iPad is NOT a general purpose computing device.
Get used to it.
As computers become more integrated into our lives, they will look more like appliances.Geez, if you want a computer, buy a computer, NOT AN APPLIANCE.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935630</id>
	<title>Home use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Microsoft Support person at work and Linux / open source guy in my spare at work.</p><p>I had both Microsoft and Linux (type) device at home for years. I bought a Mac.. Now when I go home after work I have a life I use the mac to surf the web, reply to a few emails but that is it. This is all most home users need. It always works, it doesn't do much and it is kind of pricey.</p><p>I'll be buying one of these to replace my mini-hp running linux that I use on the bus or from travel. Because it isn't for programming, writting essays.. it is for what 99\% of people do.. surf the web, read some mail and look at the odd credit card required site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Microsoft Support person at work and Linux / open source guy in my spare at work.I had both Microsoft and Linux ( type ) device at home for years .
I bought a Mac.. Now when I go home after work I have a life I use the mac to surf the web , reply to a few emails but that is it .
This is all most home users need .
It always works , it does n't do much and it is kind of pricey.I 'll be buying one of these to replace my mini-hp running linux that I use on the bus or from travel .
Because it is n't for programming , writting essays.. it is for what 99 \ % of people do.. surf the web , read some mail and look at the odd credit card required site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Microsoft Support person at work and Linux / open source guy in my spare at work.I had both Microsoft and Linux (type) device at home for years.
I bought a Mac.. Now when I go home after work I have a life I use the mac to surf the web, reply to a few emails but that is it.
This is all most home users need.
It always works, it doesn't do much and it is kind of pricey.I'll be buying one of these to replace my mini-hp running linux that I use on the bus or from travel.
Because it isn't for programming, writting essays.. it is for what 99\% of people do.. surf the web, read some mail and look at the odd credit card required site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939166</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Apple should have included a stylus with the system."</p><p>I would have bought one only for this reason, I have a wacom cintiq, having the same thing in a portable version would be a dream come true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple should have included a stylus with the system .
" I would have bought one only for this reason , I have a wacom cintiq , having the same thing in a portable version would be a dream come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple should have included a stylus with the system.
"I would have bought one only for this reason, I have a wacom cintiq, having the same thing in a portable version would be a dream come true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945632</id>
	<title>Re:Consumers vs. Programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The kind of "freedom" that is the hallmark of Richard Stallman, GNU and EFF is very simple -if you have programming skills you are free.</p></div><p>I am not a programer (though i wish i was) and I use linux for everything i do, I know many others who are like me.  I am not a programer, and yet i am free....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kind of " freedom " that is the hallmark of Richard Stallman , GNU and EFF is very simple -if you have programming skills you are free.I am not a programer ( though i wish i was ) and I use linux for everything i do , I know many others who are like me .
I am not a programer , and yet i am free... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kind of "freedom" that is the hallmark of Richard Stallman, GNU and EFF is very simple -if you have programming skills you are free.I am not a programer (though i wish i was) and I use linux for everything i do, I know many others who are like me.
I am not a programer, and yet i am free....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934592</id>
	<title>Ditch the iPad, Stayfree for ever!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(unashamedly filched from BoingBoing's Xeni Jardin)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( unashamedly filched from BoingBoing 's Xeni Jardin )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(unashamedly filched from BoingBoing's Xeni Jardin)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935462</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1264701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FSF isn't advocating that only those you deem inferior to yourself need to have control.  They're offering it to everyone.  Period.</p><p>Who are you to choose who is a loser and who is not?</p><p>Further, what happens when Jobs decides that you, too, are a loser?</p><p>Freedom is the only defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FSF is n't advocating that only those you deem inferior to yourself need to have control .
They 're offering it to everyone .
Period.Who are you to choose who is a loser and who is not ? Further , what happens when Jobs decides that you , too , are a loser ? Freedom is the only defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FSF isn't advocating that only those you deem inferior to yourself need to have control.
They're offering it to everyone.
Period.Who are you to choose who is a loser and who is not?Further, what happens when Jobs decides that you, too, are a loser?Freedom is the only defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934092</id>
	<title>This is a big deal...why?</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264697400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The history of computing is littered with mistakes and dead-ends. If this is all that bad, it'll go the way of the Lisa, the Apple III, Clippy, the Coleco Adam, and others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The history of computing is littered with mistakes and dead-ends .
If this is all that bad , it 'll go the way of the Lisa , the Apple III , Clippy , the Coleco Adam , and others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The history of computing is littered with mistakes and dead-ends.
If this is all that bad, it'll go the way of the Lisa, the Apple III, Clippy, the Coleco Adam, and others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935358</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1264700880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem with viruses on Windows isn't due to users having control over their computers. Instead, the problem is due to programs having too much control and users having too little control over what programs are allowed to do. The idea that Windows' vulnerabilities are due to a lack of prerelease approval by Microsoft is just a red herring. Mac OS X allows users to run unsigned software, yet mostly they don't have to worry about malware because the operating system provides reasonable protections against malicious software.</p><blockquote><div><p>Sure, this is bad for the FSF, but what alternative vision of computing do they offer?</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't it obvious? They want a system that doesn't require the hardware manufacturer to approve each and every piece of software that runs on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should average users have control over their computer ?
Is n't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows ? The problem with viruses on Windows is n't due to users having control over their computers .
Instead , the problem is due to programs having too much control and users having too little control over what programs are allowed to do .
The idea that Windows ' vulnerabilities are due to a lack of prerelease approval by Microsoft is just a red herring .
Mac OS X allows users to run unsigned software , yet mostly they do n't have to worry about malware because the operating system provides reasonable protections against malicious software.Sure , this is bad for the FSF , but what alternative vision of computing do they offer ? Is n't it obvious ?
They want a system that does n't require the hardware manufacturer to approve each and every piece of software that runs on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should average users have control over their computer?
Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?The problem with viruses on Windows isn't due to users having control over their computers.
Instead, the problem is due to programs having too much control and users having too little control over what programs are allowed to do.
The idea that Windows' vulnerabilities are due to a lack of prerelease approval by Microsoft is just a red herring.
Mac OS X allows users to run unsigned software, yet mostly they don't have to worry about malware because the operating system provides reasonable protections against malicious software.Sure, this is bad for the FSF, but what alternative vision of computing do they offer?Isn't it obvious?
They want a system that doesn't require the hardware manufacturer to approve each and every piece of software that runs on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937718</id>
	<title>To the FSF..</title>
	<author>kuzb</author>
	<datestamp>1264707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything that doesn't run Linux out of the box is a huge step backwards.  It's like a gas company chairman getting up and telling us electric cars are a huge step backwards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that does n't run Linux out of the box is a huge step backwards .
It 's like a gas company chairman getting up and telling us electric cars are a huge step backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that doesn't run Linux out of the box is a huge step backwards.
It's like a gas company chairman getting up and telling us electric cars are a huge step backwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941762</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully this will cause flash to die.  Flash serves no useful purpose. If you use flash on your site for anything other than stream video, here is a hint.  You make your users cringe.  It is no longer needed for streaming video and is therefore no longer needed at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this will cause flash to die .
Flash serves no useful purpose .
If you use flash on your site for anything other than stream video , here is a hint .
You make your users cringe .
It is no longer needed for streaming video and is therefore no longer needed at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this will cause flash to die.
Flash serves no useful purpose.
If you use flash on your site for anything other than stream video, here is a hint.
You make your users cringe.
It is no longer needed for streaming video and is therefore no longer needed at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939556</id>
	<title>Too Bad</title>
	<author>dr. chuck bunsen</author>
	<datestamp>1264711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really dislike the whole tightly controlled closed system. However, I was hoping that Apple would release exactly what they did, because I wanted an ebook reader that didn't suck, and the ipad is truly very sleek, and is certainly the best reader on the market (i know it does much more, and is being marketed as much more than just a reader). If anyone else could manage to build hardware as nice and polished as what Apple always manages to come out with, I would much rather get something else. What would be great is something in the form factor of the iPad running Android. If you build it they will come. I don't think it would be long before someone released an Android version of something like iBook, and that would be perfect. I think instead of everyone sitting around bitching about what Apple did or didn't do, they should build the competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really dislike the whole tightly controlled closed system .
However , I was hoping that Apple would release exactly what they did , because I wanted an ebook reader that did n't suck , and the ipad is truly very sleek , and is certainly the best reader on the market ( i know it does much more , and is being marketed as much more than just a reader ) .
If anyone else could manage to build hardware as nice and polished as what Apple always manages to come out with , I would much rather get something else .
What would be great is something in the form factor of the iPad running Android .
If you build it they will come .
I do n't think it would be long before someone released an Android version of something like iBook , and that would be perfect .
I think instead of everyone sitting around bitching about what Apple did or did n't do , they should build the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really dislike the whole tightly controlled closed system.
However, I was hoping that Apple would release exactly what they did, because I wanted an ebook reader that didn't suck, and the ipad is truly very sleek, and is certainly the best reader on the market (i know it does much more, and is being marketed as much more than just a reader).
If anyone else could manage to build hardware as nice and polished as what Apple always manages to come out with, I would much rather get something else.
What would be great is something in the form factor of the iPad running Android.
If you build it they will come.
I don't think it would be long before someone released an Android version of something like iBook, and that would be perfect.
I think instead of everyone sitting around bitching about what Apple did or didn't do, they should build the competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939686</id>
	<title>Overlooking something important here</title>
	<author>wickerprints</author>
	<datestamp>1264712160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that I particularly care to defend Apple's closed (aka tight integration) policies regarding their products.  I don't necessarily agree with their approach, nor do I disagree.  I find some aspects troubling as much as I find others completely overblown.</p><p>But what these critics are consistently overlooking is one simple fact:  competition.  Look at the iPhone.  It's so easy to look back with hindsight and say how it was a technological inevitability, but really, I want you to try really hard and remember what kind of phones we had on the market before the iPhone.  Tortured user interfaces, nested menus, inelegant text input methods, tiny screens, and pathetic multimedia capabilities.  Features were not designed from the ground up, but rather tacked on like afterthoughts.  And look at where we are now.  We have Google Android.  We have touchscreen phones with big screens.  We literally witnessed a revolution in mobile phone technology that the iPhone precipitated and yet these critics don't seem to recognize this fact.  All they do is complain about lock-in, but had Apple not stuck its neck out and designed the iPhone, the mobile network operators and the handset makers would not have had a fire lit under their collective asses to deliver a better product to the consumer.  Sure, we had "smartphones" before Apple.  We had Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Symbian.  We had these things but they were STILL limited and expensive.  Apple changed the mobile phone game and nobody can legitimately deny that.</p><p>The iPad is the same thing.  It's not supposed to be everything everybody demanded at the outset.  The iPhone wasn't--it wasn't even 3G originally.  It didn't have the App Store at first.  Apple's mode of operation, if it hasn't been made completely obvious by now, is to get the basics down first, then refine and expand later.  That's what they did with the iPod (remember, it had a real hard drive inside, instead of flash memory?), the iPhone, and now the iPad.  This is just the first step of many to come.</p><p>Only Apple has the balls these days to take a concept, refine it, and make it work.  Remember all the other tablet vaporware hype in the past year?  Everyone has somehow conveniently forgotten.  There's NOTHING like the iPad out there right now.  Not even CLOSE.  And now that Apple has shown its hand, it's now up to the competitors to show what they can do.  Apple took on all the risk of developing this product, now the competitors will see the market's reaction and make something that could be better and more open, just as what happened with the iPhone.</p><p>Are we getting it now?</p><p>It's always easy to criticize the innovators.  It's easy to forget what life was like before the breakthroughs, because the most well-designed technologies become so natural and integrated into your life that they become second nature.  The iPad is literally like something out of Star Trek, so much so that I thought it should've been called an iPADD.  And now it is up to others to step up to the plate and provide their own devices, with more openness, with an even better interface, if they are really sincere about delivering choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that I particularly care to defend Apple 's closed ( aka tight integration ) policies regarding their products .
I do n't necessarily agree with their approach , nor do I disagree .
I find some aspects troubling as much as I find others completely overblown.But what these critics are consistently overlooking is one simple fact : competition .
Look at the iPhone .
It 's so easy to look back with hindsight and say how it was a technological inevitability , but really , I want you to try really hard and remember what kind of phones we had on the market before the iPhone .
Tortured user interfaces , nested menus , inelegant text input methods , tiny screens , and pathetic multimedia capabilities .
Features were not designed from the ground up , but rather tacked on like afterthoughts .
And look at where we are now .
We have Google Android .
We have touchscreen phones with big screens .
We literally witnessed a revolution in mobile phone technology that the iPhone precipitated and yet these critics do n't seem to recognize this fact .
All they do is complain about lock-in , but had Apple not stuck its neck out and designed the iPhone , the mobile network operators and the handset makers would not have had a fire lit under their collective asses to deliver a better product to the consumer .
Sure , we had " smartphones " before Apple .
We had Windows Mobile , Blackberry , and Symbian .
We had these things but they were STILL limited and expensive .
Apple changed the mobile phone game and nobody can legitimately deny that.The iPad is the same thing .
It 's not supposed to be everything everybody demanded at the outset .
The iPhone was n't--it was n't even 3G originally .
It did n't have the App Store at first .
Apple 's mode of operation , if it has n't been made completely obvious by now , is to get the basics down first , then refine and expand later .
That 's what they did with the iPod ( remember , it had a real hard drive inside , instead of flash memory ?
) , the iPhone , and now the iPad .
This is just the first step of many to come.Only Apple has the balls these days to take a concept , refine it , and make it work .
Remember all the other tablet vaporware hype in the past year ?
Everyone has somehow conveniently forgotten .
There 's NOTHING like the iPad out there right now .
Not even CLOSE .
And now that Apple has shown its hand , it 's now up to the competitors to show what they can do .
Apple took on all the risk of developing this product , now the competitors will see the market 's reaction and make something that could be better and more open , just as what happened with the iPhone.Are we getting it now ? It 's always easy to criticize the innovators .
It 's easy to forget what life was like before the breakthroughs , because the most well-designed technologies become so natural and integrated into your life that they become second nature .
The iPad is literally like something out of Star Trek , so much so that I thought it should 've been called an iPADD .
And now it is up to others to step up to the plate and provide their own devices , with more openness , with an even better interface , if they are really sincere about delivering choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that I particularly care to defend Apple's closed (aka tight integration) policies regarding their products.
I don't necessarily agree with their approach, nor do I disagree.
I find some aspects troubling as much as I find others completely overblown.But what these critics are consistently overlooking is one simple fact:  competition.
Look at the iPhone.
It's so easy to look back with hindsight and say how it was a technological inevitability, but really, I want you to try really hard and remember what kind of phones we had on the market before the iPhone.
Tortured user interfaces, nested menus, inelegant text input methods, tiny screens, and pathetic multimedia capabilities.
Features were not designed from the ground up, but rather tacked on like afterthoughts.
And look at where we are now.
We have Google Android.
We have touchscreen phones with big screens.
We literally witnessed a revolution in mobile phone technology that the iPhone precipitated and yet these critics don't seem to recognize this fact.
All they do is complain about lock-in, but had Apple not stuck its neck out and designed the iPhone, the mobile network operators and the handset makers would not have had a fire lit under their collective asses to deliver a better product to the consumer.
Sure, we had "smartphones" before Apple.
We had Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Symbian.
We had these things but they were STILL limited and expensive.
Apple changed the mobile phone game and nobody can legitimately deny that.The iPad is the same thing.
It's not supposed to be everything everybody demanded at the outset.
The iPhone wasn't--it wasn't even 3G originally.
It didn't have the App Store at first.
Apple's mode of operation, if it hasn't been made completely obvious by now, is to get the basics down first, then refine and expand later.
That's what they did with the iPod (remember, it had a real hard drive inside, instead of flash memory?
), the iPhone, and now the iPad.
This is just the first step of many to come.Only Apple has the balls these days to take a concept, refine it, and make it work.
Remember all the other tablet vaporware hype in the past year?
Everyone has somehow conveniently forgotten.
There's NOTHING like the iPad out there right now.
Not even CLOSE.
And now that Apple has shown its hand, it's now up to the competitors to show what they can do.
Apple took on all the risk of developing this product, now the competitors will see the market's reaction and make something that could be better and more open, just as what happened with the iPhone.Are we getting it now?It's always easy to criticize the innovators.
It's easy to forget what life was like before the breakthroughs, because the most well-designed technologies become so natural and integrated into your life that they become second nature.
The iPad is literally like something out of Star Trek, so much so that I thought it should've been called an iPADD.
And now it is up to others to step up to the plate and provide their own devices, with more openness, with an even better interface, if they are really sincere about delivering choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939462</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1264711440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you've fully contradicted yourself.</p><p>MacBook Pro rocks - best of both worlds - Apple rules.</p><p>iPad sucks - it's locked down - Apple sucks</p><p>Is it impossible for 1 company to offer both general computing devices and special purpose computing appliances?</p><p>Why should iPhone OS and OS X be mutually exclusive...</p><p>Apple just raked in huge returns on their general computing lines... ie: Workstations, Desktops and Laptops - why would they stop.</p><p>All this iPad does is provide an alternative to a full PC for those who really don't care about managing a complicated system and just want to *DO* things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you 've fully contradicted yourself.MacBook Pro rocks - best of both worlds - Apple rules.iPad sucks - it 's locked down - Apple sucksIs it impossible for 1 company to offer both general computing devices and special purpose computing appliances ? Why should iPhone OS and OS X be mutually exclusive...Apple just raked in huge returns on their general computing lines... ie : Workstations , Desktops and Laptops - why would they stop.All this iPad does is provide an alternative to a full PC for those who really do n't care about managing a complicated system and just want to * DO * things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you've fully contradicted yourself.MacBook Pro rocks - best of both worlds - Apple rules.iPad sucks - it's locked down - Apple sucksIs it impossible for 1 company to offer both general computing devices and special purpose computing appliances?Why should iPhone OS and OS X be mutually exclusive...Apple just raked in huge returns on their general computing lines... ie: Workstations, Desktops and Laptops - why would they stop.All this iPad does is provide an alternative to a full PC for those who really don't care about managing a complicated system and just want to *DO* things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946862</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Bynrdskynrd</author>
	<datestamp>1264798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agree. And that's why I drive a 2001 S-10 versus a '81 Chevelle. But I don't expect that the first oil change 25,000 miles after I bought it would do any good about extending its life. <br>
Example--my brother-in-law is one of the few Jedi Masters of IT. He can wax philosophical about who has the edge on flops regarding intel vs. AMD. Yet, cars are consumer products to him; he just puts gas in it and goes. The 'lil yellow lite that tells him to check the engine means a trip to the dealership or Oil Can Henry's.<br>
<br>
The same with these pieces of equipment: if we are knowledgeable and confident about our abilities, we can mod them as we choose (I run Windows XP with BlackBox, and have VirtualBox ready to run Kubuntu). Otherwise, most people want a microwave for a computer (and good luck with getting these same people to set the clock on their VCRs....).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree .
And that 's why I drive a 2001 S-10 versus a '81 Chevelle .
But I do n't expect that the first oil change 25,000 miles after I bought it would do any good about extending its life .
Example--my brother-in-law is one of the few Jedi Masters of IT .
He can wax philosophical about who has the edge on flops regarding intel vs. AMD. Yet , cars are consumer products to him ; he just puts gas in it and goes .
The 'lil yellow lite that tells him to check the engine means a trip to the dealership or Oil Can Henry 's .
The same with these pieces of equipment : if we are knowledgeable and confident about our abilities , we can mod them as we choose ( I run Windows XP with BlackBox , and have VirtualBox ready to run Kubuntu ) .
Otherwise , most people want a microwave for a computer ( and good luck with getting these same people to set the clock on their VCRs.... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree.
And that's why I drive a 2001 S-10 versus a '81 Chevelle.
But I don't expect that the first oil change 25,000 miles after I bought it would do any good about extending its life.
Example--my brother-in-law is one of the few Jedi Masters of IT.
He can wax philosophical about who has the edge on flops regarding intel vs. AMD. Yet, cars are consumer products to him; he just puts gas in it and goes.
The 'lil yellow lite that tells him to check the engine means a trip to the dealership or Oil Can Henry's.
The same with these pieces of equipment: if we are knowledgeable and confident about our abilities, we can mod them as we choose (I run Windows XP with BlackBox, and have VirtualBox ready to run Kubuntu).
Otherwise, most people want a microwave for a computer (and good luck with getting these same people to set the clock on their VCRs....).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934998</id>
	<title>It's all fun!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hype machine (tech media) was a barrel of fun with their blind guesses.</p><p>And now the hype machine (tech media) is all angry because the hype *they* created and fed didn't pan out. Classic. They're like all the disillusioned Obama voters.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p><p>And what is with making the caparison to feminine pads? Did you do the same before when someone mentioned a pad of paper, or shoulder pads or someone padding their expense account? Seriously, I don't get it. Eh, that's memes for you.</p><p>As for the iPad itself, my hopes were:</p><p>- Retractable blades around the edge so I could use it as throwing weapon like Oddjob's bowler hat in Goldfinger.</p><p>- A wheeled "rover" dock that would allow the iPad to roam around my house like a pet.</p><p>- The long awaited eros.com App.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hype machine ( tech media ) was a barrel of fun with their blind guesses.And now the hype machine ( tech media ) is all angry because the hype * they * created and fed did n't pan out .
Classic. They 're like all the disillusioned Obama voters .
: -DAnd what is with making the caparison to feminine pads ?
Did you do the same before when someone mentioned a pad of paper , or shoulder pads or someone padding their expense account ?
Seriously , I do n't get it .
Eh , that 's memes for you.As for the iPad itself , my hopes were : - Retractable blades around the edge so I could use it as throwing weapon like Oddjob 's bowler hat in Goldfinger.- A wheeled " rover " dock that would allow the iPad to roam around my house like a pet.- The long awaited eros.com App .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hype machine (tech media) was a barrel of fun with their blind guesses.And now the hype machine (tech media) is all angry because the hype *they* created and fed didn't pan out.
Classic. They're like all the disillusioned Obama voters.
:-DAnd what is with making the caparison to feminine pads?
Did you do the same before when someone mentioned a pad of paper, or shoulder pads or someone padding their expense account?
Seriously, I don't get it.
Eh, that's memes for you.As for the iPad itself, my hopes were:- Retractable blades around the edge so I could use it as throwing weapon like Oddjob's bowler hat in Goldfinger.- A wheeled "rover" dock that would allow the iPad to roam around my house like a pet.- The long awaited eros.com App.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934970</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>robnator</author>
	<datestamp>1264699920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(cough) bullsh*t...</p><p>try getting rid of your damnable Sidebar!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( cough ) bullsh * t...try getting rid of your damnable Sidebar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(cough) bullsh*t...try getting rid of your damnable Sidebar!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936372</id>
	<title>Don't bother trying to save the I$heeps' souls...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people are just too stupid to use a compiler, or even extract a zip file. These are the people who don't appreciate having control over their own hardware. I say let them all buy Steve's latest shiny gadget. I'll stick with cheap machines that are under my control and do what I say.</p><p>It is funny that people will go spend $500 on the latest crippled gadgets, but hey, the economy needs them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people are just too stupid to use a compiler , or even extract a zip file .
These are the people who do n't appreciate having control over their own hardware .
I say let them all buy Steve 's latest shiny gadget .
I 'll stick with cheap machines that are under my control and do what I say.It is funny that people will go spend $ 500 on the latest crippled gadgets , but hey , the economy needs them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people are just too stupid to use a compiler, or even extract a zip file.
These are the people who don't appreciate having control over their own hardware.
I say let them all buy Steve's latest shiny gadget.
I'll stick with cheap machines that are under my control and do what I say.It is funny that people will go spend $500 on the latest crippled gadgets, but hey, the economy needs them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30960798</id>
	<title>The appeal of convenience</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1264849320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What people forget is the appeal of convenience. <br> <br>
The Ipad, and other Apple devices, maybe closed, DRMized and can download software only from Applestore. But as long as the device and its ecosystem is convenient and provides a good experience, most people wont care about its limitation.<br> <br>

And that is what Apple is good for. Provide a fuzzy warm feeling when you use their products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What people forget is the appeal of convenience .
The Ipad , and other Apple devices , maybe closed , DRMized and can download software only from Applestore .
But as long as the device and its ecosystem is convenient and provides a good experience , most people wont care about its limitation .
And that is what Apple is good for .
Provide a fuzzy warm feeling when you use their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people forget is the appeal of convenience.
The Ipad, and other Apple devices, maybe closed, DRMized and can download software only from Applestore.
But as long as the device and its ecosystem is convenient and provides a good experience, most people wont care about its limitation.
And that is what Apple is good for.
Provide a fuzzy warm feeling when you use their products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30993212</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>GlidmedelZoneBlu</author>
	<datestamp>1265112600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you totally... If you don't like it the don't buy/ignore it - I never liked any other phone before iphone - probably because I hate mobiles anyway! Now I have seen just how "tight" the ipad's gonna be then that's my choice of equipment for my lazing around in the sun whilst on holiday - Just enough to check my mail and surf a bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you totally... If you do n't like it the do n't buy/ignore it - I never liked any other phone before iphone - probably because I hate mobiles anyway !
Now I have seen just how " tight " the ipad 's gon na be then that 's my choice of equipment for my lazing around in the sun whilst on holiday - Just enough to check my mail and surf a bit : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you totally... If you don't like it the don't buy/ignore it - I never liked any other phone before iphone - probably because I hate mobiles anyway!
Now I have seen just how "tight" the ipad's gonna be then that's my choice of equipment for my lazing around in the sun whilst on holiday - Just enough to check my mail and surf a bit :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935952</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1264702440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you assume "she" has one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you assume " she " has one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you assume "she" has one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont think the problem is as simplistic as you make it out to be.  I have an iphone and I grudgingly accept its limitations because its a portable device that needs to be rock-solid and not randomly drain the battery on me, or whatever issues Apple has with multitasking.</p><p>Ive been thinking of buying a tablet for some time and have remained somewhat open-minded about this tablet, but you cant sell me the exact same iphone model with simply a larger device.  You cant tell me I cant have flash for something that will primarily be a web tablet.  You cant expect people to buy flash apps turned into iphone apps for every site.  You cant say "Well, its really an iphone, but its not, so when you complain just remember its an iphone sans phone." Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch. Perhaps they should have marketed it as an ipod for your grandpa like those giant remote controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont think the problem is as simplistic as you make it out to be .
I have an iphone and I grudgingly accept its limitations because its a portable device that needs to be rock-solid and not randomly drain the battery on me , or whatever issues Apple has with multitasking.Ive been thinking of buying a tablet for some time and have remained somewhat open-minded about this tablet , but you cant sell me the exact same iphone model with simply a larger device .
You cant tell me I cant have flash for something that will primarily be a web tablet .
You cant expect people to buy flash apps turned into iphone apps for every site .
You cant say " Well , its really an iphone , but its not , so when you complain just remember its an iphone sans phone .
" Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch .
Perhaps they should have marketed it as an ipod for your grandpa like those giant remote controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont think the problem is as simplistic as you make it out to be.
I have an iphone and I grudgingly accept its limitations because its a portable device that needs to be rock-solid and not randomly drain the battery on me, or whatever issues Apple has with multitasking.Ive been thinking of buying a tablet for some time and have remained somewhat open-minded about this tablet, but you cant sell me the exact same iphone model with simply a larger device.
You cant tell me I cant have flash for something that will primarily be a web tablet.
You cant expect people to buy flash apps turned into iphone apps for every site.
You cant say "Well, its really an iphone, but its not, so when you complain just remember its an iphone sans phone.
" Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch.
Perhaps they should have marketed it as an ipod for your grandpa like those giant remote controls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939246</id>
	<title>Yeah but ...</title>
	<author>Teisei</author>
	<datestamp>1264710900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it run Linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it run Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it run Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937784</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the picture you've painted is that it's merely a snapshot and not a video.  The hacker doesn't spend all day every day bent over his keyboard and the couch potato doesn't spend all day every day leaning back.  Those hours relaxing in front of the tv may be what makes it possible for the couch potato to focus during the hours he isn't leaning back.  The hacker may in fact be better off relaxing in front of a video game console and letting his subconscious work than remaining bent over his keyboard staring at rows of hex digits trying to deduce the underlying pattern.  The time spent relaxing and consuming is not wasted time; it's an essential precursor to productive time.</p><p>From a different angle, the argument against extending copyright indefinitely is that it takes consumption to create new works; authors consume the works of others before they can create their own works.  Therefore denying consumption is detrimental to creation.  One does not exist without the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the picture you 've painted is that it 's merely a snapshot and not a video .
The hacker does n't spend all day every day bent over his keyboard and the couch potato does n't spend all day every day leaning back .
Those hours relaxing in front of the tv may be what makes it possible for the couch potato to focus during the hours he is n't leaning back .
The hacker may in fact be better off relaxing in front of a video game console and letting his subconscious work than remaining bent over his keyboard staring at rows of hex digits trying to deduce the underlying pattern .
The time spent relaxing and consuming is not wasted time ; it 's an essential precursor to productive time.From a different angle , the argument against extending copyright indefinitely is that it takes consumption to create new works ; authors consume the works of others before they can create their own works .
Therefore denying consumption is detrimental to creation .
One does not exist without the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the picture you've painted is that it's merely a snapshot and not a video.
The hacker doesn't spend all day every day bent over his keyboard and the couch potato doesn't spend all day every day leaning back.
Those hours relaxing in front of the tv may be what makes it possible for the couch potato to focus during the hours he isn't leaning back.
The hacker may in fact be better off relaxing in front of a video game console and letting his subconscious work than remaining bent over his keyboard staring at rows of hex digits trying to deduce the underlying pattern.
The time spent relaxing and consuming is not wasted time; it's an essential precursor to productive time.From a different angle, the argument against extending copyright indefinitely is that it takes consumption to create new works; authors consume the works of others before they can create their own works.
Therefore denying consumption is detrimental to creation.
One does not exist without the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934568</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't like it, don't buy it.</p><p>
&nbsp; Simple.</p></div><p>Too Simple, my dear. One thing you don't grasp: for the dirty expectations-bound way it behaves, Apple sets viral trends. It changes the world.</p><p>That is in general not bad, change may also and is often for good and better.</p><p>But what Apple started may be the beginning of a dangerous escalation of dumbness of customers, so weak to give themselves out entirely as paying 'drones' to corporations.</p><p>And then corporations that set their highest target in making their faithful customers every day weaker (that is: controllable, dependent, also from expectations) and with far less free will to change, which also means less creativity like it's happening today in America already.<br>The change that hinders the change. Scary, uh?</p><p>So you're lucky until the super smart guy (Steve Jobs) decides to make cool things for you (while all the people under him do just... execute??? gee I'd never want to work there, inferiority complex would kill me in a click).</p><p>But then that system stays in place because a standard was set, accepted through people's euphoria.<br>A system potentially able to limit the freedom of the people and assigning that to only 'super smart guys' controlling corporations. Would that be democracy? First Amendment, anyone?</p><p>If I read myself again:this reads pretty freaky, a bit too broad, too forward looking and long not the case of today yet. But still: 1984 was written in 1948...</p><p>When is the thing for sale again? I gotta go queue up now...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like it , do n't buy it .
  Simple.Too Simple , my dear .
One thing you do n't grasp : for the dirty expectations-bound way it behaves , Apple sets viral trends .
It changes the world.That is in general not bad , change may also and is often for good and better.But what Apple started may be the beginning of a dangerous escalation of dumbness of customers , so weak to give themselves out entirely as paying 'drones ' to corporations.And then corporations that set their highest target in making their faithful customers every day weaker ( that is : controllable , dependent , also from expectations ) and with far less free will to change , which also means less creativity like it 's happening today in America already.The change that hinders the change .
Scary , uh ? So you 're lucky until the super smart guy ( Steve Jobs ) decides to make cool things for you ( while all the people under him do just.. .
execute ? ? ? gee I 'd never want to work there , inferiority complex would kill me in a click ) .But then that system stays in place because a standard was set , accepted through people 's euphoria.A system potentially able to limit the freedom of the people and assigning that to only 'super smart guys ' controlling corporations .
Would that be democracy ?
First Amendment , anyone ? If I read myself again : this reads pretty freaky , a bit too broad , too forward looking and long not the case of today yet .
But still : 1984 was written in 1948...When is the thing for sale again ?
I got ta go queue up now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like it, don't buy it.
  Simple.Too Simple, my dear.
One thing you don't grasp: for the dirty expectations-bound way it behaves, Apple sets viral trends.
It changes the world.That is in general not bad, change may also and is often for good and better.But what Apple started may be the beginning of a dangerous escalation of dumbness of customers, so weak to give themselves out entirely as paying 'drones' to corporations.And then corporations that set their highest target in making their faithful customers every day weaker (that is: controllable, dependent, also from expectations) and with far less free will to change, which also means less creativity like it's happening today in America already.The change that hinders the change.
Scary, uh?So you're lucky until the super smart guy (Steve Jobs) decides to make cool things for you (while all the people under him do just...
execute??? gee I'd never want to work there, inferiority complex would kill me in a click).But then that system stays in place because a standard was set, accepted through people's euphoria.A system potentially able to limit the freedom of the people and assigning that to only 'super smart guys' controlling corporations.
Would that be democracy?
First Amendment, anyone?If I read myself again:this reads pretty freaky, a bit too broad, too forward looking and long not the case of today yet.
But still: 1984 was written in 1948...When is the thing for sale again?
I gotta go queue up now...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937948</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>Pandamonium</author>
	<datestamp>1264707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Perhaps they should have marketed it as an ipod for your grandpa like those giant remote controls.</i>
<br> <br>
Ouch! Your phrase better not catch on. That line may prove to be one of the most destructive to the success of the iPad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they should have marketed it as an ipod for your grandpa like those giant remote controls .
Ouch ! Your phrase better not catch on .
That line may prove to be one of the most destructive to the success of the iPad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they should have marketed it as an ipod for your grandpa like those giant remote controls.
Ouch! Your phrase better not catch on.
That line may prove to be one of the most destructive to the success of the iPad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936462</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264704000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and it's Steve Jobs' job to sell consumer products. Consume, consume, consume, indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it 's Steve Jobs ' job to sell consumer products .
Consume , consume , consume , indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it's Steve Jobs' job to sell consumer products.
Consume, consume, consume, indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937212</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Jobs<br>
&nbsp; has been shooting himself in the foot since 1980. He could be in the position BillGates is in. But proprietary, proprietary, proprietary, never ends.!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs   has been shooting himself in the foot since 1980 .
He could be in the position BillGates is in .
But proprietary , proprietary , proprietary , never ends. !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs
  has been shooting himself in the foot since 1980.
He could be in the position BillGates is in.
But proprietary, proprietary, proprietary, never ends.!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937354</id>
	<title>Where was the outrage</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1264706400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does Apple get a special brand of outrage every time it releases a product? Where's the outrage when Microsoft, Sony, AND Nintendo all announced that you can't program for their powerful computers unless you bought a very expensive kit, and even then your product couldn't be released without going through a thorough review process and paying more substantial sums? Oh yeah, nobody cared because that was par for the course for consoles over the last 20 years and anyway, it's just a game system. Where, even, was the outrage when Amazon and Barnes and Noble announced that you can't program applications for their eBook readers? Oh, it's just meant to read books. So now Apple comes out with a similar device but this one reads books, plays games, browses the web, plays music and movies, and allows anybody to program pretty much anything for it for a fairly low price with the added functionality of easy distribution and pay system... and HOLY FUCKING SHIT THEY'RE NOT LETTING US INSTALL TIDDLYWINKS 3D ON IT BY OURSELVES AND LOAD IT WITH ALL THE APPLICATIONS WE COULD GET OFF DOWNLOAD.COM!! WHERE'S MY PITCHFORK!?!?!!!!</p><p>The iPhone and iPod Touch opened up a floodgate of hungry customers toward simple, single purpose applications. I'd think that the developers on this site would be going apeshit over the fact that now there will be millions of more paying customers with easy access to your software and with backward compatibility toward a device that already has over 20 million users, but instead, you're busy bitching about how you can't "do what you want with it." What more do you want? The ability to install GCC on it? Guess what, it's give and take... if you want the freedom of installing any application that your heart deems worthy, then you're going to pay for it by not having the casual market care about the device because it's too complicated for them... and there are plenty of devices like that out for you already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Apple get a special brand of outrage every time it releases a product ?
Where 's the outrage when Microsoft , Sony , AND Nintendo all announced that you ca n't program for their powerful computers unless you bought a very expensive kit , and even then your product could n't be released without going through a thorough review process and paying more substantial sums ?
Oh yeah , nobody cared because that was par for the course for consoles over the last 20 years and anyway , it 's just a game system .
Where , even , was the outrage when Amazon and Barnes and Noble announced that you ca n't program applications for their eBook readers ?
Oh , it 's just meant to read books .
So now Apple comes out with a similar device but this one reads books , plays games , browses the web , plays music and movies , and allows anybody to program pretty much anything for it for a fairly low price with the added functionality of easy distribution and pay system... and HOLY FUCKING SHIT THEY 'RE NOT LETTING US INSTALL TIDDLYWINKS 3D ON IT BY OURSELVES AND LOAD IT WITH ALL THE APPLICATIONS WE COULD GET OFF DOWNLOAD.COM ! !
WHERE 'S MY PITCHFORK ! ? ! ? ! ! !
! The iPhone and iPod Touch opened up a floodgate of hungry customers toward simple , single purpose applications .
I 'd think that the developers on this site would be going apeshit over the fact that now there will be millions of more paying customers with easy access to your software and with backward compatibility toward a device that already has over 20 million users , but instead , you 're busy bitching about how you ca n't " do what you want with it .
" What more do you want ?
The ability to install GCC on it ?
Guess what , it 's give and take... if you want the freedom of installing any application that your heart deems worthy , then you 're going to pay for it by not having the casual market care about the device because it 's too complicated for them... and there are plenty of devices like that out for you already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Apple get a special brand of outrage every time it releases a product?
Where's the outrage when Microsoft, Sony, AND Nintendo all announced that you can't program for their powerful computers unless you bought a very expensive kit, and even then your product couldn't be released without going through a thorough review process and paying more substantial sums?
Oh yeah, nobody cared because that was par for the course for consoles over the last 20 years and anyway, it's just a game system.
Where, even, was the outrage when Amazon and Barnes and Noble announced that you can't program applications for their eBook readers?
Oh, it's just meant to read books.
So now Apple comes out with a similar device but this one reads books, plays games, browses the web, plays music and movies, and allows anybody to program pretty much anything for it for a fairly low price with the added functionality of easy distribution and pay system... and HOLY FUCKING SHIT THEY'RE NOT LETTING US INSTALL TIDDLYWINKS 3D ON IT BY OURSELVES AND LOAD IT WITH ALL THE APPLICATIONS WE COULD GET OFF DOWNLOAD.COM!!
WHERE'S MY PITCHFORK!?!?!!!
!The iPhone and iPod Touch opened up a floodgate of hungry customers toward simple, single purpose applications.
I'd think that the developers on this site would be going apeshit over the fact that now there will be millions of more paying customers with easy access to your software and with backward compatibility toward a device that already has over 20 million users, but instead, you're busy bitching about how you can't "do what you want with it.
" What more do you want?
The ability to install GCC on it?
Guess what, it's give and take... if you want the freedom of installing any application that your heart deems worthy, then you're going to pay for it by not having the casual market care about the device because it's too complicated for them... and there are plenty of devices like that out for you already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938458</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This exactly right.  The Kindle is a better comparison than a general purpose PC.  It is not meant to be a PC. It is not meant for the folks that need or know how to use a PC. I fully expect there to be a "MacPad" at some point that does not have the limitations but Im pretty sure you won't be able to buy it for $499.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This exactly right .
The Kindle is a better comparison than a general purpose PC .
It is not meant to be a PC .
It is not meant for the folks that need or know how to use a PC .
I fully expect there to be a " MacPad " at some point that does not have the limitations but Im pretty sure you wo n't be able to buy it for $ 499 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This exactly right.
The Kindle is a better comparison than a general purpose PC.
It is not meant to be a PC.
It is not meant for the folks that need or know how to use a PC.
I fully expect there to be a "MacPad" at some point that does not have the limitations but Im pretty sure you won't be able to buy it for $499.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935658</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular position on Slashdot...I LIKE the iPa</title>
	<author>furball</author>
	<datestamp>1264701600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the $10 less, the Kindle gets you a persistent wireless connection for data without paying another penny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the $ 10 less , the Kindle gets you a persistent wireless connection for data without paying another penny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the $10 less, the Kindle gets you a persistent wireless connection for data without paying another penny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935528</id>
	<title>Nobody think of this? Self Cannibalize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just strings up on my mine and I am surprised that nobody say this.</p><p>If they make this machine running mac os x. Wouldn't iPad would cannibalize their own laptop market? Think fully functional and apple approved portable computer for under $500. It would be very unwise business decision for Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just strings up on my mine and I am surprised that nobody say this.If they make this machine running mac os x. Would n't iPad would cannibalize their own laptop market ?
Think fully functional and apple approved portable computer for under $ 500 .
It would be very unwise business decision for Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just strings up on my mine and I am surprised that nobody say this.If they make this machine running mac os x. Wouldn't iPad would cannibalize their own laptop market?
Think fully functional and apple approved portable computer for under $500.
It would be very unwise business decision for Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934656</id>
	<title>A nice option</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1264699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear a lot of people saying that why buy it if you already have an iPhone, but a lot of people don't have one.  I have a Blackberry that my company makes me use, and an iPod Touch I use for music and surfing the web from the couch.  This is a perfect upgrade for that type of device.  Larger screen, still has WiFi, has bluetooth, and potentially 3G for when I don't have a wireless signal to hop on to.  It also makes me ponder eBooks since most people I know don't want to purchase a stand alone eBook reader from Amazon/B&amp;N/etc.  I'm not looking at this as a replacement for my laptop, or desktop, or gaming console. I see it as a 'hmmm, that might be able to replace what I use my iPod Touch' for.  Obviously it's not as easy as tossing it in my pocket, but that's the trade off for a larger screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear a lot of people saying that why buy it if you already have an iPhone , but a lot of people do n't have one .
I have a Blackberry that my company makes me use , and an iPod Touch I use for music and surfing the web from the couch .
This is a perfect upgrade for that type of device .
Larger screen , still has WiFi , has bluetooth , and potentially 3G for when I do n't have a wireless signal to hop on to .
It also makes me ponder eBooks since most people I know do n't want to purchase a stand alone eBook reader from Amazon/B&amp;N/etc .
I 'm not looking at this as a replacement for my laptop , or desktop , or gaming console .
I see it as a 'hmmm , that might be able to replace what I use my iPod Touch ' for .
Obviously it 's not as easy as tossing it in my pocket , but that 's the trade off for a larger screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear a lot of people saying that why buy it if you already have an iPhone, but a lot of people don't have one.
I have a Blackberry that my company makes me use, and an iPod Touch I use for music and surfing the web from the couch.
This is a perfect upgrade for that type of device.
Larger screen, still has WiFi, has bluetooth, and potentially 3G for when I don't have a wireless signal to hop on to.
It also makes me ponder eBooks since most people I know don't want to purchase a stand alone eBook reader from Amazon/B&amp;N/etc.
I'm not looking at this as a replacement for my laptop, or desktop, or gaming console.
I see it as a 'hmmm, that might be able to replace what I use my iPod Touch' for.
Obviously it's not as easy as tossing it in my pocket, but that's the trade off for a larger screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937808</id>
	<title>Welcome to the Designed world</title>
	<author>thekerp</author>
	<datestamp>1264707360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder why people don't have this same outrage over car manufacturers building their cars as "closed systems".  They build their cars just like Apple builds a computer system, controlling each piece so one or another doesn't fail.  Is it just the life or death difference that applies with cars?  Just like a car if you really really care enough to dig around you can modify apple software, if you know engine's etc. go ahead and mess with your car, but do so at your own risk.  Seems to me it used to be the wild west, which was great for innovation to a point, but now we've reached a phase where a designed experience is the way to progress "safely".  I'm not complaining, just knowing what I'm getting when I buy Apple.  If you don't dig it just don't go with Apple, but don't complain at me about crashes and viruses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why people do n't have this same outrage over car manufacturers building their cars as " closed systems " .
They build their cars just like Apple builds a computer system , controlling each piece so one or another does n't fail .
Is it just the life or death difference that applies with cars ?
Just like a car if you really really care enough to dig around you can modify apple software , if you know engine 's etc .
go ahead and mess with your car , but do so at your own risk .
Seems to me it used to be the wild west , which was great for innovation to a point , but now we 've reached a phase where a designed experience is the way to progress " safely " .
I 'm not complaining , just knowing what I 'm getting when I buy Apple .
If you do n't dig it just do n't go with Apple , but do n't complain at me about crashes and viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why people don't have this same outrage over car manufacturers building their cars as "closed systems".
They build their cars just like Apple builds a computer system, controlling each piece so one or another doesn't fail.
Is it just the life or death difference that applies with cars?
Just like a car if you really really care enough to dig around you can modify apple software, if you know engine's etc.
go ahead and mess with your car, but do so at your own risk.
Seems to me it used to be the wild west, which was great for innovation to a point, but now we've reached a phase where a designed experience is the way to progress "safely".
I'm not complaining, just knowing what I'm getting when I buy Apple.
If you don't dig it just don't go with Apple, but don't complain at me about crashes and viruses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935224</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1264700580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have every right to tell uninformed people not to buy it. There is nothing you can do to STFU me. Sorry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, not really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have every right to tell uninformed people not to buy it .
There is nothing you can do to STFU me .
Sorry ... well , not really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have every right to tell uninformed people not to buy it.
There is nothing you can do to STFU me.
Sorry ... well, not really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937494</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1264706700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You cant say "Well, its really an iPhone, but its not,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
To me, it just looks to be a really big iPhone, without the phone.  I was disappointed that it doesn't have phone capabilities.  Of course, that might interfere with some iPhone sales.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You cant say " Well , its really an iPhone , but its not , .. . To me , it just looks to be a really big iPhone , without the phone .
I was disappointed that it does n't have phone capabilities .
Of course , that might interfere with some iPhone sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cant say "Well, its really an iPhone, but its not, ...

To me, it just looks to be a really big iPhone, without the phone.
I was disappointed that it doesn't have phone capabilities.
Of course, that might interfere with some iPhone sales.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936082</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a sheep. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty important at my company and generate a lot of revenue for my employer. I also don't have time or interest in using "computers responsibly" (whatever that means) because doing so would make me less important at work and leave less time for me to make money for the company.</p><p>Otherwise, pretty good response. Just because some of us have no interest in how computers work doesn't make us a sheep. I don't care how my car works, only that it gets me to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a sheep .
As a matter of fact , I 'm pretty important at my company and generate a lot of revenue for my employer .
I also do n't have time or interest in using " computers responsibly " ( whatever that means ) because doing so would make me less important at work and leave less time for me to make money for the company.Otherwise , pretty good response .
Just because some of us have no interest in how computers work does n't make us a sheep .
I do n't care how my car works , only that it gets me to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a sheep.
As a matter of fact, I'm pretty important at my company and generate a lot of revenue for my employer.
I also don't have time or interest in using "computers responsibly" (whatever that means) because doing so would make me less important at work and leave less time for me to make money for the company.Otherwise, pretty good response.
Just because some of us have no interest in how computers work doesn't make us a sheep.
I don't care how my car works, only that it gets me to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938294</id>
	<title>Well sure, and I'd like to mod my tax form, but...</title>
	<author>Halmos</author>
	<datestamp>1264708440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>File under "If you don't like it, change the channel."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>File under " If you do n't like it , change the channel .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>File under "If you don't like it, change the channel.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938164</id>
	<title>This is STUPID</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how the iPad can be viewed as a "step backwards".</p><p>- As an eReader, it does MORE than the Kindle and its ilk.  It uses the ePub format, so it should be able to view non-Apple-distributed books, magazines, etc.  This is kinda like the arguments that iPods are "closed", even though they'll happily play your MP3 files.</p><p>- As a mobile computing device, it runs the same apps as the iPhone, and new/updated apps will soon take advantage of the iPad's hardware.</p><p>- From firsthand accounts, it's very fast.  Faster than the latest iPhone.</p><p>- It doesn't run Flash.  (Yes, that's a benefit.)</p><p>Stop whining.  If you don't like it, don't buy one.  Get a netbook instead.  Truly, though, the iPad is going to be a HUGE success.  With or without you and the FSF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how the iPad can be viewed as a " step backwards " .- As an eReader , it does MORE than the Kindle and its ilk .
It uses the ePub format , so it should be able to view non-Apple-distributed books , magazines , etc .
This is kinda like the arguments that iPods are " closed " , even though they 'll happily play your MP3 files.- As a mobile computing device , it runs the same apps as the iPhone , and new/updated apps will soon take advantage of the iPad 's hardware.- From firsthand accounts , it 's very fast .
Faster than the latest iPhone.- It does n't run Flash .
( Yes , that 's a benefit .
) Stop whining .
If you do n't like it , do n't buy one .
Get a netbook instead .
Truly , though , the iPad is going to be a HUGE success .
With or without you and the FSF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how the iPad can be viewed as a "step backwards".- As an eReader, it does MORE than the Kindle and its ilk.
It uses the ePub format, so it should be able to view non-Apple-distributed books, magazines, etc.
This is kinda like the arguments that iPods are "closed", even though they'll happily play your MP3 files.- As a mobile computing device, it runs the same apps as the iPhone, and new/updated apps will soon take advantage of the iPad's hardware.- From firsthand accounts, it's very fast.
Faster than the latest iPhone.- It doesn't run Flash.
(Yes, that's a benefit.
)Stop whining.
If you don't like it, don't buy one.
Get a netbook instead.
Truly, though, the iPad is going to be a HUGE success.
With or without you and the FSF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945582</id>
	<title>nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The App Store is just the modern version of Best Buy.  Yes, Apple approves products before putting them on the shelves.  You think Best Buy didn't select only certain titles to put on it's shelves.  You want complete control?  Download the SDK and write an app.</p><p>Closed vs Open are nothing but a couple of marketing terms.  They don't mean anything.  Apple maintains a high level of control, because their users expect a high degree of integration and quality.  You know what happens when you lose control?   You end up recalling billions of vehicles, shutting down production, and halting sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The App Store is just the modern version of Best Buy .
Yes , Apple approves products before putting them on the shelves .
You think Best Buy did n't select only certain titles to put on it 's shelves .
You want complete control ?
Download the SDK and write an app.Closed vs Open are nothing but a couple of marketing terms .
They do n't mean anything .
Apple maintains a high level of control , because their users expect a high degree of integration and quality .
You know what happens when you lose control ?
You end up recalling billions of vehicles , shutting down production , and halting sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The App Store is just the modern version of Best Buy.
Yes, Apple approves products before putting them on the shelves.
You think Best Buy didn't select only certain titles to put on it's shelves.
You want complete control?
Download the SDK and write an app.Closed vs Open are nothing but a couple of marketing terms.
They don't mean anything.
Apple maintains a high level of control, because their users expect a high degree of integration and quality.
You know what happens when you lose control?
You end up recalling billions of vehicles, shutting down production, and halting sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935042</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of a silly argument</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1264700100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you don't like the closed OS. Fair enough. So why not jailbreak and install whatever you want?</p></div><p>because it voids the warranty? most people don't feel very good about unwrapping their brand new $600 goodie then immediately doing something to it that will prevent them from getting it repaired if something breaks.</p><p>not to mention the vast majority of people are just not technically comfortable with the process. that's the type of people that apple targets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do n't like the closed OS .
Fair enough .
So why not jailbreak and install whatever you want ? because it voids the warranty ?
most people do n't feel very good about unwrapping their brand new $ 600 goodie then immediately doing something to it that will prevent them from getting it repaired if something breaks.not to mention the vast majority of people are just not technically comfortable with the process .
that 's the type of people that apple targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you don't like the closed OS.
Fair enough.
So why not jailbreak and install whatever you want?because it voids the warranty?
most people don't feel very good about unwrapping their brand new $600 goodie then immediately doing something to it that will prevent them from getting it repaired if something breaks.not to mention the vast majority of people are just not technically comfortable with the process.
that's the type of people that apple targets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946400</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Bynrdskynrd</author>
	<datestamp>1264707600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And who is to say this might NOT happen???</htmltext>
<tokenext>And who is to say this might NOT happen ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who is to say this might NOT happen??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934922</id>
	<title>It's an appliance, not a computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an appliance, not a computer.  Nobody complains about not being able to install applications on their coffeepot, television, or microwave oven...  If you want a computer, you need to buy a computer instead of an appliance (gadget, whatever).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an appliance , not a computer .
Nobody complains about not being able to install applications on their coffeepot , television , or microwave oven... If you want a computer , you need to buy a computer instead of an appliance ( gadget , whatever ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an appliance, not a computer.
Nobody complains about not being able to install applications on their coffeepot, television, or microwave oven...  If you want a computer, you need to buy a computer instead of an appliance (gadget, whatever).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941684</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it's a huge step forwards for many.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll hold my thoughts of what the general public thinks, until the general public decides through their purchases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll hold my thoughts of what the general public thinks , until the general public decides through their purchases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll hold my thoughts of what the general public thinks, until the general public decides through their purchases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933520</id>
	<title>Dear FSF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you like some cheese with your whine?</p><p>It's not defective, RMS et al: it's a CHOICE.  You purport to like choice, but no one believes you anymore.  Many consumers don't care, and even LIKE, the idea of being locked in to the App Store, because it introduces a significant amount of safety.</p><p>Also, it's not a "huge step backward" even if we agree with everything else you say, because it's what's on the iPhone.  It's not backward, it's the same.</p><p>And there's no chance whatsoever that this will ever happen to Mac OS X, so don't lose sleep over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you like some cheese with your whine ? It 's not defective , RMS et al : it 's a CHOICE .
You purport to like choice , but no one believes you anymore .
Many consumers do n't care , and even LIKE , the idea of being locked in to the App Store , because it introduces a significant amount of safety.Also , it 's not a " huge step backward " even if we agree with everything else you say , because it 's what 's on the iPhone .
It 's not backward , it 's the same.And there 's no chance whatsoever that this will ever happen to Mac OS X , so do n't lose sleep over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you like some cheese with your whine?It's not defective, RMS et al: it's a CHOICE.
You purport to like choice, but no one believes you anymore.
Many consumers don't care, and even LIKE, the idea of being locked in to the App Store, because it introduces a significant amount of safety.Also, it's not a "huge step backward" even if we agree with everything else you say, because it's what's on the iPhone.
It's not backward, it's the same.And there's no chance whatsoever that this will ever happen to Mac OS X, so don't lose sleep over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935912</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>manicb</author>
	<datestamp>1264702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was also my reaction to the video on Apple's front page. This is a device which is excellent for surfing the web and consuming content, but not so good for making a contribution. Seems to be building a divide in: "This is my device for creating, this is my device for consuming. Most people don't need the first one." There's a nice symmetry about a laptop where about the same amount of space is dedicated to input and output. I don't think they're planning to quit making conventional computers anytime soon, or that people are planning to stop using them, but it's a bit disheartening when you consider that Apple used to have a reputation as tools for creativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was also my reaction to the video on Apple 's front page .
This is a device which is excellent for surfing the web and consuming content , but not so good for making a contribution .
Seems to be building a divide in : " This is my device for creating , this is my device for consuming .
Most people do n't need the first one .
" There 's a nice symmetry about a laptop where about the same amount of space is dedicated to input and output .
I do n't think they 're planning to quit making conventional computers anytime soon , or that people are planning to stop using them , but it 's a bit disheartening when you consider that Apple used to have a reputation as tools for creativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was also my reaction to the video on Apple's front page.
This is a device which is excellent for surfing the web and consuming content, but not so good for making a contribution.
Seems to be building a divide in: "This is my device for creating, this is my device for consuming.
Most people don't need the first one.
" There's a nice symmetry about a laptop where about the same amount of space is dedicated to input and output.
I don't think they're planning to quit making conventional computers anytime soon, or that people are planning to stop using them, but it's a bit disheartening when you consider that Apple used to have a reputation as tools for creativity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30990894</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>exomondo</author>
	<datestamp>1265038740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should average users have control over their computer?</p></div><p>Don't you think it's better that the USER be the one to decide whether they want, say Google Voice, running on their hardware rather than have the manufacturer be able to say to them that it isn't in the best interests of the company to allow it?</p><p>Sure you don't want every person running every<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.scr,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.vbs or other shell script they come into contact with but at some point you let the user make that decision otherwise you end up with the solution that is good for the manufacturer rather than what is good for the user.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should average users have control over their computer ? Do n't you think it 's better that the USER be the one to decide whether they want , say Google Voice , running on their hardware rather than have the manufacturer be able to say to them that it is n't in the best interests of the company to allow it ? Sure you do n't want every person running every .scr , .vbs or other shell script they come into contact with but at some point you let the user make that decision otherwise you end up with the solution that is good for the manufacturer rather than what is good for the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should average users have control over their computer?Don't you think it's better that the USER be the one to decide whether they want, say Google Voice, running on their hardware rather than have the manufacturer be able to say to them that it isn't in the best interests of the company to allow it?Sure you don't want every person running every .scr, .vbs or other shell script they come into contact with but at some point you let the user make that decision otherwise you end up with the solution that is good for the manufacturer rather than what is good for the user.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936000</id>
	<title>Computer ?= phone</title>
	<author>Khelder</author>
	<datestamp>1264702560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Maybe this is just a sign of my age, but in my mind "computer" and "phone" occupy two different zones. My phone is much more of an appliance, like my microwave oven, that I really want to Just Work. If it has some extra features, cool, but they can't prevent the core function from Just Working.</p><p>My computer, OTOH, I really like being a general device and would never buy one that I couldn't install arbitrary stuff onto.</p><p>So I'm not crazy about the iPhone Apple Store tie-in, but I can live with it.</p><p>As for the iPad, I think I want my tablet device/ebook reader to be a computer, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Maybe this is just a sign of my age , but in my mind " computer " and " phone " occupy two different zones .
My phone is much more of an appliance , like my microwave oven , that I really want to Just Work .
If it has some extra features , cool , but they ca n't prevent the core function from Just Working.My computer , OTOH , I really like being a general device and would never buy one that I could n't install arbitrary stuff onto.So I 'm not crazy about the iPhone Apple Store tie-in , but I can live with it.As for the iPad , I think I want my tablet device/ebook reader to be a computer , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Maybe this is just a sign of my age, but in my mind "computer" and "phone" occupy two different zones.
My phone is much more of an appliance, like my microwave oven, that I really want to Just Work.
If it has some extra features, cool, but they can't prevent the core function from Just Working.My computer, OTOH, I really like being a general device and would never buy one that I couldn't install arbitrary stuff onto.So I'm not crazy about the iPhone Apple Store tie-in, but I can live with it.As for the iPad, I think I want my tablet device/ebook reader to be a computer, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937600</id>
	<title>trolling along...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1264706940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole subject is one large troll.  So, I'm done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole subject is one large troll .
So , I 'm done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole subject is one large troll.
So, I'm done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30990782</id>
	<title>iPad=iBlunder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, what the hell are you doing? iPad is a disaster. From the name iPad (what happened to iSlate?), to the crappy home made CPU (no Apple can't make a chip as good as Intel), Adobe FLASH banned (what? are you stupid!!), a device clearly built with one thing in mind - sell lots of apps on the Apple app store. Oh, and of course books (what a new idea). HA HA HA. iPad is a joke - period!! Can I get an AMEN?

While I'm in the middle of an Apple rant I can't help but think that Steve Jobs has turned Apple into exactly what he hated - IBM. Remember, the picture of Steve flicking-off IBM and his speech "do we want a world dominated by IBM?" He's become as big as IBM but one major thing separates Apple from IBM. Apple has an arrogance that IBM never had. Apple thinks it knows more than the customer and thinks it's not vulnerable to failure. iPad is the beginning of the end for Apple. Just watch them slip, product, after product, after product. Apple got lucky with iPhone (the only Apple product that matters). They stole a lot of other peoples ideas, technology and time. When you take so much and don't give back someday the piper will come calling. You'll see!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs , Jobs , Jobs , what the hell are you doing ?
iPad is a disaster .
From the name iPad ( what happened to iSlate ?
) , to the crappy home made CPU ( no Apple ca n't make a chip as good as Intel ) , Adobe FLASH banned ( what ?
are you stupid ! !
) , a device clearly built with one thing in mind - sell lots of apps on the Apple app store .
Oh , and of course books ( what a new idea ) .
HA HA HA .
iPad is a joke - period ! !
Can I get an AMEN ?
While I 'm in the middle of an Apple rant I ca n't help but think that Steve Jobs has turned Apple into exactly what he hated - IBM .
Remember , the picture of Steve flicking-off IBM and his speech " do we want a world dominated by IBM ?
" He 's become as big as IBM but one major thing separates Apple from IBM .
Apple has an arrogance that IBM never had .
Apple thinks it knows more than the customer and thinks it 's not vulnerable to failure .
iPad is the beginning of the end for Apple .
Just watch them slip , product , after product , after product .
Apple got lucky with iPhone ( the only Apple product that matters ) .
They stole a lot of other peoples ideas , technology and time .
When you take so much and do n't give back someday the piper will come calling .
You 'll see !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, what the hell are you doing?
iPad is a disaster.
From the name iPad (what happened to iSlate?
), to the crappy home made CPU (no Apple can't make a chip as good as Intel), Adobe FLASH banned (what?
are you stupid!!
), a device clearly built with one thing in mind - sell lots of apps on the Apple app store.
Oh, and of course books (what a new idea).
HA HA HA.
iPad is a joke - period!!
Can I get an AMEN?
While I'm in the middle of an Apple rant I can't help but think that Steve Jobs has turned Apple into exactly what he hated - IBM.
Remember, the picture of Steve flicking-off IBM and his speech "do we want a world dominated by IBM?
" He's become as big as IBM but one major thing separates Apple from IBM.
Apple has an arrogance that IBM never had.
Apple thinks it knows more than the customer and thinks it's not vulnerable to failure.
iPad is the beginning of the end for Apple.
Just watch them slip, product, after product, after product.
Apple got lucky with iPhone (the only Apple product that matters).
They stole a lot of other peoples ideas, technology and time.
When you take so much and don't give back someday the piper will come calling.
You'll see!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935110</id>
	<title>who cares?</title>
	<author>inerlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1264700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>their hardware has always been proprietary, why would you expect their software/services to not be?<br>who cares if apple (yet again) cuts their nose off to spite their face.... screw 'em....<br>the kool-aid drinking Jobs worshipers will buy it because they don't know any better, the rest of us will get a PC based tablet and continue to make fun of "them"</htmltext>
<tokenext>their hardware has always been proprietary , why would you expect their software/services to not be ? who cares if apple ( yet again ) cuts their nose off to spite their face.... screw 'em....the kool-aid drinking Jobs worshipers will buy it because they do n't know any better , the rest of us will get a PC based tablet and continue to make fun of " them "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their hardware has always been proprietary, why would you expect their software/services to not be?who cares if apple (yet again) cuts their nose off to spite their face.... screw 'em....the kool-aid drinking Jobs worshipers will buy it because they don't know any better, the rest of us will get a PC based tablet and continue to make fun of "them"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940640</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264671780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; so I can't have AIM and Safari open at the same time? Epic Fail.</p><p>There are tons of chat apps with push notifications. You can have AIM (or Gtalk, MSN, etc) and Safari at once. Sort of.</p><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade</p><p>It's not for you. I don't complain that my TV or DVD player has no expansion ports. The iPad is an appliance for documents; not a general-purpose PC.</p><p>&gt; Apple should have included a stylus with the system.</p><p>There are third party styluses for iPhone and iPod touch. I guess those would work fine on the iPad.</p><p>&gt; Basically, this COULD have been an amazing device...</p><p>for you. It's IS an amazing device for others (no, I won't buy it). The market will say.</p><p>&gt;  but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo, people would be treating it like the plague.</p><p>HP Slate is treated like like the plague.</p><p>&gt; Fanboyism is a terrible disease.</p><p>Sarcasm? You sound like an anti-Apple fanboi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; so I ca n't have AIM and Safari open at the same time ?
Epic Fail.There are tons of chat apps with push notifications .
You can have AIM ( or Gtalk , MSN , etc ) and Safari at once .
Sort of. &gt; ..device with zero expansion options , zero USB ports or flash card readers , and no way to upgradeIt 's not for you .
I do n't complain that my TV or DVD player has no expansion ports .
The iPad is an appliance for documents ; not a general-purpose PC. &gt; Apple should have included a stylus with the system.There are third party styluses for iPhone and iPod touch .
I guess those would work fine on the iPad. &gt; Basically , this COULD have been an amazing device...for you .
It 's IS an amazing device for others ( no , I wo n't buy it ) .
The market will say. &gt; but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo , people would be treating it like the plague.HP Slate is treated like like the plague. &gt; Fanboyism is a terrible disease.Sarcasm ?
You sound like an anti-Apple fanboi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; so I can't have AIM and Safari open at the same time?
Epic Fail.There are tons of chat apps with push notifications.
You can have AIM (or Gtalk, MSN, etc) and Safari at once.
Sort of.&gt; ..device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgradeIt's not for you.
I don't complain that my TV or DVD player has no expansion ports.
The iPad is an appliance for documents; not a general-purpose PC.&gt; Apple should have included a stylus with the system.There are third party styluses for iPhone and iPod touch.
I guess those would work fine on the iPad.&gt; Basically, this COULD have been an amazing device...for you.
It's IS an amazing device for others (no, I won't buy it).
The market will say.&gt;  but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo, people would be treating it like the plague.HP Slate is treated like like the plague.&gt; Fanboyism is a terrible disease.Sarcasm?
You sound like an anti-Apple fanboi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933636</id>
	<title>Fanboy?</title>
	<author>acklenx</author>
	<datestamp>1264696080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess you wouldn't consider John Sullivan an Apple fanboy then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess you would n't consider John Sullivan an Apple fanboy then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess you wouldn't consider John Sullivan an Apple fanboy then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937288</id>
	<title>Take off the blinders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a presumptuous group here to think that every appliance on the market that happens to be run by a computer is for the Slashdot target demographic. Our demographic are full Personal Computers, not electronic appliances that are run on a computerized system. Take off the blinders<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we aren't the only market in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a presumptuous group here to think that every appliance on the market that happens to be run by a computer is for the Slashdot target demographic .
Our demographic are full Personal Computers , not electronic appliances that are run on a computerized system .
Take off the blinders ... we are n't the only market in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a presumptuous group here to think that every appliance on the market that happens to be run by a computer is for the Slashdot target demographic.
Our demographic are full Personal Computers, not electronic appliances that are run on a computerized system.
Take off the blinders ... we aren't the only market in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944870</id>
	<title>Re:Should we give (l)users control?</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1264691520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying that the FOSS crowd are bereft of innovation? I find that hard to accept.</p><p>This is a problem with design - copying existing stuff produces nothing new, nothing interesting. People might deride Apple for their use of patents, but few come up with competing interface models. People might deride Apple for the locked-down nature of the handheld devices, but where are the successful open devices?</p><p>The FOSS crowd can come up with something better, if they can be bothered (the jury is still out on Android). I'm hoping that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is not indicative of that group though, because I see absolutely no new ideas in any thread I've read about the iPad, just regurgitated "I want it to be like the iPad but also like " stuff. The echo chamber is great, but Apple are out there actually producing while the FSF are just whining from their increasingly irrelevant sideline.</p><p>So where's the FOSS alternative? And why should people buy it - what compelling reason is there? "Freedom" is a pretty lame reason, nice to talk up but meaningless for the great majority of users. How about a real benefit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that the FOSS crowd are bereft of innovation ?
I find that hard to accept.This is a problem with design - copying existing stuff produces nothing new , nothing interesting .
People might deride Apple for their use of patents , but few come up with competing interface models .
People might deride Apple for the locked-down nature of the handheld devices , but where are the successful open devices ? The FOSS crowd can come up with something better , if they can be bothered ( the jury is still out on Android ) .
I 'm hoping that / .
is not indicative of that group though , because I see absolutely no new ideas in any thread I 've read about the iPad , just regurgitated " I want it to be like the iPad but also like " stuff .
The echo chamber is great , but Apple are out there actually producing while the FSF are just whining from their increasingly irrelevant sideline.So where 's the FOSS alternative ?
And why should people buy it - what compelling reason is there ?
" Freedom " is a pretty lame reason , nice to talk up but meaningless for the great majority of users .
How about a real benefit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that the FOSS crowd are bereft of innovation?
I find that hard to accept.This is a problem with design - copying existing stuff produces nothing new, nothing interesting.
People might deride Apple for their use of patents, but few come up with competing interface models.
People might deride Apple for the locked-down nature of the handheld devices, but where are the successful open devices?The FOSS crowd can come up with something better, if they can be bothered (the jury is still out on Android).
I'm hoping that /.
is not indicative of that group though, because I see absolutely no new ideas in any thread I've read about the iPad, just regurgitated "I want it to be like the iPad but also like " stuff.
The echo chamber is great, but Apple are out there actually producing while the FSF are just whining from their increasingly irrelevant sideline.So where's the FOSS alternative?
And why should people buy it - what compelling reason is there?
"Freedom" is a pretty lame reason, nice to talk up but meaningless for the great majority of users.
How about a real benefit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933778</id>
	<title>This was bound to happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any device that has such a tremendous amount of hype surrounding it is bound to fail to meet EVERYONES expectations. The device has it's role in the Apple ecosystem - and I am sure it will perform that role well. Plus, everyone knows that 1st generation Apple products aren't for everyone. Just hold out and 2nd gen should ease some of the tension. Personally, I don't see the benefit of such a device - - i must not be the target demographic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any device that has such a tremendous amount of hype surrounding it is bound to fail to meet EVERYONES expectations .
The device has it 's role in the Apple ecosystem - and I am sure it will perform that role well .
Plus , everyone knows that 1st generation Apple products are n't for everyone .
Just hold out and 2nd gen should ease some of the tension .
Personally , I do n't see the benefit of such a device - - i must not be the target demographic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any device that has such a tremendous amount of hype surrounding it is bound to fail to meet EVERYONES expectations.
The device has it's role in the Apple ecosystem - and I am sure it will perform that role well.
Plus, everyone knows that 1st generation Apple products aren't for everyone.
Just hold out and 2nd gen should ease some of the tension.
Personally, I don't see the benefit of such a device - - i must not be the target demographic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935456</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>glassware</author>
	<datestamp>1264701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a developer.  I install and configure Windows, Mac, and Linux applications and networks.  I have wholeheartedly enjoyed having one device, my iPhone, that just works and doesn't permit me to have full administrative control.  Why?  Because I like not having to worry about administrating one of these devices.</p><p>Why am I willing to put up with lack of control?  Because I have a limited amount of attention I'm willing to devote to my devices.  I spend tons of time worrying about my linux fileserver, my windows gaming desktops, my office network.  I like to have a device that I can just pick up and use for a few minutes.  I know it has limitations; I have other devices that can do the things that it can't.  Not wanting control isn't a bad thing; it just means that I choose to spend my time and attention elsewhere.</p><p>I can certainly see myself owning one of these things, whenever the economy picks up and my finances aren't so dire.  It's just not different enough yet that I'm begging for one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a developer .
I install and configure Windows , Mac , and Linux applications and networks .
I have wholeheartedly enjoyed having one device , my iPhone , that just works and does n't permit me to have full administrative control .
Why ? Because I like not having to worry about administrating one of these devices.Why am I willing to put up with lack of control ?
Because I have a limited amount of attention I 'm willing to devote to my devices .
I spend tons of time worrying about my linux fileserver , my windows gaming desktops , my office network .
I like to have a device that I can just pick up and use for a few minutes .
I know it has limitations ; I have other devices that can do the things that it ca n't .
Not wanting control is n't a bad thing ; it just means that I choose to spend my time and attention elsewhere.I can certainly see myself owning one of these things , whenever the economy picks up and my finances are n't so dire .
It 's just not different enough yet that I 'm begging for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a developer.
I install and configure Windows, Mac, and Linux applications and networks.
I have wholeheartedly enjoyed having one device, my iPhone, that just works and doesn't permit me to have full administrative control.
Why?  Because I like not having to worry about administrating one of these devices.Why am I willing to put up with lack of control?
Because I have a limited amount of attention I'm willing to devote to my devices.
I spend tons of time worrying about my linux fileserver, my windows gaming desktops, my office network.
I like to have a device that I can just pick up and use for a few minutes.
I know it has limitations; I have other devices that can do the things that it can't.
Not wanting control isn't a bad thing; it just means that I choose to spend my time and attention elsewhere.I can certainly see myself owning one of these things, whenever the economy picks up and my finances aren't so dire.
It's just not different enough yet that I'm begging for one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934630</id>
	<title>The locking down is a feature, really</title>
	<author>andr386</author>
	<datestamp>1264698900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For apple fans, the locking down is a feature ! You'd never think of installing a Free and Open firmware on a Hammer ? would you ?

I agree with the free argument, but I also want computers to be a commodity as easy to use as any tool and objects we use everyday.

In that sense the iPad is a step further in that direction.

Now if it could be open, use open standards and keep the experience. I am all for it.
By the way, I guess it's gonna be hacke quite fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For apple fans , the locking down is a feature !
You 'd never think of installing a Free and Open firmware on a Hammer ?
would you ?
I agree with the free argument , but I also want computers to be a commodity as easy to use as any tool and objects we use everyday .
In that sense the iPad is a step further in that direction .
Now if it could be open , use open standards and keep the experience .
I am all for it .
By the way , I guess it 's gon na be hacke quite fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For apple fans, the locking down is a feature !
You'd never think of installing a Free and Open firmware on a Hammer ?
would you ?
I agree with the free argument, but I also want computers to be a commodity as easy to use as any tool and objects we use everyday.
In that sense the iPad is a step further in that direction.
Now if it could be open, use open standards and keep the experience.
I am all for it.
By the way, I guess it's gonna be hacke quite fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30949696</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264782000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why are they constantly promoting it as better than a netbook?  They are aiming squarely at the market held by compact general-purpose devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why are they constantly promoting it as better than a netbook ?
They are aiming squarely at the market held by compact general-purpose devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why are they constantly promoting it as better than a netbook?
They are aiming squarely at the market held by compact general-purpose devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936034</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1264702680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't install software on my only telephone either. But I didn't buy a sophisticated computing device, I just bought a little phone/answering machine that sits on top of my computer.</p><p>Yoeu can spend your money however you like. I'd be pretty disappointed if I bought a computer and couldn't do what I wanted with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't install software on my only telephone either .
But I did n't buy a sophisticated computing device , I just bought a little phone/answering machine that sits on top of my computer.Yoeu can spend your money however you like .
I 'd be pretty disappointed if I bought a computer and could n't do what I wanted with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't install software on my only telephone either.
But I didn't buy a sophisticated computing device, I just bought a little phone/answering machine that sits on top of my computer.Yoeu can spend your money however you like.
I'd be pretty disappointed if I bought a computer and couldn't do what I wanted with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941310</id>
	<title>Re:The Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>sl149q</author>
	<datestamp>1264673700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an amazing amount of sour grapes in this thread.</p><p>If you don't like the iPad (or iTouch or iPhone) why do you feel such an intense need to convince everyone else (well it least everyone on Slashdot) that it sucks and you'll never buy one. We simply (really) don't care. And the rest of the world is just going to go along and maybe or maybe not buy them in sufficient quantities to keep Apple's stock price up without any regard for pretty much anything said here today.</p><p>Based on Apple's recent (5-6 years) history, it is probable that the iPad will find a niche and make them money. Not a slam dunk. But more probable than not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an amazing amount of sour grapes in this thread.If you do n't like the iPad ( or iTouch or iPhone ) why do you feel such an intense need to convince everyone else ( well it least everyone on Slashdot ) that it sucks and you 'll never buy one .
We simply ( really ) do n't care .
And the rest of the world is just going to go along and maybe or maybe not buy them in sufficient quantities to keep Apple 's stock price up without any regard for pretty much anything said here today.Based on Apple 's recent ( 5-6 years ) history , it is probable that the iPad will find a niche and make them money .
Not a slam dunk .
But more probable than not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an amazing amount of sour grapes in this thread.If you don't like the iPad (or iTouch or iPhone) why do you feel such an intense need to convince everyone else (well it least everyone on Slashdot) that it sucks and you'll never buy one.
We simply (really) don't care.
And the rest of the world is just going to go along and maybe or maybe not buy them in sufficient quantities to keep Apple's stock price up without any regard for pretty much anything said here today.Based on Apple's recent (5-6 years) history, it is probable that the iPad will find a niche and make them money.
Not a slam dunk.
But more probable than not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</id>
	<title>Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1264696740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>over their computers. Go ahead. Give it to them. Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose "Run as Administrator," or that they need to run spyware scans, or virus scans, or allow the machine to install updates, or use Browser X instead of Browser Y, or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way. What do they say? Come on, we've all heard it.</p><p>"Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?"<br>"Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?"<br>"Why do I have to do that? I never had to do that before."<br>"Do I really have to worry about this stuff?"<br>"Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know."<br>"I'll just buy a new computer."</p><p>They DO NOT WANT to perform maintenance, worry about security, track down tools, learn to use said tools, administer storage or filesystems, etc. Given the choice between technology that slides into malfunction when not administered properly (i.e. "it's broken" as far as they can tell) and no technology at all, most regular people will simply opt for "none," as in "I tried it for a while, but it was always broken or crashing or getting a virus, it sucked. I sold it and just went back to my old XYZ."</p><p>Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep. You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep. And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>over their computers .
Go ahead .
Give it to them .
Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose " Run as Administrator , " or that they need to run spyware scans , or virus scans , or allow the machine to install updates , or use Browser X instead of Browser Y , or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way .
What do they say ?
Come on , we 've all heard it .
" Ca n't you fix it so that I do n't have to worry about that ?
" " Why does n't the computer just do that for me ?
" " Why do I have to do that ?
I never had to do that before .
" " Do I really have to worry about this stuff ?
" " Just make it work , I do n't care how , and I do n't want to know .
" " I 'll just buy a new computer .
" They DO NOT WANT to perform maintenance , worry about security , track down tools , learn to use said tools , administer storage or filesystems , etc .
Given the choice between technology that slides into malfunction when not administered properly ( i.e .
" it 's broken " as far as they can tell ) and no technology at all , most regular people will simply opt for " none , " as in " I tried it for a while , but it was always broken or crashing or getting a virus , it sucked .
I sold it and just went back to my old XYZ .
" Say what you will , but the masses are sheep and they 're happy as sheep .
You can not teach them to think , vote , raise children , or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD , only the sheep .
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>over their computers.
Go ahead.
Give it to them.
Explain that they need to right-click on the icon and choose "Run as Administrator," or that they need to run spyware scans, or virus scans, or allow the machine to install updates, or use Browser X instead of Browser Y, or manage a filesystem in a clean and organized way.
What do they say?
Come on, we've all heard it.
"Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?
""Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?
""Why do I have to do that?
I never had to do that before.
""Do I really have to worry about this stuff?
""Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know.
""I'll just buy a new computer.
"They DO NOT WANT to perform maintenance, worry about security, track down tools, learn to use said tools, administer storage or filesystems, etc.
Given the choice between technology that slides into malfunction when not administered properly (i.e.
"it's broken" as far as they can tell) and no technology at all, most regular people will simply opt for "none," as in "I tried it for a while, but it was always broken or crashing or getting a virus, it sucked.
I sold it and just went back to my old XYZ.
"Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep.
You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep.
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933834</id>
	<title>Don't like it? iPad Killer for LESS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.fark.com/cgi/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=4975897" title="fark.com" rel="nofollow">The Lenovo S-Series IdeaPad.</a> [fark.com] </p><p> <a href="http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en\_US/catalog.workflow:category.details?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087&amp;current-category-id=02695ADDF94544E5A11D24AEBC064493" title="lenovo.com" rel="nofollow">From Here</a> [lenovo.com] </p><p>Now, get a grip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lenovo S-Series IdeaPad .
[ fark.com ] From Here [ lenovo.com ] Now , get a grip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Lenovo S-Series IdeaPad.
[fark.com]  From Here [lenovo.com] Now, get a grip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946164</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>good comparison of 'ipad with segway'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>good comparison of 'ipad with segway'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>good comparison of 'ipad with segway'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940894</id>
	<title>DIVX NOT SUPPORTED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264672440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, if I want to play divx encoded files on an Apple product I can't.  See any App Store items for it?  I dont.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , if I want to play divx encoded files on an Apple product I ca n't .
See any App Store items for it ?
I dont .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, if I want to play divx encoded files on an Apple product I can't.
See any App Store items for it?
I dont.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935758</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually the WORST of both world. Just another iFad if you ask me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually the WORST of both world .
Just another iFad if you ask me ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually the WORST of both world.
Just another iFad if you ask me ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936090</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.</i></p><p><i>Meanwhile, he introduces the iPad while leaning back in an easy chair and telling us how easy it is to buy and consume web pages, music, movies, books from the iTunes store. And it's all DRM infested...</i> </p><p>The production costs for the Galactica mini-series in 2003 was $10 million dollars. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314979/business" title="imdb.com">Battlestar Galactica</a> [imdb.com] </p><p>Ultimately, it's the couch potato who pays the bill.</p><p>While the hacker is only a small part of the creative process. He doesn't write the script or story. He doesn't compose or perform the score.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.Meanwhile , he introduces the iPad while leaning back in an easy chair and telling us how easy it is to buy and consume web pages , music , movies , books from the iTunes store .
And it 's all DRM infested... The production costs for the Galactica mini-series in 2003 was $ 10 million dollars .
Battlestar Galactica [ imdb.com ] Ultimately , it 's the couch potato who pays the bill.While the hacker is only a small part of the creative process .
He does n't write the script or story .
He does n't compose or perform the score .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.Meanwhile, he introduces the iPad while leaning back in an easy chair and telling us how easy it is to buy and consume web pages, music, movies, books from the iTunes store.
And it's all DRM infested... The production costs for the Galactica mini-series in 2003 was $10 million dollars.
Battlestar Galactica [imdb.com] Ultimately, it's the couch potato who pays the bill.While the hacker is only a small part of the creative process.
He doesn't write the script or story.
He doesn't compose or perform the score.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942934</id>
	<title>It just works</title>
	<author>Isldeur</author>
	<datestamp>1264679340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I moved from Windows somewhere around 1995 to Redhat 2.0.2 I think - kernel 1.2.13. I used all the distros and even built my own boxes. And bootstrapped from Gentoo, etc.</p><p>I stayed with linux until about 2003. Why did I change? Because finally one day I got really sick of having to face yet another hour trying to get my printer to work. Do I believe in all these FSF ideals? Sure. I even think they're important. But frankly, I need to get on with my job and my work. If free software can produce something that is elegant and just works as well or better than this Apple stuff, I'll come back. Until that time, I have stuff to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I moved from Windows somewhere around 1995 to Redhat 2.0.2 I think - kernel 1.2.13 .
I used all the distros and even built my own boxes .
And bootstrapped from Gentoo , etc.I stayed with linux until about 2003 .
Why did I change ?
Because finally one day I got really sick of having to face yet another hour trying to get my printer to work .
Do I believe in all these FSF ideals ?
Sure. I even think they 're important .
But frankly , I need to get on with my job and my work .
If free software can produce something that is elegant and just works as well or better than this Apple stuff , I 'll come back .
Until that time , I have stuff to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I moved from Windows somewhere around 1995 to Redhat 2.0.2 I think - kernel 1.2.13.
I used all the distros and even built my own boxes.
And bootstrapped from Gentoo, etc.I stayed with linux until about 2003.
Why did I change?
Because finally one day I got really sick of having to face yet another hour trying to get my printer to work.
Do I believe in all these FSF ideals?
Sure. I even think they're important.
But frankly, I need to get on with my job and my work.
If free software can produce something that is elegant and just works as well or better than this Apple stuff, I'll come back.
Until that time, I have stuff to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938846</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1264709760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, you lost me at the third sentence:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone? I'm going to have to hack the damn thing just so I can run an unapproved application? Great. Thanks for that, Apple.</p></div><p>Who, exactly, is telling you that you MUST buy this device? Is Apple ORDERING you to buy one, like a mom orders a kid to finish his lima beans? Without that foundation, the rest of your argument pretty much falls apart. You want a general-purpose tablet, <a href="http://www.dell.com/tablet" title="dell.com">buy</a> [dell.com] <a href="http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook" title="axiotron.com">one.</a> [axiotron.com] <a href="http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook" title="axiotron.com">There have been locked-down tablets before.</a> [axiotron.com] There will be more in the future. This is Apple's. There will always be a need for, and a supply of, general-purpose computers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, this COULD have been an amazing device...but regardless of what they did right, Apple made some unbelievably stupid decisions that puts it firmly in the "what's the point" category <strong>for me.</strong> [emphasis mine]</p></div><p>And there's the key point. Taco called the original iPod "lame" and Apple went on to sell 250,000,000 of them. They don't care what some geek on Slashdot--you, me, or him--thinks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers</p></div><p>Really? They aren't trying to put anything past their customers. Apple makes it VERY CLEAR that this is not a general purpose computer. People will buy it, or not, and like it, or not. Just like any other device.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , you lost me at the third sentence : So you 're telling me I 'm going to spend at minimum $ 500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone ?
I 'm going to have to hack the damn thing just so I can run an unapproved application ?
Great. Thanks for that , Apple.Who , exactly , is telling you that you MUST buy this device ?
Is Apple ORDERING you to buy one , like a mom orders a kid to finish his lima beans ?
Without that foundation , the rest of your argument pretty much falls apart .
You want a general-purpose tablet , buy [ dell.com ] one .
[ axiotron.com ] There have been locked-down tablets before .
[ axiotron.com ] There will be more in the future .
This is Apple 's .
There will always be a need for , and a supply of , general-purpose computers.Basically , this COULD have been an amazing device...but regardless of what they did right , Apple made some unbelievably stupid decisions that puts it firmly in the " what 's the point " category for me .
[ emphasis mine ] And there 's the key point .
Taco called the original iPod " lame " and Apple went on to sell 250,000,000 of them .
They do n't care what some geek on Slashdot--you , me , or him--thinks.they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customersReally ?
They are n't trying to put anything past their customers .
Apple makes it VERY CLEAR that this is not a general purpose computer .
People will buy it , or not , and like it , or not .
Just like any other device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, you lost me at the third sentence:So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
I'm going to have to hack the damn thing just so I can run an unapproved application?
Great. Thanks for that, Apple.Who, exactly, is telling you that you MUST buy this device?
Is Apple ORDERING you to buy one, like a mom orders a kid to finish his lima beans?
Without that foundation, the rest of your argument pretty much falls apart.
You want a general-purpose tablet, buy [dell.com] one.
[axiotron.com] There have been locked-down tablets before.
[axiotron.com] There will be more in the future.
This is Apple's.
There will always be a need for, and a supply of, general-purpose computers.Basically, this COULD have been an amazing device...but regardless of what they did right, Apple made some unbelievably stupid decisions that puts it firmly in the "what's the point" category for me.
[emphasis mine]And there's the key point.
Taco called the original iPod "lame" and Apple went on to sell 250,000,000 of them.
They don't care what some geek on Slashdot--you, me, or him--thinks.they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customersReally?
They aren't trying to put anything past their customers.
Apple makes it VERY CLEAR that this is not a general purpose computer.
People will buy it, or not, and like it, or not.
Just like any other device.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944992</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1264692660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So I have to buy the hardware</i></p><p>That's why the "FSF is looney" card works. You don't have to buy anything at all. There are competing products you can buy instead, or you can choose to buy nothing.</p><p>Your statement should have been "So if I buy the hardware, I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to? I call BS."</p><p>Still, you've been modded up for a two-line regurgitation of the groupthink, and I'll probably be modded a troll for pointing out the gaping logical problem in your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I have to buy the hardwareThat 's why the " FSF is looney " card works .
You do n't have to buy anything at all .
There are competing products you can buy instead , or you can choose to buy nothing.Your statement should have been " So if I buy the hardware , I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to ?
I call BS .
" Still , you 've been modded up for a two-line regurgitation of the groupthink , and I 'll probably be modded a troll for pointing out the gaping logical problem in your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I have to buy the hardwareThat's why the "FSF is looney" card works.
You don't have to buy anything at all.
There are competing products you can buy instead, or you can choose to buy nothing.Your statement should have been "So if I buy the hardware, I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to?
I call BS.
"Still, you've been modded up for a two-line regurgitation of the groupthink, and I'll probably be modded a troll for pointing out the gaping logical problem in your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937512</id>
	<title>People build expectations in their own vision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not the product you or I thought it was to be, and it defiantly is not the product Joe Schmo blogger thought it was.  Nor should it be, but it may well turn out to be market defining.</p><p>Things we know it is not:</p><p>A Full Computer/Laptop or what most people deem things to fall into those descriptions<br>A Open Source Love fest, hack me to pieces device only a pocket protector could love...<br>A god device that was going to allow you to video conference while walking down the street and chewing bubble gum.<br>A replacement for the flux capacitor!</p><p>Things it is:</p><p>A Internet Appliance driven by Touch and ease of use.<br>Gives you enough access for simple tasks with cutting the fluff of the extras.<br>I like to call it a 'end table' device.  I don't think it directly competes with netbooks, I think it's market-ably 'different.'</p><p>Scenario:</p><p>You come home from work drop your laptop/bag case in your favorite corner hiding spot, grab a beer and plop on the couch and turn on the boob tube.  As you're numbing your mind, you think of something you want to look up real quick on the net or have the sudden urge to check email.  Instead of reaching in your pocket for your phone (a true mobile device) with the really small screen, squinting just to make out the text on the page, you pick up your iPad (think coffee table books/magazines).  You do your thing.  End game.  Quick easy efficient.</p><p>I think a lot of people get too concerned that things need to be the end all to be all to every solution...  Apple isn't going to kill their other product lines or profit margins plain and simple!</p><p>That said, would I pay $500 for such a device?  No, probably not as I do not have that disposable cash.  If I did have that money, I would more then likely use it for some other need or desire.  Are there people out there that might?  Sure, how many? Dunno...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not the product you or I thought it was to be , and it defiantly is not the product Joe Schmo blogger thought it was .
Nor should it be , but it may well turn out to be market defining.Things we know it is not : A Full Computer/Laptop or what most people deem things to fall into those descriptionsA Open Source Love fest , hack me to pieces device only a pocket protector could love...A god device that was going to allow you to video conference while walking down the street and chewing bubble gum.A replacement for the flux capacitor ! Things it is : A Internet Appliance driven by Touch and ease of use.Gives you enough access for simple tasks with cutting the fluff of the extras.I like to call it a 'end table ' device .
I do n't think it directly competes with netbooks , I think it 's market-ably 'different .
'Scenario : You come home from work drop your laptop/bag case in your favorite corner hiding spot , grab a beer and plop on the couch and turn on the boob tube .
As you 're numbing your mind , you think of something you want to look up real quick on the net or have the sudden urge to check email .
Instead of reaching in your pocket for your phone ( a true mobile device ) with the really small screen , squinting just to make out the text on the page , you pick up your iPad ( think coffee table books/magazines ) .
You do your thing .
End game .
Quick easy efficient.I think a lot of people get too concerned that things need to be the end all to be all to every solution... Apple is n't going to kill their other product lines or profit margins plain and simple ! That said , would I pay $ 500 for such a device ?
No , probably not as I do not have that disposable cash .
If I did have that money , I would more then likely use it for some other need or desire .
Are there people out there that might ?
Sure , how many ?
Dunno.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not the product you or I thought it was to be, and it defiantly is not the product Joe Schmo blogger thought it was.
Nor should it be, but it may well turn out to be market defining.Things we know it is not:A Full Computer/Laptop or what most people deem things to fall into those descriptionsA Open Source Love fest, hack me to pieces device only a pocket protector could love...A god device that was going to allow you to video conference while walking down the street and chewing bubble gum.A replacement for the flux capacitor!Things it is:A Internet Appliance driven by Touch and ease of use.Gives you enough access for simple tasks with cutting the fluff of the extras.I like to call it a 'end table' device.
I don't think it directly competes with netbooks, I think it's market-ably 'different.
'Scenario:You come home from work drop your laptop/bag case in your favorite corner hiding spot, grab a beer and plop on the couch and turn on the boob tube.
As you're numbing your mind, you think of something you want to look up real quick on the net or have the sudden urge to check email.
Instead of reaching in your pocket for your phone (a true mobile device) with the really small screen, squinting just to make out the text on the page, you pick up your iPad (think coffee table books/magazines).
You do your thing.
End game.
Quick easy efficient.I think a lot of people get too concerned that things need to be the end all to be all to every solution...  Apple isn't going to kill their other product lines or profit margins plain and simple!That said, would I pay $500 for such a device?
No, probably not as I do not have that disposable cash.
If I did have that money, I would more then likely use it for some other need or desire.
Are there people out there that might?
Sure, how many?
Dunno...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935820</id>
	<title>Re:They can't possibly believe this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet there are multiple documented instances where DRM FREE items can not be placed into the iTunes store, these include DRM free books.</p><p>When the iTunes store allows DRM FREE items, you can make this argument legit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet there are multiple documented instances where DRM FREE items can not be placed into the iTunes store , these include DRM free books.When the iTunes store allows DRM FREE items , you can make this argument legit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet there are multiple documented instances where DRM FREE items can not be placed into the iTunes store, these include DRM free books.When the iTunes store allows DRM FREE items, you can make this argument legit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935790</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264701960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is possible to consume knowledge for use at a later date you know.  Have you never wasted a few hours wondering around Wikipedia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible to consume knowledge for use at a later date you know .
Have you never wasted a few hours wondering around Wikipedia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible to consume knowledge for use at a later date you know.
Have you never wasted a few hours wondering around Wikipedia?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30949046</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1264779180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Third, what exactly are you getting for that price? Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version. For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade. For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop! But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.</i></p><p>A gaming computer? How is that useful for someone who wants a small device to comfortably browse the web with? Talk about comparing Apples to oranges. As for laptops and those other tablets, they're big, heavy, and clunky compared to the iPad. Not to mention anything the size of the iPad not running a custom OS isn't going to be very nice to use.</p><p><i>Fourth (and this isn't that big of a deal, but it is still a missed opportunity) Apple should have included a stylus with the system. Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers. If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet. Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus. Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.</i></p><p>You can already buy styluses that work on capacitive touchscreens. Of course, they won't replace a Wacom tablet, as Wacom tablets can have very high resolution (5080 lpi), pressure sensitivity, and tilt sensitivity. That's a lot of technology to build into a product that isn't going to be used by most people. Including such functionality out of the box would be a silly move. It would bump the price up in hope of appealing to a very small market. Of course, I don't see what's stopping someone from adding pressure sensitivity to a Bluetooth stylus and then developing a drawing app, even if it won't be quite the same as a high-end Wacom tablet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Third , what exactly are you getting for that price ?
Let 's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version .
For roughly $ 800 , you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options , zero USB ports or flash card readers , and no way to upgrade .
For $ 800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell , you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop !
But no , with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.A gaming computer ?
How is that useful for someone who wants a small device to comfortably browse the web with ?
Talk about comparing Apples to oranges .
As for laptops and those other tablets , they 're big , heavy , and clunky compared to the iPad .
Not to mention anything the size of the iPad not running a custom OS is n't going to be very nice to use.Fourth ( and this is n't that big of a deal , but it is still a missed opportunity ) Apple should have included a stylus with the system .
Think about the people that use Wacom tablets , like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers .
If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software , this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet .
Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus .
Nope , that 's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.You can already buy styluses that work on capacitive touchscreens .
Of course , they wo n't replace a Wacom tablet , as Wacom tablets can have very high resolution ( 5080 lpi ) , pressure sensitivity , and tilt sensitivity .
That 's a lot of technology to build into a product that is n't going to be used by most people .
Including such functionality out of the box would be a silly move .
It would bump the price up in hope of appealing to a very small market .
Of course , I do n't see what 's stopping someone from adding pressure sensitivity to a Bluetooth stylus and then developing a drawing app , even if it wo n't be quite the same as a high-end Wacom tablet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Third, what exactly are you getting for that price?
Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version.
For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade.
For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop!
But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.A gaming computer?
How is that useful for someone who wants a small device to comfortably browse the web with?
Talk about comparing Apples to oranges.
As for laptops and those other tablets, they're big, heavy, and clunky compared to the iPad.
Not to mention anything the size of the iPad not running a custom OS isn't going to be very nice to use.Fourth (and this isn't that big of a deal, but it is still a missed opportunity) Apple should have included a stylus with the system.
Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers.
If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet.
Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus.
Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.You can already buy styluses that work on capacitive touchscreens.
Of course, they won't replace a Wacom tablet, as Wacom tablets can have very high resolution (5080 lpi), pressure sensitivity, and tilt sensitivity.
That's a lot of technology to build into a product that isn't going to be used by most people.
Including such functionality out of the box would be a silly move.
It would bump the price up in hope of appealing to a very small market.
Of course, I don't see what's stopping someone from adding pressure sensitivity to a Bluetooth stylus and then developing a drawing app, even if it won't be quite the same as a high-end Wacom tablet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30956494</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>JThundley</author>
	<datestamp>1264765620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason the ipad is not a general-purpose computing device is because Apple won't let you treat it as one. The thing has a decent processor, memory, storage space, screen, network, input and output, and an operating system. The thing is a locked down computer. If it weren't locked down, you'd be able to install whatever you want on it and treat it like a computer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason the ipad is not a general-purpose computing device is because Apple wo n't let you treat it as one .
The thing has a decent processor , memory , storage space , screen , network , input and output , and an operating system .
The thing is a locked down computer .
If it were n't locked down , you 'd be able to install whatever you want on it and treat it like a computer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason the ipad is not a general-purpose computing device is because Apple won't let you treat it as one.
The thing has a decent processor, memory, storage space, screen, network, input and output, and an operating system.
The thing is a locked down computer.
If it weren't locked down, you'd be able to install whatever you want on it and treat it like a computer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935406</id>
	<title>Re:They can't possibly believe this...</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1264701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would think Amazon dropping DRM first and selling MP3s at a very competitive price had a lot more to do with dropping that than EFF and FSFs publicity campaigns.  I don't mean to discredit their work against DRM and I'm sure it was an influence.  I just credit Amazon and business competition a bit more. That perspective could be my bias though.  My initial experience with iTuens was horrible.  It wasn't until I tried Amazon's MP3 store that I started buying digital music again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think Amazon dropping DRM first and selling MP3s at a very competitive price had a lot more to do with dropping that than EFF and FSFs publicity campaigns .
I do n't mean to discredit their work against DRM and I 'm sure it was an influence .
I just credit Amazon and business competition a bit more .
That perspective could be my bias though .
My initial experience with iTuens was horrible .
It was n't until I tried Amazon 's MP3 store that I started buying digital music again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think Amazon dropping DRM first and selling MP3s at a very competitive price had a lot more to do with dropping that than EFF and FSFs publicity campaigns.
I don't mean to discredit their work against DRM and I'm sure it was an influence.
I just credit Amazon and business competition a bit more.
That perspective could be my bias though.
My initial experience with iTuens was horrible.
It wasn't until I tried Amazon's MP3 store that I started buying digital music again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30952832</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>docwatson223</author>
	<datestamp>1264793400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd hit that!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hit that !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hit that!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935502</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>cowscows</author>
	<datestamp>1264701240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consuming media is an important part of furthering ones own creative endeavors. Not to mention that there's nothing wrong with relaxing and watching movies from time to time even if I never have any intention of creating my own film.</p><p>Nobody in their right mind is ever going to seriously hack code on a tablet. It's not the right tool for the job. Excuse me if I can't get upset at Apple for recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of a particular form factor and designing around them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consuming media is an important part of furthering ones own creative endeavors .
Not to mention that there 's nothing wrong with relaxing and watching movies from time to time even if I never have any intention of creating my own film.Nobody in their right mind is ever going to seriously hack code on a tablet .
It 's not the right tool for the job .
Excuse me if I ca n't get upset at Apple for recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of a particular form factor and designing around them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consuming media is an important part of furthering ones own creative endeavors.
Not to mention that there's nothing wrong with relaxing and watching movies from time to time even if I never have any intention of creating my own film.Nobody in their right mind is ever going to seriously hack code on a tablet.
It's not the right tool for the job.
Excuse me if I can't get upset at Apple for recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of a particular form factor and designing around them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936520</id>
	<title>Re:Amen</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1264704180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I resent the implication that Steve Jobs is the CEO of a publicly traded mega-corporation whose sole purpose is to increase the wealth of its shareholders by enhancing its profitability...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I resent the implication that Steve Jobs is the CEO of a publicly traded mega-corporation whose sole purpose is to increase the wealth of its shareholders by enhancing its profitability.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I resent the implication that Steve Jobs is the CEO of a publicly traded mega-corporation whose sole purpose is to increase the wealth of its shareholders by enhancing its profitability...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935004</id>
	<title>While I'm not Apple's key market...</title>
	<author>jamiethehutt</author>
	<datestamp>1264699980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really find the iPad crap. It's more than the cost of other tablets that give you full hackable desktop OS but most importantly it's got NO USB host! Even phones have USB host now! (Nokia N900 off the top of my head) <br> <br>

With USB host you can make your portable device do pretty much anything: want more storage? Add a pen drive, hell with a battery powered USB charger the N900 can run a laptop disk! Want a decent keyboard? Just plug in your desktop keyboard!<br> <br>

And I would of thought "Apple customers" would of wanted USB. Take photos with your fancy digital SLR camera, plug that into your tablet and upload them strait to your employer/local paper/flickr stream. The N900 can do that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really find the iPad crap .
It 's more than the cost of other tablets that give you full hackable desktop OS but most importantly it 's got NO USB host !
Even phones have USB host now !
( Nokia N900 off the top of my head ) With USB host you can make your portable device do pretty much anything : want more storage ?
Add a pen drive , hell with a battery powered USB charger the N900 can run a laptop disk !
Want a decent keyboard ?
Just plug in your desktop keyboard !
And I would of thought " Apple customers " would of wanted USB .
Take photos with your fancy digital SLR camera , plug that into your tablet and upload them strait to your employer/local paper/flickr stream .
The N900 can do that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really find the iPad crap.
It's more than the cost of other tablets that give you full hackable desktop OS but most importantly it's got NO USB host!
Even phones have USB host now!
(Nokia N900 off the top of my head)  

With USB host you can make your portable device do pretty much anything: want more storage?
Add a pen drive, hell with a battery powered USB charger the N900 can run a laptop disk!
Want a decent keyboard?
Just plug in your desktop keyboard!
And I would of thought "Apple customers" would of wanted USB.
Take photos with your fancy digital SLR camera, plug that into your tablet and upload them strait to your employer/local paper/flickr stream.
The N900 can do that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941730</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep. You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep. And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.</p></div><p>The hacker is my Shepard, I shall not think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will , but the masses are sheep and they 're happy as sheep .
You can not teach them to think , vote , raise children , or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD , only the sheep .
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.The hacker is my Shepard , I shall not think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep.
You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep.
And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.The hacker is my Shepard, I shall not think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939298</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple should have included a stylus with the system.</p></div><p>I stopped reading right there. Either way, just don't buy one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple should have included a stylus with the system.I stopped reading right there .
Either way , just do n't buy one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple should have included a stylus with the system.I stopped reading right there.
Either way, just don't buy one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942064</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it's a huge step forwards for many.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We cry DRM at Apple, but do we really mean that we just don't want the general public in our clubhouse?</p></div><p>No.  Absolutely not.</p><p>I want the general public to have simple tools to participate in my techy clubhouse.  Their access in no way threatens my nerdy pleasures.</p><p>DRM is a separate issue.  Remember that DRM music inconvenienced the GENERAL PUBLIC, and that's why it had to be dropped.  The same will happen to DRM applications, once the general public learns how it inconveniences them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We cry DRM at Apple , but do we really mean that we just do n't want the general public in our clubhouse ? No .
Absolutely not.I want the general public to have simple tools to participate in my techy clubhouse .
Their access in no way threatens my nerdy pleasures.DRM is a separate issue .
Remember that DRM music inconvenienced the GENERAL PUBLIC , and that 's why it had to be dropped .
The same will happen to DRM applications , once the general public learns how it inconveniences them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We cry DRM at Apple, but do we really mean that we just don't want the general public in our clubhouse?No.
Absolutely not.I want the general public to have simple tools to participate in my techy clubhouse.
Their access in no way threatens my nerdy pleasures.DRM is a separate issue.
Remember that DRM music inconvenienced the GENERAL PUBLIC, and that's why it had to be dropped.
The same will happen to DRM applications, once the general public learns how it inconveniences them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934718</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on.</title>
	<author>bieber</author>
	<datestamp>1264699200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's nothing like saying that the Segway is a major step backward because it can't fly, because a Segway is very clearly incapable of flight.  It is, however, fully capable of roving about as a user commands it, and it does that to the fullest extent the user asks it too.

The iPad, on the other hand, <b>is</b> a general-purpose computing device, and a reasonably powerful one at that.  It has a general purpose processor, a significant amount of memory, and it's perfectly capable of loading and running user-supplied code.  The only reason you can't do anything with it that you could do with a similarly powerful laptop (more, really, given the multi-touch display capabilities) is because of Apple's arbitrary software restrictions.  To follow your analogy (which is really flawed from the beginning), the iPad is more like a jet aircraft with controls that only allow you to taxi back and forth on the ground.  And that is most certainly a step backwards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's nothing like saying that the Segway is a major step backward because it ca n't fly , because a Segway is very clearly incapable of flight .
It is , however , fully capable of roving about as a user commands it , and it does that to the fullest extent the user asks it too .
The iPad , on the other hand , is a general-purpose computing device , and a reasonably powerful one at that .
It has a general purpose processor , a significant amount of memory , and it 's perfectly capable of loading and running user-supplied code .
The only reason you ca n't do anything with it that you could do with a similarly powerful laptop ( more , really , given the multi-touch display capabilities ) is because of Apple 's arbitrary software restrictions .
To follow your analogy ( which is really flawed from the beginning ) , the iPad is more like a jet aircraft with controls that only allow you to taxi back and forth on the ground .
And that is most certainly a step backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's nothing like saying that the Segway is a major step backward because it can't fly, because a Segway is very clearly incapable of flight.
It is, however, fully capable of roving about as a user commands it, and it does that to the fullest extent the user asks it too.
The iPad, on the other hand, is a general-purpose computing device, and a reasonably powerful one at that.
It has a general purpose processor, a significant amount of memory, and it's perfectly capable of loading and running user-supplied code.
The only reason you can't do anything with it that you could do with a similarly powerful laptop (more, really, given the multi-touch display capabilities) is because of Apple's arbitrary software restrictions.
To follow your analogy (which is really flawed from the beginning), the iPad is more like a jet aircraft with controls that only allow you to taxi back and forth on the ground.
And that is most certainly a step backwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945684</id>
	<title>Ummm..  Archos 9?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with 1400+ replies, it might have been said, but Archos has been making this kind of hardware for years.  There's also the crunchpad (but I wouldn't buy the joojoo.  don't like the politics there.)  the Archos 9 runs windows 7, which sucks less than expected, and would probably support a linux/bsd OS.  Since I don't have the ching for one, I haven't tested this, but the archos 5 and 7 both run linux.  Anyway, I'm very interested in what comes of this "pad" movement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with 1400 + replies , it might have been said , but Archos has been making this kind of hardware for years .
There 's also the crunchpad ( but I would n't buy the joojoo .
do n't like the politics there .
) the Archos 9 runs windows 7 , which sucks less than expected , and would probably support a linux/bsd OS .
Since I do n't have the ching for one , I have n't tested this , but the archos 5 and 7 both run linux .
Anyway , I 'm very interested in what comes of this " pad " movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with 1400+ replies, it might have been said, but Archos has been making this kind of hardware for years.
There's also the crunchpad (but I wouldn't buy the joojoo.
don't like the politics there.
)  the Archos 9 runs windows 7, which sucks less than expected, and would probably support a linux/bsd OS.
Since I don't have the ching for one, I haven't tested this, but the archos 5 and 7 both run linux.
Anyway, I'm very interested in what comes of this "pad" movement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935988</id>
	<title>Re:Average users don't WANT control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing sheep-like about wanting a computer (or phone) that simply works.  I don't give a shit in Ann Coulter's VJJ what's IN the damn thing.  For years I had an IBM ThinkPad / Windows machine and was convinced there were little blue smurfs running around inside it, 10\% of whom were malevolent.  I use a MacBook Pro for what it does, not for what it is.  I appreciate the clean, uncluttered design.</p><p>I feel the same way about electricity, my toaster, my fridge, my washing machine and my car.  I don't have time or inclination to fuck with them, and I don't want them to fuck with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing sheep-like about wanting a computer ( or phone ) that simply works .
I do n't give a shit in Ann Coulter 's VJJ what 's IN the damn thing .
For years I had an IBM ThinkPad / Windows machine and was convinced there were little blue smurfs running around inside it , 10 \ % of whom were malevolent .
I use a MacBook Pro for what it does , not for what it is .
I appreciate the clean , uncluttered design.I feel the same way about electricity , my toaster , my fridge , my washing machine and my car .
I do n't have time or inclination to fuck with them , and I do n't want them to fuck with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing sheep-like about wanting a computer (or phone) that simply works.
I don't give a shit in Ann Coulter's VJJ what's IN the damn thing.
For years I had an IBM ThinkPad / Windows machine and was convinced there were little blue smurfs running around inside it, 10\% of whom were malevolent.
I use a MacBook Pro for what it does, not for what it is.
I appreciate the clean, uncluttered design.I feel the same way about electricity, my toaster, my fridge, my washing machine and my car.
I don't have time or inclination to fuck with them, and I don't want them to fuck with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936494</id>
	<title>Can we call this the iphone maxi..?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264704120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure I'm not the first but to avoid confustion, can we just call this the iphone maxi...</p><p>By making this a large ipod, apple has done the right thing for appliancizing a computer.  For work, most of us will need more than an appliance which is as it should be.  The iphone maxi will be excellent for goofing off with.  My only concern may be that its too large to lug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I 'm not the first but to avoid confustion , can we just call this the iphone maxi...By making this a large ipod , apple has done the right thing for appliancizing a computer .
For work , most of us will need more than an appliance which is as it should be .
The iphone maxi will be excellent for goofing off with .
My only concern may be that its too large to lug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I'm not the first but to avoid confustion, can we just call this the iphone maxi...By making this a large ipod, apple has done the right thing for appliancizing a computer.
For work, most of us will need more than an appliance which is as it should be.
The iphone maxi will be excellent for goofing off with.
My only concern may be that its too large to lug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192</id>
	<title>Consumers vs. Programmers</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1264700520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The kind of "freedom" that is the hallmark of Richard Stallman, GNU and EFF is very simple -if you have programming skills you are free.  Otherwise, you are, well, unfit.</p><p>The basic problem is that the "open" computing platform has pretty much failed the consumer.  No matter what security features are implemented in software, consumers will circumvent them to obtain what they believe they want: free software, porn, money, etc.  The end result is a compromised computer that is no longer completely under the control of the user.  And such computers can have a very negative impact on all users everywhere.</p><p>The average consumer has no way to utilise the sort of programming freedom that Stallman would like to see people have.  They need a checked-out, validated, "App Store" where both useful and useless things can be downloaded and will never, ever compromise their computer.  And if an application is found to be bad after it is released it can be "recalled".  Period.  If we had this today for Windows there would be no spam epidemic, no malware and little or no phishing.  Instead what we have is an environment where the Internet is not safe for users with no special knowledge.</p><p>We are certainly going to see less and less "freedom" for users in the name of keeping out the bad stuff.  Users, not programmers, do not need freedom but they absolutely need safe computing.  We aren't going to teach that.  With great freedom comes great responsibility and the spammers, thieves and scammers don't seem to be properly exercising responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The kind of " freedom " that is the hallmark of Richard Stallman , GNU and EFF is very simple -if you have programming skills you are free .
Otherwise , you are , well , unfit.The basic problem is that the " open " computing platform has pretty much failed the consumer .
No matter what security features are implemented in software , consumers will circumvent them to obtain what they believe they want : free software , porn , money , etc .
The end result is a compromised computer that is no longer completely under the control of the user .
And such computers can have a very negative impact on all users everywhere.The average consumer has no way to utilise the sort of programming freedom that Stallman would like to see people have .
They need a checked-out , validated , " App Store " where both useful and useless things can be downloaded and will never , ever compromise their computer .
And if an application is found to be bad after it is released it can be " recalled " .
Period. If we had this today for Windows there would be no spam epidemic , no malware and little or no phishing .
Instead what we have is an environment where the Internet is not safe for users with no special knowledge.We are certainly going to see less and less " freedom " for users in the name of keeping out the bad stuff .
Users , not programmers , do not need freedom but they absolutely need safe computing .
We are n't going to teach that .
With great freedom comes great responsibility and the spammers , thieves and scammers do n't seem to be properly exercising responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kind of "freedom" that is the hallmark of Richard Stallman, GNU and EFF is very simple -if you have programming skills you are free.
Otherwise, you are, well, unfit.The basic problem is that the "open" computing platform has pretty much failed the consumer.
No matter what security features are implemented in software, consumers will circumvent them to obtain what they believe they want: free software, porn, money, etc.
The end result is a compromised computer that is no longer completely under the control of the user.
And such computers can have a very negative impact on all users everywhere.The average consumer has no way to utilise the sort of programming freedom that Stallman would like to see people have.
They need a checked-out, validated, "App Store" where both useful and useless things can be downloaded and will never, ever compromise their computer.
And if an application is found to be bad after it is released it can be "recalled".
Period.  If we had this today for Windows there would be no spam epidemic, no malware and little or no phishing.
Instead what we have is an environment where the Internet is not safe for users with no special knowledge.We are certainly going to see less and less "freedom" for users in the name of keeping out the bad stuff.
Users, not programmers, do not need freedom but they absolutely need safe computing.
We aren't going to teach that.
With great freedom comes great responsibility and the spammers, thieves and scammers don't seem to be properly exercising responsibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935384</id>
	<title>Re:FSF-approved version: +$99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"its only $99/year"</p><p>Nothing spells "I'm an idiot! Rip me off!" like paying 100 bucks a year for the privilege to use the hardware you already paid for.</p><p>I love Apple customers. They are always good for a laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" its only $ 99/year " Nothing spells " I 'm an idiot !
Rip me off !
" like paying 100 bucks a year for the privilege to use the hardware you already paid for.I love Apple customers .
They are always good for a laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"its only $99/year"Nothing spells "I'm an idiot!
Rip me off!
" like paying 100 bucks a year for the privilege to use the hardware you already paid for.I love Apple customers.
They are always good for a laugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936830</id>
	<title>The future is now</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1264704960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of years ago everyone realized the computer was on it's way to becoming an appliance like your toaster or microwave, and were pretty optimistic about it. Well, the future is now... and people still complain about it. As others have stated, this isn't a general all-purpose computer, and it's not meant to be. Jobs was right when he said the netbook doesn't do anything better. It only does things smaller and, with every passing generation of the netbook, they're increasing the size of the device until it's indistinguishable from a laptop. The iPad is in practice what the original netbook was supposed to be - a device just for surfing the net, watching videos, reading books, playing games, and looking at photos. It's a useful appliance. All the Apple hate is pretty ridiculous, as with this they are progressing technology. Without the iPad, we'd see 10 more years of netbooks getting bigger, phones getting smaller, and Microsoft releasing Slate PCs as if they're new. If the iPad takes off, which it probably will, in 2 years time everybody will be scrambling to get a iPad like device out there, and enough of them will run existing OSes that you can install programs to and hack to your hearts content and you know what? They all won't compete with the iPad because people don't want freedom in computing... they want an appliance that they can rely on not to get viruses and have their kids come fix every 2 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of years ago everyone realized the computer was on it 's way to becoming an appliance like your toaster or microwave , and were pretty optimistic about it .
Well , the future is now... and people still complain about it .
As others have stated , this is n't a general all-purpose computer , and it 's not meant to be .
Jobs was right when he said the netbook does n't do anything better .
It only does things smaller and , with every passing generation of the netbook , they 're increasing the size of the device until it 's indistinguishable from a laptop .
The iPad is in practice what the original netbook was supposed to be - a device just for surfing the net , watching videos , reading books , playing games , and looking at photos .
It 's a useful appliance .
All the Apple hate is pretty ridiculous , as with this they are progressing technology .
Without the iPad , we 'd see 10 more years of netbooks getting bigger , phones getting smaller , and Microsoft releasing Slate PCs as if they 're new .
If the iPad takes off , which it probably will , in 2 years time everybody will be scrambling to get a iPad like device out there , and enough of them will run existing OSes that you can install programs to and hack to your hearts content and you know what ?
They all wo n't compete with the iPad because people do n't want freedom in computing... they want an appliance that they can rely on not to get viruses and have their kids come fix every 2 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of years ago everyone realized the computer was on it's way to becoming an appliance like your toaster or microwave, and were pretty optimistic about it.
Well, the future is now... and people still complain about it.
As others have stated, this isn't a general all-purpose computer, and it's not meant to be.
Jobs was right when he said the netbook doesn't do anything better.
It only does things smaller and, with every passing generation of the netbook, they're increasing the size of the device until it's indistinguishable from a laptop.
The iPad is in practice what the original netbook was supposed to be - a device just for surfing the net, watching videos, reading books, playing games, and looking at photos.
It's a useful appliance.
All the Apple hate is pretty ridiculous, as with this they are progressing technology.
Without the iPad, we'd see 10 more years of netbooks getting bigger, phones getting smaller, and Microsoft releasing Slate PCs as if they're new.
If the iPad takes off, which it probably will, in 2 years time everybody will be scrambling to get a iPad like device out there, and enough of them will run existing OSes that you can install programs to and hack to your hearts content and you know what?
They all won't compete with the iPad because people don't want freedom in computing... they want an appliance that they can rely on not to get viruses and have their kids come fix every 2 months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941542</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it's a huge step forwards for many.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But why CAN'T we have our geek interface? Why can't there be a terminal icon that lets us access a command line, or a way to load documents or programs from one of our other computers?  WHY does it have to be "locked-down"?  Why is the App Store the only place you can buy programs?  I think the general public is smart enough to care about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But why CA N'T we have our geek interface ?
Why ca n't there be a terminal icon that lets us access a command line , or a way to load documents or programs from one of our other computers ?
WHY does it have to be " locked-down " ?
Why is the App Store the only place you can buy programs ?
I think the general public is smart enough to care about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why CAN'T we have our geek interface?
Why can't there be a terminal icon that lets us access a command line, or a way to load documents or programs from one of our other computers?
WHY does it have to be "locked-down"?
Why is the App Store the only place you can buy programs?
I think the general public is smart enough to care about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for this.  The only thing I love more than a new Apple product is Ann Coulter's VJJ.  I think I'm in heaven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for this .
The only thing I love more than a new Apple product is Ann Coulter 's VJJ .
I think I 'm in heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for this.
The only thing I love more than a new Apple product is Ann Coulter's VJJ.
I think I'm in heaven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936280</id>
	<title>Re:Grab a snack...this may take a while.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing"</p><p>to an insignificant number of customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" By keeping it locked down like that , they have severely limited the appeal of this thing " to an insignificant number of customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing"to an insignificant number of customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_209</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_219</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_203</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_197</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_227</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_213</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30977802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30949696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_221</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_232</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_208</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30952832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_200</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_196</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_237</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_199</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_229</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_230</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_216</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_202</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30990894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_226</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_218</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_210</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_198</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_228</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_220</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_205</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_215</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_193</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_223</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_234</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_192</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_233</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_231</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_207</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_217</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30966330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_195</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_225</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_236</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_204</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_212</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_206</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_222</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_194</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_235</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30956494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_201</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_211</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30993212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_214</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_224</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1434222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30949046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30990894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940006
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936386
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30977802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30993212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934184
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30952832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30940640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30949046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30943086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30944998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30948648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30966330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30942052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30945224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30936296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30941164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30933780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30949696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30956494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30946400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30947834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30935116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30939838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30937808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1434222.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30934076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1434222.30938052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
