<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_31_1657233</id>
	<title>Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264961520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Having cut his programming teeth on an Apple ][e as a ten-year-old, Mark Pilgrim laments that Apple now seems to be doing everything in their power to <a href="http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/01/29/tinkerers-sunset">stop his kids from finding the sense of wonder he did</a>: 'Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world. With every software update, the previous generation of "jailbreaks" stop working, and people have to find new ways to break into their own computers. There <a href="http://al3x.net/2010/01/28/ipad.html">won't ever be a MacsBug for the iPad</a>. There won't be a ResEdit, or a Copy ][+ sector editor, or an iPad Peeks &amp; Pokes Chart. And that's a real loss. Maybe not to you, but to somebody who doesn't even know it yet.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Having cut his programming teeth on an Apple ] [ e as a ten-year-old , Mark Pilgrim laments that Apple now seems to be doing everything in their power to stop his kids from finding the sense of wonder he did : 'Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world .
With every software update , the previous generation of " jailbreaks " stop working , and people have to find new ways to break into their own computers .
There wo n't ever be a MacsBug for the iPad .
There wo n't be a ResEdit , or a Copy ] [ + sector editor , or an iPad Peeks &amp; Pokes Chart .
And that 's a real loss .
Maybe not to you , but to somebody who does n't even know it yet .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Having cut his programming teeth on an Apple ][e as a ten-year-old, Mark Pilgrim laments that Apple now seems to be doing everything in their power to stop his kids from finding the sense of wonder he did: 'Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world.
With every software update, the previous generation of "jailbreaks" stop working, and people have to find new ways to break into their own computers.
There won't ever be a MacsBug for the iPad.
There won't be a ResEdit, or a Copy ][+ sector editor, or an iPad Peeks &amp; Pokes Chart.
And that's a real loss.
Maybe not to you, but to somebody who doesn't even know it yet.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972198</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>ultramk</author>
	<datestamp>1264967220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone's implying that they are mutually exclusive, but... Apple's clearly got a strategy they are following on this device which pretty firmly puts it in the category of "not for general computing purposes." Does every device have to be easily tinkerable? Is it important to be able to get root on your cell phone? I don't know. YMMV.</p><p>I mean, there are craploads of tablets out there that run windows or whatever... totally hackable, run linux or w/e. why isn't anyone excited about those? I think what's scaring people is not that this thing exists or that it's relatively locked down, it's that most people just don't seem to care.</p><p>It's that it appears to be a successful strategy. The times they are a-changin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone 's implying that they are mutually exclusive , but... Apple 's clearly got a strategy they are following on this device which pretty firmly puts it in the category of " not for general computing purposes .
" Does every device have to be easily tinkerable ?
Is it important to be able to get root on your cell phone ?
I do n't know .
YMMV.I mean , there are craploads of tablets out there that run windows or whatever... totally hackable , run linux or w/e .
why is n't anyone excited about those ?
I think what 's scaring people is not that this thing exists or that it 's relatively locked down , it 's that most people just do n't seem to care.It 's that it appears to be a successful strategy .
The times they are a-changin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone's implying that they are mutually exclusive, but... Apple's clearly got a strategy they are following on this device which pretty firmly puts it in the category of "not for general computing purposes.
" Does every device have to be easily tinkerable?
Is it important to be able to get root on your cell phone?
I don't know.
YMMV.I mean, there are craploads of tablets out there that run windows or whatever... totally hackable, run linux or w/e.
why isn't anyone excited about those?
I think what's scaring people is not that this thing exists or that it's relatively locked down, it's that most people just don't seem to care.It's that it appears to be a successful strategy.
The times they are a-changin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30982828</id>
	<title>Well EXCUSE MEeeeEEEE ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that stuff still exists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... its in the iPhone Simulator  and Xcode -- its built in !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that stuff still exists ... ... its in the iPhone Simulator and Xcode -- its built in ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that stuff still exists ... ... its in the iPhone Simulator  and Xcode -- its built in !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973322</id>
	<title>Re:Inevitable after Woz left</title>
	<author>EQ</author>
	<datestamp>1264930440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steve Jobs is the anti-tinkerer; he just wants you to shut up and buy cool looking gadgets from him on a regular schedule.</p></div><p>Thanks for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sig</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs is the anti-tinkerer ; he just wants you to shut up and buy cool looking gadgets from him on a regular schedule.Thanks for the .sig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs is the anti-tinkerer; he just wants you to shut up and buy cool looking gadgets from him on a regular schedule.Thanks for the .sig
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974038</id>
	<title>Tagvertising</title>
	<author>M3.14</author>
	<datestamp>1264934100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like how the tags on the story say <i>"dontbuyapple buynokia"</i>. I wonder if that's intentional...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how the tags on the story say " dontbuyapple buynokia " .
I wonder if that 's intentional.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how the tags on the story say "dontbuyapple buynokia".
I wonder if that's intentional...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972264</id>
	<title>Re:True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1264967520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. I'm not even sure comparing hacking now to hacking in the 70s/80's is a valid comparison. A computer is a fairly unlimited device with no specific defined purpose. The whole point of it is to adapt it to your particular needs. iPhones and iPads, OTOH, have specific, defined purposes, they make assumptions about what the user is going to need, and their design goal is to deliver those specific functions simply and reliably. They offer a subset of computer functionality to an audience that is assumed <i>not</i> to be hackers.</p><p>Also, in the 80's networks were generally not the usual operating environment for the computer. Yes, there were BB's and such, but the standard operating environment was as a standalone machine. Today, the majority of content, and the programming to create the content, exists remotely on a server. The action, programming-wise, has moved away from manipulating the hardware of the local computer to manipulating the browser, or other client software.</p><p>I sympathize with the author's position, but I'm not sure the comparison is really valid anymore. You can still get a general purpose computer for hacking, if you want one, but these appliance devices aren't really designed to serve that audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
I 'm not even sure comparing hacking now to hacking in the 70s/80 's is a valid comparison .
A computer is a fairly unlimited device with no specific defined purpose .
The whole point of it is to adapt it to your particular needs .
iPhones and iPads , OTOH , have specific , defined purposes , they make assumptions about what the user is going to need , and their design goal is to deliver those specific functions simply and reliably .
They offer a subset of computer functionality to an audience that is assumed not to be hackers.Also , in the 80 's networks were generally not the usual operating environment for the computer .
Yes , there were BB 's and such , but the standard operating environment was as a standalone machine .
Today , the majority of content , and the programming to create the content , exists remotely on a server .
The action , programming-wise , has moved away from manipulating the hardware of the local computer to manipulating the browser , or other client software.I sympathize with the author 's position , but I 'm not sure the comparison is really valid anymore .
You can still get a general purpose computer for hacking , if you want one , but these appliance devices are n't really designed to serve that audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
I'm not even sure comparing hacking now to hacking in the 70s/80's is a valid comparison.
A computer is a fairly unlimited device with no specific defined purpose.
The whole point of it is to adapt it to your particular needs.
iPhones and iPads, OTOH, have specific, defined purposes, they make assumptions about what the user is going to need, and their design goal is to deliver those specific functions simply and reliably.
They offer a subset of computer functionality to an audience that is assumed not to be hackers.Also, in the 80's networks were generally not the usual operating environment for the computer.
Yes, there were BB's and such, but the standard operating environment was as a standalone machine.
Today, the majority of content, and the programming to create the content, exists remotely on a server.
The action, programming-wise, has moved away from manipulating the hardware of the local computer to manipulating the browser, or other client software.I sympathize with the author's position, but I'm not sure the comparison is really valid anymore.
You can still get a general purpose computer for hacking, if you want one, but these appliance devices aren't really designed to serve that audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974748</id>
	<title>Re:Over personalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.</i></p><p>Except they don't "just work".  I can't get Google voice mail on the iPhone.  The iPhone mail reader requires way too many clicks.  Applications do crash on those devices etc.</p><p>And restrictions aren't a necessary side effect.  Other companies have easy-to-use just-turn-it-on products, and they are still freely programmable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.Except they do n't " just work " .
I ca n't get Google voice mail on the iPhone .
The iPhone mail reader requires way too many clicks .
Applications do crash on those devices etc.And restrictions are n't a necessary side effect .
Other companies have easy-to-use just-turn-it-on products , and they are still freely programmable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.Except they don't "just work".
I can't get Google voice mail on the iPhone.
The iPhone mail reader requires way too many clicks.
Applications do crash on those devices etc.And restrictions aren't a necessary side effect.
Other companies have easy-to-use just-turn-it-on products, and they are still freely programmable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972942</id>
	<title>Re:Inevitable after Woz left</title>
	<author>theurge14</author>
	<datestamp>1264971360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Jobs recognizes the tinkerers and knows how to collect them into a cohesive group and set them on a path.  Woz gets the glory while Ives and his team still go mostly unrecognized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Jobs recognizes the tinkerers and knows how to collect them into a cohesive group and set them on a path .
Woz gets the glory while Ives and his team still go mostly unrecognized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Jobs recognizes the tinkerers and knows how to collect them into a cohesive group and set them on a path.
Woz gets the glory while Ives and his team still go mostly unrecognized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975964</id>
	<title>how about html/javascript for tinkering?</title>
	<author>voidstin</author>
	<datestamp>1264946220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone is curious about computer tinkering these days, I feel like their first toe in the water will be with HTML/JS/AJAX rather than BASIC/ResEdit/Etc.  ipad will definitely have a text editor and file sharing... and as many have said, if you REALLY want to get under the hood, they can step up to a linux box (or any other desktop OS).</p><p>besides, jquery touch looks much, MUCH more fun than 10 PRINT "VOIDSTIN RULES!" 20 GOTO 10</p><p><a href="http://www.jqtouch.com/" title="jqtouch.com">http://www.jqtouch.com/</a> [jqtouch.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone is curious about computer tinkering these days , I feel like their first toe in the water will be with HTML/JS/AJAX rather than BASIC/ResEdit/Etc .
ipad will definitely have a text editor and file sharing... and as many have said , if you REALLY want to get under the hood , they can step up to a linux box ( or any other desktop OS ) .besides , jquery touch looks much , MUCH more fun than 10 PRINT " VOIDSTIN RULES !
" 20 GOTO 10http : //www.jqtouch.com/ [ jqtouch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone is curious about computer tinkering these days, I feel like their first toe in the water will be with HTML/JS/AJAX rather than BASIC/ResEdit/Etc.
ipad will definitely have a text editor and file sharing... and as many have said, if you REALLY want to get under the hood, they can step up to a linux box (or any other desktop OS).besides, jquery touch looks much, MUCH more fun than 10 PRINT "VOIDSTIN RULES!
" 20 GOTO 10http://www.jqtouch.com/ [jqtouch.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971922</id>
	<title>Garage sale.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see why a kid today can't learn programming on an Apple II or a C-64 or whatever simple computer form the 80s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see why a kid today ca n't learn programming on an Apple II or a C-64 or whatever simple computer form the 80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see why a kid today can't learn programming on an Apple II or a C-64 or whatever simple computer form the 80s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975678</id>
	<title>These are Consumer electronics devices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPod/iPhone/iPad are consumer electronic gadgets. Although they can be general purpose computers based on hardware, they were not designed for that purpose.<br>Mac Books and Mac Pro are general computers and are designed for that purpose. I do believe they should leave the newer consumer electronic devices a little more open to allow "hacking" but in the end it is what it is...a device(s) that allows a narrowed purpose and applications to suit that purpose. Because apple is really image driven they do not want any applications that make the device look bad, which is why they have the app store...they try to control what they can and seems like they are quite successful at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPod/iPhone/iPad are consumer electronic gadgets .
Although they can be general purpose computers based on hardware , they were not designed for that purpose.Mac Books and Mac Pro are general computers and are designed for that purpose .
I do believe they should leave the newer consumer electronic devices a little more open to allow " hacking " but in the end it is what it is...a device ( s ) that allows a narrowed purpose and applications to suit that purpose .
Because apple is really image driven they do not want any applications that make the device look bad , which is why they have the app store...they try to control what they can and seems like they are quite successful at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPod/iPhone/iPad are consumer electronic gadgets.
Although they can be general purpose computers based on hardware, they were not designed for that purpose.Mac Books and Mac Pro are general computers and are designed for that purpose.
I do believe they should leave the newer consumer electronic devices a little more open to allow "hacking" but in the end it is what it is...a device(s) that allows a narrowed purpose and applications to suit that purpose.
Because apple is really image driven they do not want any applications that make the device look bad, which is why they have the app store...they try to control what they can and seems like they are quite successful at it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972274</id>
	<title>Aurdino</title>
	<author>WilsonSD</author>
	<datestamp>1264967580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to do this kind of hacking go get an Aurdino.  There's a whole world of home brew stuff cooler than we could have imagined when we were kids.</p><p>http://www.arduino.cc/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to do this kind of hacking go get an Aurdino .
There 's a whole world of home brew stuff cooler than we could have imagined when we were kids.http : //www.arduino.cc/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to do this kind of hacking go get an Aurdino.
There's a whole world of home brew stuff cooler than we could have imagined when we were kids.http://www.arduino.cc/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978548</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1265017560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is every touchpad with a standard OS has been a commercial failure.  Apple decided to try making a tablet with an OS designed from the ground-up to work with a touchscreen.  Really not as terrible an idea as a lot of people try to make it out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is every touchpad with a standard OS has been a commercial failure .
Apple decided to try making a tablet with an OS designed from the ground-up to work with a touchscreen .
Really not as terrible an idea as a lot of people try to make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is every touchpad with a standard OS has been a commercial failure.
Apple decided to try making a tablet with an OS designed from the ground-up to work with a touchscreen.
Really not as terrible an idea as a lot of people try to make it out to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975570</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>Jon Abbott</author>
	<datestamp>1264943580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had to use a soldering iron to replace my iPod nano battery.  Yes, I would prefer a removable battery, but more than that I prefer to have something that can be <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2005/09/nano.ars/3" title="arstechnica.com">run over by a car twice</a> [arstechnica.com] and still play music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had to use a soldering iron to replace my iPod nano battery .
Yes , I would prefer a removable battery , but more than that I prefer to have something that can be run over by a car twice [ arstechnica.com ] and still play music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had to use a soldering iron to replace my iPod nano battery.
Yes, I would prefer a removable battery, but more than that I prefer to have something that can be run over by a car twice [arstechnica.com] and still play music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975186</id>
	<title>Go where the tinkerers are - Don't use Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty clear to me then - if you want your kids to tinker, don't use Apple or other closed/proprietary systems.</p><p>Move to OSS solutions.</p><p>Transition paths are not horribly painful either.</p><p>Switch to OSS apps, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, F-Spot or GIMP, Audacity, etc. on your current OS (Mac or Windows).  Switch one app at a time, don't do anything drastic.  Even use non-OSS "pure" apps that are available on all platforms (I don't know the status of these, but they aren't native to Fedora, so they must have some licensing issues): Google's Chrome and Picasa.</p><p>Then switching your OS is much less of a learning curve.  They can cut their teeth on Ubuntu for the end-user changeover and move on the RedHat family of Fedora and/or CentOS.  VirtualBox can provide your link back to the proprietary Windows world (I'm not sure what Mac emulators are available for Linux, if any) in case there are some apps you just cannot get rid of.</p><p>There is so much to tinker on in the OSS world, and you have total and complete control to tinker to the deepest levels.  Best of all, you'll almost certainly find a community that is interested in what you are, or perhaps you'll start on and others will find you.</p><p>Make the switch, and let the tinkering begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty clear to me then - if you want your kids to tinker , do n't use Apple or other closed/proprietary systems.Move to OSS solutions.Transition paths are not horribly painful either.Switch to OSS apps , Firefox , Thunderbird , OpenOffice.org , F-Spot or GIMP , Audacity , etc .
on your current OS ( Mac or Windows ) .
Switch one app at a time , do n't do anything drastic .
Even use non-OSS " pure " apps that are available on all platforms ( I do n't know the status of these , but they are n't native to Fedora , so they must have some licensing issues ) : Google 's Chrome and Picasa.Then switching your OS is much less of a learning curve .
They can cut their teeth on Ubuntu for the end-user changeover and move on the RedHat family of Fedora and/or CentOS .
VirtualBox can provide your link back to the proprietary Windows world ( I 'm not sure what Mac emulators are available for Linux , if any ) in case there are some apps you just can not get rid of.There is so much to tinker on in the OSS world , and you have total and complete control to tinker to the deepest levels .
Best of all , you 'll almost certainly find a community that is interested in what you are , or perhaps you 'll start on and others will find you.Make the switch , and let the tinkering begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty clear to me then - if you want your kids to tinker, don't use Apple or other closed/proprietary systems.Move to OSS solutions.Transition paths are not horribly painful either.Switch to OSS apps, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, F-Spot or GIMP, Audacity, etc.
on your current OS (Mac or Windows).
Switch one app at a time, don't do anything drastic.
Even use non-OSS "pure" apps that are available on all platforms (I don't know the status of these, but they aren't native to Fedora, so they must have some licensing issues): Google's Chrome and Picasa.Then switching your OS is much less of a learning curve.
They can cut their teeth on Ubuntu for the end-user changeover and move on the RedHat family of Fedora and/or CentOS.
VirtualBox can provide your link back to the proprietary Windows world (I'm not sure what Mac emulators are available for Linux, if any) in case there are some apps you just cannot get rid of.There is so much to tinker on in the OSS world, and you have total and complete control to tinker to the deepest levels.
Best of all, you'll almost certainly find a community that is interested in what you are, or perhaps you'll start on and others will find you.Make the switch, and let the tinkering begin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972138</id>
	<title>Stupid argument</title>
	<author>duffbeer703</author>
	<datestamp>1264966980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets. They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.</p><p>Nowadays, the kiddies can't do anything with these newfangled OLED tv sets! How are you going to learn about repairing broken TVs if the TV never breaks???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets .
They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore , and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.Nowadays , the kiddies ca n't do anything with these newfangled OLED tv sets !
How are you going to learn about repairing broken TVs if the TV never breaks ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets.
They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.Nowadays, the kiddies can't do anything with these newfangled OLED tv sets!
How are you going to learn about repairing broken TVs if the TV never breaks??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975172</id>
	<title>apple &amp; tinkering - there is plenty of it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>although i'm not a fan of apple products, apple can't do anything to stop people tinkering with their products. i.e. linux has been ported to the iPhone, and i expect somebody will port it to run on the iPAD as well. People have figured out how to get MacOS running on non-Apple hardware. and people continue to tinker with the underlying iPhone OS as well.</p><p>what would be really great is somebody can get the apple "appstore" and applications working on linux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>although i 'm not a fan of apple products , apple ca n't do anything to stop people tinkering with their products .
i.e. linux has been ported to the iPhone , and i expect somebody will port it to run on the iPAD as well .
People have figured out how to get MacOS running on non-Apple hardware .
and people continue to tinker with the underlying iPhone OS as well.what would be really great is somebody can get the apple " appstore " and applications working on linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>although i'm not a fan of apple products, apple can't do anything to stop people tinkering with their products.
i.e. linux has been ported to the iPhone, and i expect somebody will port it to run on the iPAD as well.
People have figured out how to get MacOS running on non-Apple hardware.
and people continue to tinker with the underlying iPhone OS as well.what would be really great is somebody can get the apple "appstore" and applications working on linux</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975974</id>
	<title>Use the best tool for the job</title>
	<author>Cloud K</author>
	<datestamp>1264946340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to learn the ins and outs of an operating system, although it's *nix based, OS X probably isn't the best choice, at least until you start learning how best to hide all that stuff.</p><p>Surely you'd choose Linux, probably something like LFS if really committed, that's one of the things (many things, don't get me wrong) that it excels at.  I do like Apple's stuff, but I don't see the obsession with trying to make them what they're not.  Tinkerer's machines, is something that they're not.  At all.</p><p>I don't see how this is quite as evil of Apple as they're making it out to be.  If you want to learn the basics of cooking, you don't start by studying the microwave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to learn the ins and outs of an operating system , although it 's * nix based , OS X probably is n't the best choice , at least until you start learning how best to hide all that stuff.Surely you 'd choose Linux , probably something like LFS if really committed , that 's one of the things ( many things , do n't get me wrong ) that it excels at .
I do like Apple 's stuff , but I do n't see the obsession with trying to make them what they 're not .
Tinkerer 's machines , is something that they 're not .
At all.I do n't see how this is quite as evil of Apple as they 're making it out to be .
If you want to learn the basics of cooking , you do n't start by studying the microwave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to learn the ins and outs of an operating system, although it's *nix based, OS X probably isn't the best choice, at least until you start learning how best to hide all that stuff.Surely you'd choose Linux, probably something like LFS if really committed, that's one of the things (many things, don't get me wrong) that it excels at.
I do like Apple's stuff, but I don't see the obsession with trying to make them what they're not.
Tinkerer's machines, is something that they're not.
At all.I don't see how this is quite as evil of Apple as they're making it out to be.
If you want to learn the basics of cooking, you don't start by studying the microwave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.31023004</id>
	<title>Tinkering?</title>
	<author>Niubi</author>
	<datestamp>1265302440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strange way to define one of the most successful companies of the past decade! I fully predict that the 2010's will see DubLi achieving the same kind of success - you heard it here first!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange way to define one of the most successful companies of the past decade !
I fully predict that the 2010 's will see DubLi achieving the same kind of success - you heard it here first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange way to define one of the most successful companies of the past decade!
I fully predict that the 2010's will see DubLi achieving the same kind of success - you heard it here first!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972306</id>
	<title>Re:Another One</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire PC market could never have happened under the DMCA. Compaq never could have hacked the IBM PC's BIOS &amp; that would've been it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire PC market could never have happened under the DMCA .
Compaq never could have hacked the IBM PC 's BIOS &amp; that would 've been it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire PC market could never have happened under the DMCA.
Compaq never could have hacked the IBM PC's BIOS &amp; that would've been it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974928</id>
	<title>Ever Heard of DTrace?</title>
	<author>Udigs</author>
	<datestamp>1264939620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dtrace? Terminal? The reality is that you can do SO MUCH MORE tinkering in OSX than you ever could. Ever used OS9? Black box magic. OSX, by comparison, is like a playground....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dtrace ?
Terminal ? The reality is that you can do SO MUCH MORE tinkering in OSX than you ever could .
Ever used OS9 ?
Black box magic .
OSX , by comparison , is like a playground... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dtrace?
Terminal? The reality is that you can do SO MUCH MORE tinkering in OSX than you ever could.
Ever used OS9?
Black box magic.
OSX, by comparison, is like a playground....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30981102</id>
	<title>That's why iDontWantOne</title>
	<author>ElmoGonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1265039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whatever Apple is selling, they can keep it.  Started when I discovered I needed to use their software with their iPod devices compared to a competitor which looks like a standard USB drive whatever system I plug it in to.  Then they came up with the AppStore.  It's all downhill from there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever Apple is selling , they can keep it .
Started when I discovered I needed to use their software with their iPod devices compared to a competitor which looks like a standard USB drive whatever system I plug it in to .
Then they came up with the AppStore .
It 's all downhill from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever Apple is selling, they can keep it.
Started when I discovered I needed to use their software with their iPod devices compared to a competitor which looks like a standard USB drive whatever system I plug it in to.
Then they came up with the AppStore.
It's all downhill from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976424</id>
	<title>Tinkering is not what it's cracked up to be</title>
	<author>skingers6894</author>
	<datestamp>1264949460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Step Father spends 50\% of his time tinkering with his PC and then when I visit I spend 100\% of my time having to "untinker" it.</p><p>If you really want to tinker with an iPad get a Mac and the free SDK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Step Father spends 50 \ % of his time tinkering with his PC and then when I visit I spend 100 \ % of my time having to " untinker " it.If you really want to tinker with an iPad get a Mac and the free SDK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Step Father spends 50\% of his time tinkering with his PC and then when I visit I spend 100\% of my time having to "untinker" it.If you really want to tinker with an iPad get a Mac and the free SDK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974678</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1264937940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to talk about restrictions, most of the world can't watch Hulu. As for the rest of the video sites, they'll eventually start offering HTML 5 support if they want to stay relevant. YouTube has already started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to talk about restrictions , most of the world ca n't watch Hulu .
As for the rest of the video sites , they 'll eventually start offering HTML 5 support if they want to stay relevant .
YouTube has already started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to talk about restrictions, most of the world can't watch Hulu.
As for the rest of the video sites, they'll eventually start offering HTML 5 support if they want to stay relevant.
YouTube has already started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976834</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1264954080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tens of millions of people play farmville</p> </div><p>Yes, but always remember nearly 50\% of the population is of below average intelligence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tens of millions of people play farmville Yes , but always remember nearly 50 \ % of the population is of below average intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tens of millions of people play farmville Yes, but always remember nearly 50\% of the population is of below average intelligence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972860</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent us</title>
	<author>InterStellaArtois</author>
	<datestamp>1264970880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed on the OS X subject, but I'm not sure what is special about a 'consumer electronic device' that means it must be locked down.  Reliability and performance are surely important for a general purpose machine, so why aren't they locked down too?  Agreed on the Apple business model, but what about the Consumer usage model?
<br> <br>
If you read the sales copy for the iPhone, its billed as being able to do just about anything ("there's an app for that").  So it begins to look more like a general purpose machine anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed on the OS X subject , but I 'm not sure what is special about a 'consumer electronic device ' that means it must be locked down .
Reliability and performance are surely important for a general purpose machine , so why are n't they locked down too ?
Agreed on the Apple business model , but what about the Consumer usage model ?
If you read the sales copy for the iPhone , its billed as being able to do just about anything ( " there 's an app for that " ) .
So it begins to look more like a general purpose machine anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed on the OS X subject, but I'm not sure what is special about a 'consumer electronic device' that means it must be locked down.
Reliability and performance are surely important for a general purpose machine, so why aren't they locked down too?
Agreed on the Apple business model, but what about the Consumer usage model?
If you read the sales copy for the iPhone, its billed as being able to do just about anything ("there's an app for that").
So it begins to look more like a general purpose machine anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972228</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1264967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point about going the extra step and, beyond the tinkering, thinking of making it usable is interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point about going the extra step and , beyond the tinkering , thinking of making it usable is interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point about going the extra step and, beyond the tinkering, thinking of making it usable is interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978636</id>
	<title>Re:Why the free pass?</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1265018580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is making a fortune distributing free software through the app store, I see your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is making a fortune distributing free software through the app store , I see your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is making a fortune distributing free software through the app store, I see your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971966</id>
	<title>seems like a mistake</title>
	<author>ultramk</author>
	<datestamp>1264966200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this is certainly true for the iPad, iPhone etc, it's really not true at all for OSX. OSX comes with a bunch of dev tools on the install disk, in a way that was not true way back when. Those kinds of utilities existed, but getting ahold of them was non-trivial for someone out in the boonies.</p><p>The iPad isn't a general purpose computer, although it seems like it's blurring the line a bit. Certainly no reason for doom and gloom.</p><p>I always find it a little sad when I read something like this, though. Part of the joy of those days was exploring something new and interesting, finding terra incognita... the problem is that your kids probably won't get that joy in exactly the same way, and very well may not be interested in those things at all... they are actual individuals with individual tastes and interests, not a bunch of little clones running around. It seems like every time someone goes to great lengths to recreate his precise childhood for his kids, it's just doomed to failure, just because they're kids. Unpredictable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this is certainly true for the iPad , iPhone etc , it 's really not true at all for OSX .
OSX comes with a bunch of dev tools on the install disk , in a way that was not true way back when .
Those kinds of utilities existed , but getting ahold of them was non-trivial for someone out in the boonies.The iPad is n't a general purpose computer , although it seems like it 's blurring the line a bit .
Certainly no reason for doom and gloom.I always find it a little sad when I read something like this , though .
Part of the joy of those days was exploring something new and interesting , finding terra incognita... the problem is that your kids probably wo n't get that joy in exactly the same way , and very well may not be interested in those things at all... they are actual individuals with individual tastes and interests , not a bunch of little clones running around .
It seems like every time someone goes to great lengths to recreate his precise childhood for his kids , it 's just doomed to failure , just because they 're kids .
Unpredictable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this is certainly true for the iPad, iPhone etc, it's really not true at all for OSX.
OSX comes with a bunch of dev tools on the install disk, in a way that was not true way back when.
Those kinds of utilities existed, but getting ahold of them was non-trivial for someone out in the boonies.The iPad isn't a general purpose computer, although it seems like it's blurring the line a bit.
Certainly no reason for doom and gloom.I always find it a little sad when I read something like this, though.
Part of the joy of those days was exploring something new and interesting, finding terra incognita... the problem is that your kids probably won't get that joy in exactly the same way, and very well may not be interested in those things at all... they are actual individuals with individual tastes and interests, not a bunch of little clones running around.
It seems like every time someone goes to great lengths to recreate his precise childhood for his kids, it's just doomed to failure, just because they're kids.
Unpredictable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973368</id>
	<title>Bull fucking shit</title>
	<author>lullabud</author>
	<datestamp>1264930740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple shipped a full-fledged IDE with every OS in the last many years.  It includes example software projects to load up into the tools, and a full programming manual on how to program anything from command tools on up to 3D graphical interfaces with data fed from 3rd party open standard web protocols.</p><p>It costs 100 fucking dollars to become an iPod developer, which is less than the cost of the Visual Basic IDE.  With that you can load your own apps onto your phone and run them inside of an iPod emulator on your computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple shipped a full-fledged IDE with every OS in the last many years .
It includes example software projects to load up into the tools , and a full programming manual on how to program anything from command tools on up to 3D graphical interfaces with data fed from 3rd party open standard web protocols.It costs 100 fucking dollars to become an iPod developer , which is less than the cost of the Visual Basic IDE .
With that you can load your own apps onto your phone and run them inside of an iPod emulator on your computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple shipped a full-fledged IDE with every OS in the last many years.
It includes example software projects to load up into the tools, and a full programming manual on how to program anything from command tools on up to 3D graphical interfaces with data fed from 3rd party open standard web protocols.It costs 100 fucking dollars to become an iPod developer, which is less than the cost of the Visual Basic IDE.
With that you can load your own apps onto your phone and run them inside of an iPod emulator on your computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972040</id>
	<title>Whiney BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Apple II was a computer. You cans till tinker with Apple computer.</p><p>Apple also sells Appliances. More difficult to tinker with, just like your TV.</p><p>You want a computer for tinkers? the Macs work great. OSX on BSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apple II was a computer .
You cans till tinker with Apple computer.Apple also sells Appliances .
More difficult to tinker with , just like your TV.You want a computer for tinkers ?
the Macs work great .
OSX on BSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apple II was a computer.
You cans till tinker with Apple computer.Apple also sells Appliances.
More difficult to tinker with, just like your TV.You want a computer for tinkers?
the Macs work great.
OSX on BSD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972416</id>
	<title>Or buy your kid a $99 dev license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And help them install X code and the SDK. Then they can hack on their iPad all they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And help them install X code and the SDK .
Then they can hack on their iPad all they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And help them install X code and the SDK.
Then they can hack on their iPad all they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976188</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1264947780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>technology has never been more accessible before. you can still buy a minimalist car (Ariel Atom, Lotus 2-11) and you can still build your own PC or embedded system. apple is just one company that wants to control what people do with their products after they have bought them</htmltext>
<tokenext>technology has never been more accessible before .
you can still buy a minimalist car ( Ariel Atom , Lotus 2-11 ) and you can still build your own PC or embedded system .
apple is just one company that wants to control what people do with their products after they have bought them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>technology has never been more accessible before.
you can still buy a minimalist car (Ariel Atom, Lotus 2-11) and you can still build your own PC or embedded system.
apple is just one company that wants to control what people do with their products after they have bought them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real concern, broadly speaking, is what happens to the kids whose parents don't know/care.<br> <br>

Empirically, a fair percentage of engineer/comp sci./science types owe their trajectory(or at least believe they do) to childhood tinkering options. Some sanctioned by their parents, some a tolerated but wholly accidental side effect of parental decisions, and some outright clandestine.<br> <br>

If tinkerability is default in all computers, all children in computer owning households, whatever their parents motives/level of interest/level of information get access to it. If tinkerability is a special feature, one that you have to trade off against shiny for, a much smaller percentage of children will  have access to it.<br> <br>

This isn't a "OMG, the iCops are violating your rights" thing; but it could easily be the case that the rise of appliances results in a reduction of children's access to tinkering and future motivation in certain directions.<br> <br>

It's like chemistry sets: If you are really motivated, you can get your hands on home chemistry stuff, no real problem. The death of the (useful) home chemistry set as a normative childhood expectation, though, has vastly reduced the number of kids who get to play with one, and quite possibly the number of kids who end up going in a scientific direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real concern , broadly speaking , is what happens to the kids whose parents do n't know/care .
Empirically , a fair percentage of engineer/comp sci./science types owe their trajectory ( or at least believe they do ) to childhood tinkering options .
Some sanctioned by their parents , some a tolerated but wholly accidental side effect of parental decisions , and some outright clandestine .
If tinkerability is default in all computers , all children in computer owning households , whatever their parents motives/level of interest/level of information get access to it .
If tinkerability is a special feature , one that you have to trade off against shiny for , a much smaller percentage of children will have access to it .
This is n't a " OMG , the iCops are violating your rights " thing ; but it could easily be the case that the rise of appliances results in a reduction of children 's access to tinkering and future motivation in certain directions .
It 's like chemistry sets : If you are really motivated , you can get your hands on home chemistry stuff , no real problem .
The death of the ( useful ) home chemistry set as a normative childhood expectation , though , has vastly reduced the number of kids who get to play with one , and quite possibly the number of kids who end up going in a scientific direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real concern, broadly speaking, is what happens to the kids whose parents don't know/care.
Empirically, a fair percentage of engineer/comp sci./science types owe their trajectory(or at least believe they do) to childhood tinkering options.
Some sanctioned by their parents, some a tolerated but wholly accidental side effect of parental decisions, and some outright clandestine.
If tinkerability is default in all computers, all children in computer owning households, whatever their parents motives/level of interest/level of information get access to it.
If tinkerability is a special feature, one that you have to trade off against shiny for, a much smaller percentage of children will  have access to it.
This isn't a "OMG, the iCops are violating your rights" thing; but it could easily be the case that the rise of appliances results in a reduction of children's access to tinkering and future motivation in certain directions.
It's like chemistry sets: If you are really motivated, you can get your hands on home chemistry stuff, no real problem.
The death of the (useful) home chemistry set as a normative childhood expectation, though, has vastly reduced the number of kids who get to play with one, and quite possibly the number of kids who end up going in a scientific direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</id>
	<title>Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just separate that audience and give them OS X.  Let them play with the iPad through the SDK on it, instead of on the iPad itself.</p><p>iPads are meant for people that DON'T care about computers, but about real world activity.</p><p>It's something hackers could learn from Apple: how to make a massively technical device usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just separate that audience and give them OS X. Let them play with the iPad through the SDK on it , instead of on the iPad itself.iPads are meant for people that DO N'T care about computers , but about real world activity.It 's something hackers could learn from Apple : how to make a massively technical device usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just separate that audience and give them OS X.  Let them play with the iPad through the SDK on it, instead of on the iPad itself.iPads are meant for people that DON'T care about computers, but about real world activity.It's something hackers could learn from Apple: how to make a massively technical device usable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974580</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent us</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1264937340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The iP* products are consumer electronic devices, not general purpose machines</p><p>That's not how they are being sold.  They are being marketed specifically as general purpose computers.  How else would you justify the whole "There's an app for that" marketing campaign from Apple? They are saying "this is a general purpose computing device".  If they are marketing the iPhone that way I can hardly think they will market the iPad as *less* general.  And in doing this they are trying to redefine in the public mind and in the software industry what that is.   The old definition was a device that lets you run an infinite universe of applications including whatever you might want to make yourself.   The new definition is "you consume whatever the maker of the device deigns acceptable for you and in their business interests and you like it".</p><p>I want the *old* definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The iP * products are consumer electronic devices , not general purpose machinesThat 's not how they are being sold .
They are being marketed specifically as general purpose computers .
How else would you justify the whole " There 's an app for that " marketing campaign from Apple ?
They are saying " this is a general purpose computing device " .
If they are marketing the iPhone that way I can hardly think they will market the iPad as * less * general .
And in doing this they are trying to redefine in the public mind and in the software industry what that is .
The old definition was a device that lets you run an infinite universe of applications including whatever you might want to make yourself .
The new definition is " you consume whatever the maker of the device deigns acceptable for you and in their business interests and you like it " .I want the * old * definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The iP* products are consumer electronic devices, not general purpose machinesThat's not how they are being sold.
They are being marketed specifically as general purpose computers.
How else would you justify the whole "There's an app for that" marketing campaign from Apple?
They are saying "this is a general purpose computing device".
If they are marketing the iPhone that way I can hardly think they will market the iPad as *less* general.
And in doing this they are trying to redefine in the public mind and in the software industry what that is.
The old definition was a device that lets you run an infinite universe of applications including whatever you might want to make yourself.
The new definition is "you consume whatever the maker of the device deigns acceptable for you and in their business interests and you like it".I want the *old* definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972586</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>That's Unpossible!</author>
	<datestamp>1264969500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it. </i></p><p>Have you considered that people that like something tend not to storm the web and write about it? Of course everyone bitching on the forums hates it... Does that mean it won't sell really well?</p><p>I personally love it. I'm a programmer, I work on Windows mostly, but Macs more and more. All I've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web, reading books, and things like that. I'm not trying to do EVERYTHING on this device. I think Apple has reached a very good balance. (I would have liked a front-facing camera for video chat, but other than that I like it.)</p><p><i>Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad.</i></p><p>Uh huh. Until Hulu switches to HTML5 video embeds and Farmville writes their app in a standard format, like JavaScript + HTML5 canvas.</p><p>Fuck Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans do n't seem to like it .
Have you considered that people that like something tend not to storm the web and write about it ?
Of course everyone bitching on the forums hates it... Does that mean it wo n't sell really well ? I personally love it .
I 'm a programmer , I work on Windows mostly , but Macs more and more .
All I 've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web , reading books , and things like that .
I 'm not trying to do EVERYTHING on this device .
I think Apple has reached a very good balance .
( I would have liked a front-facing camera for video chat , but other than that I like it .
) Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you ca n't do any of that on the ipad.Uh huh .
Until Hulu switches to HTML5 video embeds and Farmville writes their app in a standard format , like JavaScript + HTML5 canvas.Fuck Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it.
Have you considered that people that like something tend not to storm the web and write about it?
Of course everyone bitching on the forums hates it... Does that mean it won't sell really well?I personally love it.
I'm a programmer, I work on Windows mostly, but Macs more and more.
All I've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web, reading books, and things like that.
I'm not trying to do EVERYTHING on this device.
I think Apple has reached a very good balance.
(I would have liked a front-facing camera for video chat, but other than that I like it.
)Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad.Uh huh.
Until Hulu switches to HTML5 video embeds and Farmville writes their app in a standard format, like JavaScript + HTML5 canvas.Fuck Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972516</id>
	<title>Should take another look</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1264969080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every Mac ships with a full development environment (X Code), and the SDKs for the iPhone and iPad are free to download. You can write and install whatever you want on your own machines...it's pretty tinkering friendly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every Mac ships with a full development environment ( X Code ) , and the SDKs for the iPhone and iPad are free to download .
You can write and install whatever you want on your own machines...it 's pretty tinkering friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every Mac ships with a full development environment (X Code), and the SDKs for the iPhone and iPad are free to download.
You can write and install whatever you want on your own machines...it's pretty tinkering friendly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972688</id>
	<title>Mmmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes....ResEdit and FeDit. I remember those. Heh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes....ResEdit and FeDit .
I remember those .
Heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes....ResEdit and FeDit.
I remember those.
Heh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978100</id>
	<title>Re:Article is incorrect</title>
	<author>grouchomarxist</author>
	<datestamp>1265054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say I wrote an awesome iPad game and distributed the source code over the net for anyone with the SDK (a free download). Well, Apple would not exactly approve but they wouldn't stop me.</p></div><p>Apple really hasn't expressed anything about this. Various people have open source iPhone projects available on the net. I don't think it is an issue.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, say I distributed the same game in binary form, telling anybody interested to email me their IEMI number... well, I suspect Apple would take action at that point.</p></div><p>IEMI? Perhaps you mean UUID? They wouldn't take action, but the certificate generator limits you to 100 people. I suppose you can delete those people from the DB and add new people, but I'd be a pain in the ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say I wrote an awesome iPad game and distributed the source code over the net for anyone with the SDK ( a free download ) .
Well , Apple would not exactly approve but they would n't stop me.Apple really has n't expressed anything about this .
Various people have open source iPhone projects available on the net .
I do n't think it is an issue.However , say I distributed the same game in binary form , telling anybody interested to email me their IEMI number... well , I suspect Apple would take action at that point.IEMI ?
Perhaps you mean UUID ?
They would n't take action , but the certificate generator limits you to 100 people .
I suppose you can delete those people from the DB and add new people , but I 'd be a pain in the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say I wrote an awesome iPad game and distributed the source code over the net for anyone with the SDK (a free download).
Well, Apple would not exactly approve but they wouldn't stop me.Apple really hasn't expressed anything about this.
Various people have open source iPhone projects available on the net.
I don't think it is an issue.However, say I distributed the same game in binary form, telling anybody interested to email me their IEMI number... well, I suspect Apple would take action at that point.IEMI?
Perhaps you mean UUID?
They wouldn't take action, but the certificate generator limits you to 100 people.
I suppose you can delete those people from the DB and add new people, but I'd be a pain in the ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978678</id>
	<title>hobby-less</title>
	<author>pbjones</author>
	<datestamp>1265019060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yep, it's the way of things, not just Apple, but all Computers (almost) there are some open source Game Pads and Linux-on-a-stick, but not the same as hacking Photoshop 2 with ReEdit, or building the little mods that did simple things like flashed an LED so that you know that the computer isn't stuck in loop, sigh. I blame large scale integration more than locked software, but that's what stopped me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yep , it 's the way of things , not just Apple , but all Computers ( almost ) there are some open source Game Pads and Linux-on-a-stick , but not the same as hacking Photoshop 2 with ReEdit , or building the little mods that did simple things like flashed an LED so that you know that the computer is n't stuck in loop , sigh .
I blame large scale integration more than locked software , but that 's what stopped me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yep, it's the way of things, not just Apple, but all Computers (almost) there are some open source Game Pads and Linux-on-a-stick, but not the same as hacking Photoshop 2 with ReEdit, or building the little mods that did simple things like flashed an LED so that you know that the computer isn't stuck in loop, sigh.
I blame large scale integration more than locked software, but that's what stopped me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978124</id>
	<title>Appliances vs. OS</title>
	<author>bryan1945</author>
	<datestamp>1265055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What company does not try and lock down their appliances?  Yes, there is Android.  A/V enthusiasts complain about their DVD/Blu-ray players being locked down and hard to hack.  Gamers complain about their consoles being hard to hack.</p><p>If you want to do stuff in OS X, you know "the wonder of tinkering with an Apple ][", just give yourself root access.  Play all you want.</p><p>Everyone wants to do what they want to do, and they always have some reason for it.  Not saying they are right or wrong, I like to play around with stuff, too.  I guess you can hack a Zune since no one complains about that.</p><p>Think about this seriously.  If you invented some device that made you millions/billions of $s, and was largely based on the software it could run, would you just let anyone do whatever they wanted to it?  After the 1st unchecked app downloaded all of the users info to my computer and I start abusing that info, how happy are your customers going to be with you.  And how many more sales are you going to get.  There goes your revenue.  If the answer is "I just want to play around", well, so do hackers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What company does not try and lock down their appliances ?
Yes , there is Android .
A/V enthusiasts complain about their DVD/Blu-ray players being locked down and hard to hack .
Gamers complain about their consoles being hard to hack.If you want to do stuff in OS X , you know " the wonder of tinkering with an Apple ] [ " , just give yourself root access .
Play all you want.Everyone wants to do what they want to do , and they always have some reason for it .
Not saying they are right or wrong , I like to play around with stuff , too .
I guess you can hack a Zune since no one complains about that.Think about this seriously .
If you invented some device that made you millions/billions of $ s , and was largely based on the software it could run , would you just let anyone do whatever they wanted to it ?
After the 1st unchecked app downloaded all of the users info to my computer and I start abusing that info , how happy are your customers going to be with you .
And how many more sales are you going to get .
There goes your revenue .
If the answer is " I just want to play around " , well , so do hackers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What company does not try and lock down their appliances?
Yes, there is Android.
A/V enthusiasts complain about their DVD/Blu-ray players being locked down and hard to hack.
Gamers complain about their consoles being hard to hack.If you want to do stuff in OS X, you know "the wonder of tinkering with an Apple ][", just give yourself root access.
Play all you want.Everyone wants to do what they want to do, and they always have some reason for it.
Not saying they are right or wrong, I like to play around with stuff, too.
I guess you can hack a Zune since no one complains about that.Think about this seriously.
If you invented some device that made you millions/billions of $s, and was largely based on the software it could run, would you just let anyone do whatever they wanted to it?
After the 1st unchecked app downloaded all of the users info to my computer and I start abusing that info, how happy are your customers going to be with you.
And how many more sales are you going to get.
There goes your revenue.
If the answer is "I just want to play around", well, so do hackers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973894</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1264933500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it. They can't figure out what to use it for or they don't like the restrictions. A lot of tablets are coming out this year that are more open.</p></div></blockquote><p>That Wednesday, someone set up an #ipad channel on IRC. It was almost entirely filled by negative comments. People who like something don't really feel a need to praise or defend it, not nearly as much as people who dislike something feel a need to rag on it.</p><p>Haters hate. And there's no such thing as "likers."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans do n't seem to like it .
They ca n't figure out what to use it for or they do n't like the restrictions .
A lot of tablets are coming out this year that are more open.That Wednesday , someone set up an # ipad channel on IRC .
It was almost entirely filled by negative comments .
People who like something do n't really feel a need to praise or defend it , not nearly as much as people who dislike something feel a need to rag on it.Haters hate .
And there 's no such thing as " likers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it.
They can't figure out what to use it for or they don't like the restrictions.
A lot of tablets are coming out this year that are more open.That Wednesday, someone set up an #ipad channel on IRC.
It was almost entirely filled by negative comments.
People who like something don't really feel a need to praise or defend it, not nearly as much as people who dislike something feel a need to rag on it.Haters hate.
And there's no such thing as "likers.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972268</id>
	<title>ResEdit was what I first loved about Macs!</title>
	<author>BanachSpaceCadet</author>
	<datestamp>1264967520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>ResEdit was always my argument in Mac vs. PC arguments!  (This was back in the good old System 7 days.)  My PC friends could bring up right-clicking, software availability, etc., etc. all day.  Then I would show them some of the stuff I'd done with ResEdit (e.g., remake Oregon Trail into a parody version of itself), and I would win the argument hands down.  (OK, maybe you could do the same stuff on a PC, but none of us knew how.)

These days, I'm a Linux guy, but it's sad to me that Macs are getting more locked up all the time.  I guess someone has to satisfy the demands of the just-do-it-for-me consumers, but I'm sad that it turned out to be Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ResEdit was always my argument in Mac vs. PC arguments !
( This was back in the good old System 7 days .
) My PC friends could bring up right-clicking , software availability , etc. , etc .
all day .
Then I would show them some of the stuff I 'd done with ResEdit ( e.g. , remake Oregon Trail into a parody version of itself ) , and I would win the argument hands down .
( OK , maybe you could do the same stuff on a PC , but none of us knew how .
) These days , I 'm a Linux guy , but it 's sad to me that Macs are getting more locked up all the time .
I guess someone has to satisfy the demands of the just-do-it-for-me consumers , but I 'm sad that it turned out to be Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ResEdit was always my argument in Mac vs. PC arguments!
(This was back in the good old System 7 days.
)  My PC friends could bring up right-clicking, software availability, etc., etc.
all day.
Then I would show them some of the stuff I'd done with ResEdit (e.g., remake Oregon Trail into a parody version of itself), and I would win the argument hands down.
(OK, maybe you could do the same stuff on a PC, but none of us knew how.
)

These days, I'm a Linux guy, but it's sad to me that Macs are getting more locked up all the time.
I guess someone has to satisfy the demands of the just-do-it-for-me consumers, but I'm sad that it turned out to be Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974798</id>
	<title>Respectfully disagree</title>
	<author>ALeader71</author>
	<datestamp>1264938840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple provides free toolsets to developers.  Yes they lock out some features.  Features that if opened would prevent cell carriers, content providers, etc from supporting the device.  These feature lockouts allow this conversation to occur in the first place.</p><p>For those who want to directly access the hardware, we have the *nix distros, jailbreaking, and magazines like Make.  Kids will find plenty of wonder, just in different ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple provides free toolsets to developers .
Yes they lock out some features .
Features that if opened would prevent cell carriers , content providers , etc from supporting the device .
These feature lockouts allow this conversation to occur in the first place.For those who want to directly access the hardware , we have the * nix distros , jailbreaking , and magazines like Make .
Kids will find plenty of wonder , just in different ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple provides free toolsets to developers.
Yes they lock out some features.
Features that if opened would prevent cell carriers, content providers, etc from supporting the device.
These feature lockouts allow this conversation to occur in the first place.For those who want to directly access the hardware, we have the *nix distros, jailbreaking, and magazines like Make.
Kids will find plenty of wonder, just in different ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972104</id>
	<title>Don't even have to leave the house.</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264966740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are also emulators for such systems.  Google brought this site up for Apple ][ stuff: <a href="http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/apple-2.shtml" title="thefreecountry.com">http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/apple-2.shtml</a> [thefreecountry.com]</p><p>You have to find a ROM, but that's not a big hurdle.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also emulators for such systems .
Google brought this site up for Apple ] [ stuff : http : //www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/apple-2.shtml [ thefreecountry.com ] You have to find a ROM , but that 's not a big hurdle .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also emulators for such systems.
Google brought this site up for Apple ][ stuff: http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/apple-2.shtml [thefreecountry.com]You have to find a ROM, but that's not a big hurdle.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092</id>
	<title>Mod parent us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iP* products are consumer electronic devices, not general purpose machines.  It makes perfect sense that these are locked down for the sake of reliability and performance.  Not to mention the Apple business model is based on the closed nature of these products.</p><p>The desktop versions of OS X are incredibly flexible and powerful tools, with the usability bonus of a well thought out graphical shell.  There is a reason programmers and IT people are migrating en mass to Mac--they are way ahead of the competition when it comes to power and flexibility compared to Windows, and reliability and usability for an end user compared to Linux.</p><p>
When you purchase a Mac, you are getting a full featured development environment and sys admin toolkit out of the box.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iP * products are consumer electronic devices , not general purpose machines .
It makes perfect sense that these are locked down for the sake of reliability and performance .
Not to mention the Apple business model is based on the closed nature of these products.The desktop versions of OS X are incredibly flexible and powerful tools , with the usability bonus of a well thought out graphical shell .
There is a reason programmers and IT people are migrating en mass to Mac--they are way ahead of the competition when it comes to power and flexibility compared to Windows , and reliability and usability for an end user compared to Linux .
When you purchase a Mac , you are getting a full featured development environment and sys admin toolkit out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iP* products are consumer electronic devices, not general purpose machines.
It makes perfect sense that these are locked down for the sake of reliability and performance.
Not to mention the Apple business model is based on the closed nature of these products.The desktop versions of OS X are incredibly flexible and powerful tools, with the usability bonus of a well thought out graphical shell.
There is a reason programmers and IT people are migrating en mass to Mac--they are way ahead of the competition when it comes to power and flexibility compared to Windows, and reliability and usability for an end user compared to Linux.
When you purchase a Mac, you are getting a full featured development environment and sys admin toolkit out of the box.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972440</id>
	<title>From The Beginning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's trend away from tinkering predates the company. During the design and building phase of the ][, Woz was building in things which Jobs didn't want. Three specifically that they argued over were color (vs. black and white output), the lid (and by extension, poking around inside) and memory expansion past the max installed 16 K (this is the actual source of the often repeated and rarely correct "Who would ever need more than X-kb of memory?" -- It was Jobs and it was 16K). The second and third are both in the 'tinkering' group of features. In all cases Woz won, and we got a machine that ultimately was pushed to do things which by design it supposedly 'couldn't'.</p><p>When Jobs decided to make his own machine, all three of the above limitations were built in. The first Mac was B&amp;W, had no lid, and came with the only memory configuration that it could run. At the time I was senior/technical editor of The Road Apple, a 'zine for Apple ][,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// and ]|[ users, created with the specific intention of trying to prevent Apple from dropping the ][ line. (As far as I have ever been able to determine, it was the first computer publication produced simultaneously in the US (Portland OR; Al Martin, Publisher)<br>and USSR (Moscow, Russia); my co-editor was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Academician Vladimir Fedorov). When Woz left, Jobs prevailed and we lost. Jobs' design choices for the first Mac and his acquiring complete control when Woz left, were the second and third major changes away from tinkering. Both were a direct result of Job's taking back those things he wanted done on the ][ that allowed tinkering (or were just plain neat hacks) but which Woz chose to do his own way. Simply put, this direction was based on the fact that Jobs lost those arguments. resented it, and when he got the chance, he finally got his own way.</p><p>References for the historical stuff can all be located if one digs. Support for Jobs' tendency towards management techniques such as tantrums and verbiage bordering on abuse has also been documented up through the point where John Scully took over for 10 years so Jobs could grow up and gain some people skills. Collections of The Road Apple were available on some of the Apple ][ ftp sites. One that has been converted to webby stuff is at <a href="http://apple2.org.za/gswv/a2zine/GS.WorldView/Resources/ROAD.APPLE/" title="apple2.org.za">http://apple2.org.za/gswv/a2zine/GS.WorldView/Resources/ROAD.APPLE/</a> [apple2.org.za]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's trend away from tinkering predates the company .
During the design and building phase of the ] [ , Woz was building in things which Jobs did n't want .
Three specifically that they argued over were color ( vs. black and white output ) , the lid ( and by extension , poking around inside ) and memory expansion past the max installed 16 K ( this is the actual source of the often repeated and rarely correct " Who would ever need more than X-kb of memory ?
" -- It was Jobs and it was 16K ) .
The second and third are both in the 'tinkering ' group of features .
In all cases Woz won , and we got a machine that ultimately was pushed to do things which by design it supposedly 'could n't'.When Jobs decided to make his own machine , all three of the above limitations were built in .
The first Mac was B&amp;W , had no lid , and came with the only memory configuration that it could run .
At the time I was senior/technical editor of The Road Apple , a 'zine for Apple ] [ , // and ] | [ users , created with the specific intention of trying to prevent Apple from dropping the ] [ line .
( As far as I have ever been able to determine , it was the first computer publication produced simultaneously in the US ( Portland OR ; Al Martin , Publisher ) and USSR ( Moscow , Russia ) ; my co-editor was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences ; Academician Vladimir Fedorov ) .
When Woz left , Jobs prevailed and we lost .
Jobs ' design choices for the first Mac and his acquiring complete control when Woz left , were the second and third major changes away from tinkering .
Both were a direct result of Job 's taking back those things he wanted done on the ] [ that allowed tinkering ( or were just plain neat hacks ) but which Woz chose to do his own way .
Simply put , this direction was based on the fact that Jobs lost those arguments .
resented it , and when he got the chance , he finally got his own way.References for the historical stuff can all be located if one digs .
Support for Jobs ' tendency towards management techniques such as tantrums and verbiage bordering on abuse has also been documented up through the point where John Scully took over for 10 years so Jobs could grow up and gain some people skills .
Collections of The Road Apple were available on some of the Apple ] [ ftp sites .
One that has been converted to webby stuff is at http : //apple2.org.za/gswv/a2zine/GS.WorldView/Resources/ROAD.APPLE/ [ apple2.org.za ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's trend away from tinkering predates the company.
During the design and building phase of the ][, Woz was building in things which Jobs didn't want.
Three specifically that they argued over were color (vs. black and white output), the lid (and by extension, poking around inside) and memory expansion past the max installed 16 K (this is the actual source of the often repeated and rarely correct "Who would ever need more than X-kb of memory?
" -- It was Jobs and it was 16K).
The second and third are both in the 'tinkering' group of features.
In all cases Woz won, and we got a machine that ultimately was pushed to do things which by design it supposedly 'couldn't'.When Jobs decided to make his own machine, all three of the above limitations were built in.
The first Mac was B&amp;W, had no lid, and came with the only memory configuration that it could run.
At the time I was senior/technical editor of The Road Apple, a 'zine for Apple ][, // and ]|[ users, created with the specific intention of trying to prevent Apple from dropping the ][ line.
(As far as I have ever been able to determine, it was the first computer publication produced simultaneously in the US (Portland OR; Al Martin, Publisher)and USSR (Moscow, Russia); my co-editor was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Academician Vladimir Fedorov).
When Woz left, Jobs prevailed and we lost.
Jobs' design choices for the first Mac and his acquiring complete control when Woz left, were the second and third major changes away from tinkering.
Both were a direct result of Job's taking back those things he wanted done on the ][ that allowed tinkering (or were just plain neat hacks) but which Woz chose to do his own way.
Simply put, this direction was based on the fact that Jobs lost those arguments.
resented it, and when he got the chance, he finally got his own way.References for the historical stuff can all be located if one digs.
Support for Jobs' tendency towards management techniques such as tantrums and verbiage bordering on abuse has also been documented up through the point where John Scully took over for 10 years so Jobs could grow up and gain some people skills.
Collections of The Road Apple were available on some of the Apple ][ ftp sites.
One that has been converted to webby stuff is at http://apple2.org.za/gswv/a2zine/GS.WorldView/Resources/ROAD.APPLE/ [apple2.org.za]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972530</id>
	<title>Car analogy</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1264969140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Back in the day" tinkerers used to hot-rod Model A's and Model T's; now cars are too reliant on electronics (ironically) for much "real" tuning or hot-rodding (it's mostly buying engine cpu interfaces, and after-market, bolt-on accessories).</p><p>I too miss ResEdit (as in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Resource-Editing-Resedit/dp/1568302444" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">"Zen and the Art of"</a> [amazon.com], my copy cost a lot more than US<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.48, btw), but this seems to be pretty much the way things go.</p><p>With any luck your kid will find something even more interesting to tinker with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Back in the day " tinkerers used to hot-rod Model A 's and Model T 's ; now cars are too reliant on electronics ( ironically ) for much " real " tuning or hot-rodding ( it 's mostly buying engine cpu interfaces , and after-market , bolt-on accessories ) .I too miss ResEdit ( as in " Zen and the Art of " [ amazon.com ] , my copy cost a lot more than US .48 , btw ) , but this seems to be pretty much the way things go.With any luck your kid will find something even more interesting to tinker with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Back in the day" tinkerers used to hot-rod Model A's and Model T's; now cars are too reliant on electronics (ironically) for much "real" tuning or hot-rodding (it's mostly buying engine cpu interfaces, and after-market, bolt-on accessories).I too miss ResEdit (as in "Zen and the Art of" [amazon.com], my copy cost a lot more than US .48, btw), but this seems to be pretty much the way things go.With any luck your kid will find something even more interesting to tinker with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972024</id>
	<title>boo hoo</title>
	<author>feldsteins</author>
	<datestamp>1264966440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh dear!  Nerds have a device or two that isn't for them!  That IS a shame.</p><p>Perhaps we could aim a few products at the non-technical people out there for once?  Computers haven't gotten any easier to use in the last two frickin' decades.  Maybe, just maybe, we could allow a few products for them without declaring that the goddamn sky is falling?  Hmm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear !
Nerds have a device or two that is n't for them !
That IS a shame.Perhaps we could aim a few products at the non-technical people out there for once ?
Computers have n't gotten any easier to use in the last two frickin ' decades .
Maybe , just maybe , we could allow a few products for them without declaring that the goddamn sky is falling ?
Hmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear!
Nerds have a device or two that isn't for them!
That IS a shame.Perhaps we could aim a few products at the non-technical people out there for once?
Computers haven't gotten any easier to use in the last two frickin' decades.
Maybe, just maybe, we could allow a few products for them without declaring that the goddamn sky is falling?
Hmm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973958</id>
	<title>Re:Another One</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1264933740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I look at it this way: an iPhone or iPad isn't a computer, in the sense that the Apple][ or Commodore 64 was a computer. It's an appliance, and should not be thought of as other than a black box. There still is, and I think always will be a market for a generic programmable computer such as the Mac, PC, etc. so there isn't really a fundamental problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I look at it this way : an iPhone or iPad is n't a computer , in the sense that the Apple ] [ or Commodore 64 was a computer .
It 's an appliance , and should not be thought of as other than a black box .
There still is , and I think always will be a market for a generic programmable computer such as the Mac , PC , etc .
so there is n't really a fundamental problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look at it this way: an iPhone or iPad isn't a computer, in the sense that the Apple][ or Commodore 64 was a computer.
It's an appliance, and should not be thought of as other than a black box.
There still is, and I think always will be a market for a generic programmable computer such as the Mac, PC, etc.
so there isn't really a fundamental problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972194</id>
	<title>Mod parent up. Mod me down.</title>
	<author>Kludge</author>
	<datestamp>1264967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reality is that life is much better than when I was a kid hacking on TSRs, Commodores, and Apple ][s, because we have internet and open source. We have all the source code and device drivers for Linux, the world's best operating system that runs on virtually any platform. We have the source code for many great programming languages, python, java, etc, etc.</p><p>Screw Apple. They're a shiny gewgaw company and have been for years. You couldn't pay me to buy something from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that life is much better than when I was a kid hacking on TSRs , Commodores , and Apple ] [ s , because we have internet and open source .
We have all the source code and device drivers for Linux , the world 's best operating system that runs on virtually any platform .
We have the source code for many great programming languages , python , java , etc , etc.Screw Apple .
They 're a shiny gewgaw company and have been for years .
You could n't pay me to buy something from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that life is much better than when I was a kid hacking on TSRs, Commodores, and Apple ][s, because we have internet and open source.
We have all the source code and device drivers for Linux, the world's best operating system that runs on virtually any platform.
We have the source code for many great programming languages, python, java, etc, etc.Screw Apple.
They're a shiny gewgaw company and have been for years.
You couldn't pay me to buy something from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978088</id>
	<title>Re:True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bloodshed c++? eclipse? Microsoft's own visual studio express? plain jane gcc and notepad?<br>that argument was dated and pointless in 1990.<br>hell the teach yourself to program books included full IDEs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bloodshed c + + ?
eclipse ? Microsoft 's own visual studio express ?
plain jane gcc and notepad ? that argument was dated and pointless in 1990.hell the teach yourself to program books included full IDEs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bloodshed c++?
eclipse? Microsoft's own visual studio express?
plain jane gcc and notepad?that argument was dated and pointless in 1990.hell the teach yourself to program books included full IDEs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972034</id>
	<title>Don't moan - just hit the silk.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smash Linux onto a slapper or tablet and tinker away.</p><p>Windows and Apple are all about control - just think what the world would be like id the big studios *did* get their way...</p><p>Even if you're not a Linux fan you better be glad it's there - it keeps the rest honest(ish)</p><p>Dual boot, virtualise run Synergy - whatever it takes.</p><p>Keep your data on your server in your database then Google have to stay honest.</p><p>fin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smash Linux onto a slapper or tablet and tinker away.Windows and Apple are all about control - just think what the world would be like id the big studios * did * get their way...Even if you 're not a Linux fan you better be glad it 's there - it keeps the rest honest ( ish ) Dual boot , virtualise run Synergy - whatever it takes.Keep your data on your server in your database then Google have to stay honest.fin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smash Linux onto a slapper or tablet and tinker away.Windows and Apple are all about control - just think what the world would be like id the big studios *did* get their way...Even if you're not a Linux fan you better be glad it's there - it keeps the rest honest(ish)Dual boot, virtualise run Synergy - whatever it takes.Keep your data on your server in your database then Google have to stay honest.fin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972048</id>
	<title>Yes, times change, but remain exactly the same ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264966560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and your childhood will always be something remembered as a time that was 'just better' CAUSE YOU WERE A FREAKING KID WITH NO WORRIES OR RESPONSIBILITIES.</p><p>You can still hack away on your Apple II, if you have one.  You can also use any number of other computing products that are more closely matched to the Apple II than the iPad.</p><p>Not every product is well suited to what you want to do with it.  How much tinkering do you do with your TV?  Changed the firmware in it lately?  Mine has a SD card slot for upgrades, but I have absolutely no inclination what so ever to screw with it.  I have other devices for that.</p><p>Go buy a cheap netbook or a regular Mac if you want to hack.  Stop this bullshit of complaining about how the product isn't what you want, go use a product that IS what you want.</p><p>There are alternatives to the iPad already on the market that are far more 'hacker' friendly.  There are also regular desktop machines (Apple or otherwise), Laptops, the Apple TV, and all sorts of other crap you can tinker with.</p><p>Heres what you need to understand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the world doesn't revolve around you or what you want.  You are part of a bigger picture, and as such, not everything is going to bend to your whim.</p><p>There are plenty of other products to tinker with, Apple even has some, there are also products that are DESIGNED for tinkerers, why are you ignore them?</p><p>This is just another whiner remembering yesteryear, unfortunately tunnel vision and childhood memories are blocking out the fact that there were plenty of hacker-unfriendly devices back then too.  You just didn't use those, you used the one that was hacker friendly.  It may have just been by chance that you got the hacker friendly device rather than one that wasn't, or maybe it was by choice.</p><p>Either way, there are FAR more options for tinkering today than there were then.  Times change, people change and so do product lines.  The funny part about this post is that if you paid attention over the last week, you'd have already seen a device thats kind of like the iPad that is open to all sorts of hax0ring, but instead, you've  decided to be a lazy bastard and not look, just whine, moan and bitch.</p><p>Finally<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... someone will manage to turn the iPad into something hax0rable for hard hacks eventually, and for those who just want to do software hacking, if you can spend the money for an iPad, you can spend the money for a developers license and hax0rs to your hearts content without even messing with hacks for the OS.  Hell, I'm tinkering and hax0ring with the iPad and its not even available yet thanks to the simulator.</p><p>In short, nothing has changed, except now you're old and bitchy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and your childhood will always be something remembered as a time that was 'just better ' CAUSE YOU WERE A FREAKING KID WITH NO WORRIES OR RESPONSIBILITIES.You can still hack away on your Apple II , if you have one .
You can also use any number of other computing products that are more closely matched to the Apple II than the iPad.Not every product is well suited to what you want to do with it .
How much tinkering do you do with your TV ?
Changed the firmware in it lately ?
Mine has a SD card slot for upgrades , but I have absolutely no inclination what so ever to screw with it .
I have other devices for that.Go buy a cheap netbook or a regular Mac if you want to hack .
Stop this bullshit of complaining about how the product is n't what you want , go use a product that IS what you want.There are alternatives to the iPad already on the market that are far more 'hacker ' friendly .
There are also regular desktop machines ( Apple or otherwise ) , Laptops , the Apple TV , and all sorts of other crap you can tinker with.Heres what you need to understand ... the world does n't revolve around you or what you want .
You are part of a bigger picture , and as such , not everything is going to bend to your whim.There are plenty of other products to tinker with , Apple even has some , there are also products that are DESIGNED for tinkerers , why are you ignore them ? This is just another whiner remembering yesteryear , unfortunately tunnel vision and childhood memories are blocking out the fact that there were plenty of hacker-unfriendly devices back then too .
You just did n't use those , you used the one that was hacker friendly .
It may have just been by chance that you got the hacker friendly device rather than one that was n't , or maybe it was by choice.Either way , there are FAR more options for tinkering today than there were then .
Times change , people change and so do product lines .
The funny part about this post is that if you paid attention over the last week , you 'd have already seen a device thats kind of like the iPad that is open to all sorts of hax0ring , but instead , you 've decided to be a lazy bastard and not look , just whine , moan and bitch.Finally ... someone will manage to turn the iPad into something hax0rable for hard hacks eventually , and for those who just want to do software hacking , if you can spend the money for an iPad , you can spend the money for a developers license and hax0rs to your hearts content without even messing with hacks for the OS .
Hell , I 'm tinkering and hax0ring with the iPad and its not even available yet thanks to the simulator.In short , nothing has changed , except now you 're old and bitchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and your childhood will always be something remembered as a time that was 'just better' CAUSE YOU WERE A FREAKING KID WITH NO WORRIES OR RESPONSIBILITIES.You can still hack away on your Apple II, if you have one.
You can also use any number of other computing products that are more closely matched to the Apple II than the iPad.Not every product is well suited to what you want to do with it.
How much tinkering do you do with your TV?
Changed the firmware in it lately?
Mine has a SD card slot for upgrades, but I have absolutely no inclination what so ever to screw with it.
I have other devices for that.Go buy a cheap netbook or a regular Mac if you want to hack.
Stop this bullshit of complaining about how the product isn't what you want, go use a product that IS what you want.There are alternatives to the iPad already on the market that are far more 'hacker' friendly.
There are also regular desktop machines (Apple or otherwise), Laptops, the Apple TV, and all sorts of other crap you can tinker with.Heres what you need to understand ... the world doesn't revolve around you or what you want.
You are part of a bigger picture, and as such, not everything is going to bend to your whim.There are plenty of other products to tinker with, Apple even has some, there are also products that are DESIGNED for tinkerers, why are you ignore them?This is just another whiner remembering yesteryear, unfortunately tunnel vision and childhood memories are blocking out the fact that there were plenty of hacker-unfriendly devices back then too.
You just didn't use those, you used the one that was hacker friendly.
It may have just been by chance that you got the hacker friendly device rather than one that wasn't, or maybe it was by choice.Either way, there are FAR more options for tinkering today than there were then.
Times change, people change and so do product lines.
The funny part about this post is that if you paid attention over the last week, you'd have already seen a device thats kind of like the iPad that is open to all sorts of hax0ring, but instead, you've  decided to be a lazy bastard and not look, just whine, moan and bitch.Finally ... someone will manage to turn the iPad into something hax0rable for hard hacks eventually, and for those who just want to do software hacking, if you can spend the money for an iPad, you can spend the money for a developers license and hax0rs to your hearts content without even messing with hacks for the OS.
Hell, I'm tinkering and hax0ring with the iPad and its not even available yet thanks to the simulator.In short, nothing has changed, except now you're old and bitchy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972554</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>JoeBuck</author>
	<datestamp>1264969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't give your kids Tcl; of the scripting languages, Python will be a lot easier, and the fact that it has "advanced concepts" is a plus, not a minus, as they don't get in the way and solve problems that the programmer would otherwise have to deal with. Basic is good if you want to teach kids to write rats' nests of GOTO statements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't give your kids Tcl ; of the scripting languages , Python will be a lot easier , and the fact that it has " advanced concepts " is a plus , not a minus , as they do n't get in the way and solve problems that the programmer would otherwise have to deal with .
Basic is good if you want to teach kids to write rats ' nests of GOTO statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't give your kids Tcl; of the scripting languages, Python will be a lot easier, and the fact that it has "advanced concepts" is a plus, not a minus, as they don't get in the way and solve problems that the programmer would otherwise have to deal with.
Basic is good if you want to teach kids to write rats' nests of GOTO statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986088</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but they could allow a legit way for users to open it up hacking.  Say make the user jump through a few hoops, say its unsupported, then when the user agrees, let them do what they want with the hardware they bought.</p><p>The problem I have with Apple products like the iPod, is not so much the way is is designed as an appliance, but rather how anti-hacker they are. I don't mind them only supporting using iPods through iTunes, but Apple go out of their way to stop the user from using anything but iTunes to sync their iPod.  It is one thing to not support a particular usage, it is another to actively prevent someone using the device in what should be a legitimate manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but they could allow a legit way for users to open it up hacking .
Say make the user jump through a few hoops , say its unsupported , then when the user agrees , let them do what they want with the hardware they bought.The problem I have with Apple products like the iPod , is not so much the way is is designed as an appliance , but rather how anti-hacker they are .
I do n't mind them only supporting using iPods through iTunes , but Apple go out of their way to stop the user from using anything but iTunes to sync their iPod .
It is one thing to not support a particular usage , it is another to actively prevent someone using the device in what should be a legitimate manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but they could allow a legit way for users to open it up hacking.
Say make the user jump through a few hoops, say its unsupported, then when the user agrees, let them do what they want with the hardware they bought.The problem I have with Apple products like the iPod, is not so much the way is is designed as an appliance, but rather how anti-hacker they are.
I don't mind them only supporting using iPods through iTunes, but Apple go out of their way to stop the user from using anything but iTunes to sync their iPod.
It is one thing to not support a particular usage, it is another to actively prevent someone using the device in what should be a legitimate manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30980032</id>
	<title>"Trend away from" tinkering?</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1265034900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up next in the Science section, an article on mankind's "trend away from" gills and flippers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up next in the Science section , an article on mankind 's " trend away from " gills and flippers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up next in the Science section, an article on mankind's "trend away from" gills and flippers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974180</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid argument</title>
	<author>Cheech Wizard</author>
	<datestamp>1264934880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets. They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.</p></div><p> Exactly - I did that type of stuff, but I got my vacuum tubes (and other components) at an electronics shop rather than a drugstore. Yes - there were a lot of places that sold tubes and had testers right there. Man, am I old or what... The Pre-RatShack days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets .
They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore , and buy souped up parts to improve the picture .
Exactly - I did that type of stuff , but I got my vacuum tubes ( and other components ) at an electronics shop rather than a drugstore .
Yes - there were a lot of places that sold tubes and had testers right there .
Man , am I old or what... The Pre-RatShack days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets.
They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.
Exactly - I did that type of stuff, but I got my vacuum tubes (and other components) at an electronics shop rather than a drugstore.
Yes - there were a lot of places that sold tubes and had testers right there.
Man, am I old or what... The Pre-RatShack days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976756</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Trutane</author>
	<datestamp>1264953000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Agreed. There's a definite parallel with the automotive industry here. My parents got me a '66 Mustang when I turned 16 and I was always amazed at how accessible/intelligible things were under the hood compared to the latest models, with their fuel injection and microprocessor-controlled componentry. Tinkering or repairing new cars now requires taking it into a shop with fancy diagnostic gear. End result: fewer and fewer ordinary folks attempting to DIY their car maintenance, and becoming more dependent on specialists.
</p><p>
Is this a good thing or bad thing? Depends on your point of view. On the one side, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore\_Kaczynski" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">some people</a> [wikipedia.org] would say that such industrial and technological evolution undermines the core of society. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam\_Smith" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Others</a> [wikipedia.org] would say, "Bring it on, baby!" (though perhaps not quite in those words).
</p><p>
This advancement of complexity in our technology, leading to less tinkerer-accessible devices over time, is a natural phenomenon and a consequence of a society that encourages a division of labor, as ours does. I'll bet that 10,000 years ago, tinkering types were probably complaining about the difficulty in hacking their new-fangled farming and hunting tools. For the nostalgic, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/explorerflash/" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">here's a cool web vizualization</a> [bbc.co.uk] of the various objects we humans have crafted over the years.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
There 's a definite parallel with the automotive industry here .
My parents got me a '66 Mustang when I turned 16 and I was always amazed at how accessible/intelligible things were under the hood compared to the latest models , with their fuel injection and microprocessor-controlled componentry .
Tinkering or repairing new cars now requires taking it into a shop with fancy diagnostic gear .
End result : fewer and fewer ordinary folks attempting to DIY their car maintenance , and becoming more dependent on specialists .
Is this a good thing or bad thing ?
Depends on your point of view .
On the one side , some people [ wikipedia.org ] would say that such industrial and technological evolution undermines the core of society .
Others [ wikipedia.org ] would say , " Bring it on , baby !
" ( though perhaps not quite in those words ) .
This advancement of complexity in our technology , leading to less tinkerer-accessible devices over time , is a natural phenomenon and a consequence of a society that encourages a division of labor , as ours does .
I 'll bet that 10,000 years ago , tinkering types were probably complaining about the difficulty in hacking their new-fangled farming and hunting tools .
For the nostalgic , here 's a cool web vizualization [ bbc.co.uk ] of the various objects we humans have crafted over the years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Agreed.
There's a definite parallel with the automotive industry here.
My parents got me a '66 Mustang when I turned 16 and I was always amazed at how accessible/intelligible things were under the hood compared to the latest models, with their fuel injection and microprocessor-controlled componentry.
Tinkering or repairing new cars now requires taking it into a shop with fancy diagnostic gear.
End result: fewer and fewer ordinary folks attempting to DIY their car maintenance, and becoming more dependent on specialists.
Is this a good thing or bad thing?
Depends on your point of view.
On the one side, some people [wikipedia.org] would say that such industrial and technological evolution undermines the core of society.
Others [wikipedia.org] would say, "Bring it on, baby!
" (though perhaps not quite in those words).
This advancement of complexity in our technology, leading to less tinkerer-accessible devices over time, is a natural phenomenon and a consequence of a society that encourages a division of labor, as ours does.
I'll bet that 10,000 years ago, tinkering types were probably complaining about the difficulty in hacking their new-fangled farming and hunting tools.
For the nostalgic, here's a cool web vizualization [bbc.co.uk] of the various objects we humans have crafted over the years.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972632</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Leafwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264969740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a "sdk" called basic-256 for kids. That is quite fun to program with. Its super easy, and has an inbuildt canvas to draw upon and can be run under Linux. Its also has good documentation. The kids i showed it to really liked it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a " sdk " called basic-256 for kids .
That is quite fun to program with .
Its super easy , and has an inbuildt canvas to draw upon and can be run under Linux .
Its also has good documentation .
The kids i showed it to really liked it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a "sdk" called basic-256 for kids.
That is quite fun to program with.
Its super easy, and has an inbuildt canvas to draw upon and can be run under Linux.
Its also has good documentation.
The kids i showed it to really liked it :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30984570</id>
	<title>BS, I WISH I was a kid now</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1265053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, I really wish I was a kid now, so that I'd have more time to hack around on the iPhone.</p><p>Unlike the Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//e, where you had to learn assembly language or consult peek/poke charts to do anything cool, Apple has a beautiful, free SDK for the iPhone. And if learning a little Objective-C and finding your way around XCode is too advanced, you can still build great cross-platform apps using HTML and javascript.</p><p>The barrier to installing your own software on your own device is still pretty low, and possibly lower (because of XCode and javascript) than it ever has been.</p><p>There IS a big barrier to putting your software on *other people's* devices, hence the whole jailbreak routine. But come on, you can still put whatever you want on your own device. So what's the real problem? It's not free, open source software? Ok, then say that! That's valid. But your freedom to tinker isn't being limited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I really wish I was a kid now , so that I 'd have more time to hack around on the iPhone.Unlike the Apple //e , where you had to learn assembly language or consult peek/poke charts to do anything cool , Apple has a beautiful , free SDK for the iPhone .
And if learning a little Objective-C and finding your way around XCode is too advanced , you can still build great cross-platform apps using HTML and javascript.The barrier to installing your own software on your own device is still pretty low , and possibly lower ( because of XCode and javascript ) than it ever has been.There IS a big barrier to putting your software on * other people 's * devices , hence the whole jailbreak routine .
But come on , you can still put whatever you want on your own device .
So what 's the real problem ?
It 's not free , open source software ?
Ok , then say that !
That 's valid .
But your freedom to tinker is n't being limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I really wish I was a kid now, so that I'd have more time to hack around on the iPhone.Unlike the Apple //e, where you had to learn assembly language or consult peek/poke charts to do anything cool, Apple has a beautiful, free SDK for the iPhone.
And if learning a little Objective-C and finding your way around XCode is too advanced, you can still build great cross-platform apps using HTML and javascript.The barrier to installing your own software on your own device is still pretty low, and possibly lower (because of XCode and javascript) than it ever has been.There IS a big barrier to putting your software on *other people's* devices, hence the whole jailbreak routine.
But come on, you can still put whatever you want on your own device.
So what's the real problem?
It's not free, open source software?
Ok, then say that!
That's valid.
But your freedom to tinker isn't being limited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976924</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world.</i> <p>.</p><p>

Oh, give me a break.  Tinkerers always find new things to tinker with.  I used to tinker with vacuum tube electronics, radios and TVs, before personal computers were even around.   Do I blame Sony for preventing me from tinkering nowadays?  Absolutely not.</p><p>

It is the natural progression of humanity to turn new 'tinkerable' technology into 'non-tinkerable' commodities.</p><p>

So stop trying to hold back the progression of humankind, stop whining, and encourage your kids find something new to tinker with.</p><p>


And stop blaming Apple for your lack of insight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world .
. Oh , give me a break .
Tinkerers always find new things to tinker with .
I used to tinker with vacuum tube electronics , radios and TVs , before personal computers were even around .
Do I blame Sony for preventing me from tinkering nowadays ?
Absolutely not .
It is the natural progression of humanity to turn new 'tinkerable ' technology into 'non-tinkerable ' commodities .
So stop trying to hold back the progression of humankind , stop whining , and encourage your kids find something new to tinker with .
And stop blaming Apple for your lack of insight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world.
.

Oh, give me a break.
Tinkerers always find new things to tinker with.
I used to tinker with vacuum tube electronics, radios and TVs, before personal computers were even around.
Do I blame Sony for preventing me from tinkering nowadays?
Absolutely not.
It is the natural progression of humanity to turn new 'tinkerable' technology into 'non-tinkerable' commodities.
So stop trying to hold back the progression of humankind, stop whining, and encourage your kids find something new to tinker with.
And stop blaming Apple for your lack of insight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852</id>
	<title>Evolution</title>
	<author>Chris Lawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1264965660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I think this is just a natural evolutionary process for most new technology.  When personal computers were new, they were mainly purchased and used by hobbyists.  Now they are mainstream and most people just want to use them to get things done, they don't care how or why they work.  Cars were the same when they were first introduced.  You had to know how to tinker just to keep them working.  Now cars are everwhere and they are computerized and automated so much, it's hard to do the kind of tinkering that used to be common.

</p><p>
It's sad to see things change, but there will always be room for those who like to tinker.  We still have Linux and *BSD, after all.  I love my Mac, but sometimes it's nice to play around with Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is just a natural evolutionary process for most new technology .
When personal computers were new , they were mainly purchased and used by hobbyists .
Now they are mainstream and most people just want to use them to get things done , they do n't care how or why they work .
Cars were the same when they were first introduced .
You had to know how to tinker just to keep them working .
Now cars are everwhere and they are computerized and automated so much , it 's hard to do the kind of tinkering that used to be common .
It 's sad to see things change , but there will always be room for those who like to tinker .
We still have Linux and * BSD , after all .
I love my Mac , but sometimes it 's nice to play around with Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I think this is just a natural evolutionary process for most new technology.
When personal computers were new, they were mainly purchased and used by hobbyists.
Now they are mainstream and most people just want to use them to get things done, they don't care how or why they work.
Cars were the same when they were first introduced.
You had to know how to tinker just to keep them working.
Now cars are everwhere and they are computerized and automated so much, it's hard to do the kind of tinkering that used to be common.
It's sad to see things change, but there will always be room for those who like to tinker.
We still have Linux and *BSD, after all.
I love my Mac, but sometimes it's nice to play around with Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976604</id>
	<title>Macsbug</title>
	<author>grouchomarxist</author>
	<datestamp>1264951200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the summary mention Macsbug with a link to an article which doesn't mention Macsbug? Macsbug hasn't even been on the Macintosh ever since the move to Mac OS X. (Perhaps there was one in the classic environment, but still...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the summary mention Macsbug with a link to an article which does n't mention Macsbug ?
Macsbug has n't even been on the Macintosh ever since the move to Mac OS X .
( Perhaps there was one in the classic environment , but still... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the summary mention Macsbug with a link to an article which doesn't mention Macsbug?
Macsbug hasn't even been on the Macintosh ever since the move to Mac OS X.
(Perhaps there was one in the classic environment, but still...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972656</id>
	<title>Re:Inevitable after Woz left</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264969860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yep, people fail to see his influence is for a lot what computing is today (and only the good parts of computing, actually)<br>as usual, real heros are the ones you hear the less about</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yep , people fail to see his influence is for a lot what computing is today ( and only the good parts of computing , actually ) as usual , real heros are the ones you hear the less about</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yep, people fail to see his influence is for a lot what computing is today (and only the good parts of computing, actually)as usual, real heros are the ones you hear the less about</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972804</id>
	<title>wrong "tinker target"</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people assimilate tinkerer to Linux users, with an unstable system, hacked up tools, trying to make stuff work together etc.<br>That's not the point. I've been an Apple user too, "back in the days". The system has never been as open as Linux for sure, but you could tinker and it was *clean* and working good.<br>Imagine a Linux system today, that is as polished as OSX, including *all* tinkering tools. That would be what Apple felt like before (of course, there was no open source, etc at the time). And no, OSX + darwin under it doesn't cut it anymore of course. It would, 10 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people assimilate tinkerer to Linux users , with an unstable system , hacked up tools , trying to make stuff work together etc.That 's not the point .
I 've been an Apple user too , " back in the days " .
The system has never been as open as Linux for sure , but you could tinker and it was * clean * and working good.Imagine a Linux system today , that is as polished as OSX , including * all * tinkering tools .
That would be what Apple felt like before ( of course , there was no open source , etc at the time ) .
And no , OSX + darwin under it does n't cut it anymore of course .
It would , 10 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people assimilate tinkerer to Linux users, with an unstable system, hacked up tools, trying to make stuff work together etc.That's not the point.
I've been an Apple user too, "back in the days".
The system has never been as open as Linux for sure, but you could tinker and it was *clean* and working good.Imagine a Linux system today, that is as polished as OSX, including *all* tinkering tools.
That would be what Apple felt like before (of course, there was no open source, etc at the time).
And no, OSX + darwin under it doesn't cut it anymore of course.
It would, 10 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974158</id>
	<title>This is not a new trend.</title>
	<author>jafo</author>
	<datestamp>1264934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back when I was getting my first serious computer (the previous Vic-20 and loaned machines don't count<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-), I looked seriously between the Mac and the Amiga.  I ended up choosing the Amiga because it seemed to me to be more hacker friendly, and I am a hacker.  The Mac seemed much more like a black box that you weren't intended to get inside.  So, maybe at Apple II series was a fluke, I really don't know because I didn't get much opportunity to hack on them.  It seems to me that Apple has always been targeted at a non-hacker audience.  Which is fine, htere are a lot of non-hackers out there.<br><br>Sean</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when I was getting my first serious computer ( the previous Vic-20 and loaned machines do n't count : - ) , I looked seriously between the Mac and the Amiga .
I ended up choosing the Amiga because it seemed to me to be more hacker friendly , and I am a hacker .
The Mac seemed much more like a black box that you were n't intended to get inside .
So , maybe at Apple II series was a fluke , I really do n't know because I did n't get much opportunity to hack on them .
It seems to me that Apple has always been targeted at a non-hacker audience .
Which is fine , htere are a lot of non-hackers out there.Sean</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when I was getting my first serious computer (the previous Vic-20 and loaned machines don't count :-), I looked seriously between the Mac and the Amiga.
I ended up choosing the Amiga because it seemed to me to be more hacker friendly, and I am a hacker.
The Mac seemed much more like a black box that you weren't intended to get inside.
So, maybe at Apple II series was a fluke, I really don't know because I didn't get much opportunity to hack on them.
It seems to me that Apple has always been targeted at a non-hacker audience.
Which is fine, htere are a lot of non-hackers out there.Sean</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972290</id>
	<title>It's not Apple, but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That niche is well populated these days with the the number of lowpriced development boards like the Arduino, Beagle board, and so on. You can get these kind of things for MIPS, ARM, x86, and so on. You can even get FPGA boards and tinker with hardware level stuff. We have opencores now. Things are much more interesting, cheaper, and more wideley available than when I could even dream of when I was a kid. All of this stuff starts at less than a couple hundred bucks, and the amount you can do with them is pretty impressive. We have kids today soldering BGA parts and doing SMD work.</p><p>Seriously, I remember being impressed with myself as a kid when I learned to etch my own boards, learned x86 assembly(mode X was awesome), and Motorola 680x stuff. Kids have much cooler toys these days from what I see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That niche is well populated these days with the the number of lowpriced development boards like the Arduino , Beagle board , and so on .
You can get these kind of things for MIPS , ARM , x86 , and so on .
You can even get FPGA boards and tinker with hardware level stuff .
We have opencores now .
Things are much more interesting , cheaper , and more wideley available than when I could even dream of when I was a kid .
All of this stuff starts at less than a couple hundred bucks , and the amount you can do with them is pretty impressive .
We have kids today soldering BGA parts and doing SMD work.Seriously , I remember being impressed with myself as a kid when I learned to etch my own boards , learned x86 assembly ( mode X was awesome ) , and Motorola 680x stuff .
Kids have much cooler toys these days from what I see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That niche is well populated these days with the the number of lowpriced development boards like the Arduino, Beagle board, and so on.
You can get these kind of things for MIPS, ARM, x86, and so on.
You can even get FPGA boards and tinker with hardware level stuff.
We have opencores now.
Things are much more interesting, cheaper, and more wideley available than when I could even dream of when I was a kid.
All of this stuff starts at less than a couple hundred bucks, and the amount you can do with them is pretty impressive.
We have kids today soldering BGA parts and doing SMD work.Seriously, I remember being impressed with myself as a kid when I learned to etch my own boards, learned x86 assembly(mode X was awesome), and Motorola 680x stuff.
Kids have much cooler toys these days from what I see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30979706</id>
	<title>There's a reason for that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265032680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason, of course, is that Apple sucks large, floppy donkey testicles.</p><p>Maybe that was a bit harsh.  It's the perfect computer for a person who doesn't have the intelligence to, you know... use a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason , of course , is that Apple sucks large , floppy donkey testicles.Maybe that was a bit harsh .
It 's the perfect computer for a person who does n't have the intelligence to , you know... use a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason, of course, is that Apple sucks large, floppy donkey testicles.Maybe that was a bit harsh.
It's the perfect computer for a person who doesn't have the intelligence to, you know... use a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30990858</id>
	<title>Adopt a classic computer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dabbled on an Apple IIe as a kid. I decided I'd find a usable beat 'em up for my daughter to learn BASIC on and saved one that was going to be thrown out if there were no takers. It was dirty but I actually had fun cleaning it up. (She gave me a "let me know when it's ready" on that part.) You know what? It didn't take the student long at all to kick the master's butt. She outgrew it but I kept the computer. Even after it got old to her it was still a classic to me. (She's using Python now. Sorry to be unoriginal.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) Just a couple of nights ago I fired it up and played a bit of Zork. To think that my precious Apple could be rotting in a landfill makes me sad, but glad that I nabbed it.</p><p>Go buy the computer you loved as a kid, save it from being destroyed. They take up a four square feet, and you can put them away when you're not playing with them. No excuses, adopt a classic today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dabbled on an Apple IIe as a kid .
I decided I 'd find a usable beat 'em up for my daughter to learn BASIC on and saved one that was going to be thrown out if there were no takers .
It was dirty but I actually had fun cleaning it up .
( She gave me a " let me know when it 's ready " on that part .
) You know what ?
It did n't take the student long at all to kick the master 's butt .
She outgrew it but I kept the computer .
Even after it got old to her it was still a classic to me .
( She 's using Python now .
Sorry to be unoriginal .
; ) Just a couple of nights ago I fired it up and played a bit of Zork .
To think that my precious Apple could be rotting in a landfill makes me sad , but glad that I nabbed it.Go buy the computer you loved as a kid , save it from being destroyed .
They take up a four square feet , and you can put them away when you 're not playing with them .
No excuses , adopt a classic today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dabbled on an Apple IIe as a kid.
I decided I'd find a usable beat 'em up for my daughter to learn BASIC on and saved one that was going to be thrown out if there were no takers.
It was dirty but I actually had fun cleaning it up.
(She gave me a "let me know when it's ready" on that part.
) You know what?
It didn't take the student long at all to kick the master's butt.
She outgrew it but I kept the computer.
Even after it got old to her it was still a classic to me.
(She's using Python now.
Sorry to be unoriginal.
;) Just a couple of nights ago I fired it up and played a bit of Zork.
To think that my precious Apple could be rotting in a landfill makes me sad, but glad that I nabbed it.Go buy the computer you loved as a kid, save it from being destroyed.
They take up a four square feet, and you can put them away when you're not playing with them.
No excuses, adopt a classic today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972394</id>
	<title>I wonder</title>
	<author>drgould</author>
	<datestamp>1264968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every generation seems to have its own style of tinkering.</p><p>Broadly speaking, fifty years ago it was ham radio, thirty years ago it was microcomputers like the Apple, Commodore and Atari, today I think it's microcontrollers like the PIC, AVR or especially the Arduino. (Yeah, I know, there's a lot of hobbies and tinkering I glossed over like chemistry, cars, etc, etc. I sure someone will make a list of everything I missed.)</p><p>But my point is, today most tinkering seems to be centered around using microcontrollers in various applications. I think the Arduino has accelerated the trend because of its ease of use. In addition, RF modules like the XBee have made it almost ridiculously easy to create distributed networks of microcomputers for whatever application you can think of.</p><p>Because of the proliferation of powerful microcontrollers and RF modules, my predication is that 30 years from now people look back at this as the time hobbiest robotics really took off. (Yeah, I know, people have been doing hobbiest robots for years, I just think that the combination of cheap, powerful computers, microcontrollers, motor controllers, RF modules and GPS modules will accelerate the trend.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every generation seems to have its own style of tinkering.Broadly speaking , fifty years ago it was ham radio , thirty years ago it was microcomputers like the Apple , Commodore and Atari , today I think it 's microcontrollers like the PIC , AVR or especially the Arduino .
( Yeah , I know , there 's a lot of hobbies and tinkering I glossed over like chemistry , cars , etc , etc .
I sure someone will make a list of everything I missed .
) But my point is , today most tinkering seems to be centered around using microcontrollers in various applications .
I think the Arduino has accelerated the trend because of its ease of use .
In addition , RF modules like the XBee have made it almost ridiculously easy to create distributed networks of microcomputers for whatever application you can think of.Because of the proliferation of powerful microcontrollers and RF modules , my predication is that 30 years from now people look back at this as the time hobbiest robotics really took off .
( Yeah , I know , people have been doing hobbiest robots for years , I just think that the combination of cheap , powerful computers , microcontrollers , motor controllers , RF modules and GPS modules will accelerate the trend .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every generation seems to have its own style of tinkering.Broadly speaking, fifty years ago it was ham radio, thirty years ago it was microcomputers like the Apple, Commodore and Atari, today I think it's microcontrollers like the PIC, AVR or especially the Arduino.
(Yeah, I know, there's a lot of hobbies and tinkering I glossed over like chemistry, cars, etc, etc.
I sure someone will make a list of everything I missed.
)But my point is, today most tinkering seems to be centered around using microcontrollers in various applications.
I think the Arduino has accelerated the trend because of its ease of use.
In addition, RF modules like the XBee have made it almost ridiculously easy to create distributed networks of microcomputers for whatever application you can think of.Because of the proliferation of powerful microcontrollers and RF modules, my predication is that 30 years from now people look back at this as the time hobbiest robotics really took off.
(Yeah, I know, people have been doing hobbiest robots for years, I just think that the combination of cheap, powerful computers, microcontrollers, motor controllers, RF modules and GPS modules will accelerate the trend.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975192</id>
	<title>Re:Inevitable after Woz left</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was very long ago...I sometimes wonder who gave the Macs their cool...Jobs or Woz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was very long ago...I sometimes wonder who gave the Macs their cool...Jobs or Woz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was very long ago...I sometimes wonder who gave the Macs their cool...Jobs or Woz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973592</id>
	<title>Re:Inevitable after Woz left</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264931820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woz would have accomplished nothing without Jobs. Look at Steve vs. Woz since they parted ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woz would have accomplished nothing without Jobs .
Look at Steve vs. Woz since they parted ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woz would have accomplished nothing without Jobs.
Look at Steve vs. Woz since they parted ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972824</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>dbc</author>
	<datestamp>1264970700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Hello World" book using Python is aimed straight at kids, and I'm using it with my daughter.  It's good.  Previously reviewed here on SlashDot. Also, I've used Gambas.  Either is good for kids.  The 1xx-in-one type kits are good, too.  My 10 year old daughter has gotten to the point where she begs to do PC board layout -- so right now she has a project going (using gEDA) to build a "game" with 8 push buttons, 8 led's, and an AVR microcontroller.  Mind you, she is not yet capable of designing either the hardware or the software, so I walk her through all the steps.  But she loves the connect-the-dots part, and I let her lead the way on the design decisions and help her fill in the parts she can't do yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Hello World " book using Python is aimed straight at kids , and I 'm using it with my daughter .
It 's good .
Previously reviewed here on SlashDot .
Also , I 've used Gambas .
Either is good for kids .
The 1xx-in-one type kits are good , too .
My 10 year old daughter has gotten to the point where she begs to do PC board layout -- so right now she has a project going ( using gEDA ) to build a " game " with 8 push buttons , 8 led 's , and an AVR microcontroller .
Mind you , she is not yet capable of designing either the hardware or the software , so I walk her through all the steps .
But she loves the connect-the-dots part , and I let her lead the way on the design decisions and help her fill in the parts she ca n't do yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Hello World" book using Python is aimed straight at kids, and I'm using it with my daughter.
It's good.
Previously reviewed here on SlashDot.
Also, I've used Gambas.
Either is good for kids.
The 1xx-in-one type kits are good, too.
My 10 year old daughter has gotten to the point where she begs to do PC board layout -- so right now she has a project going (using gEDA) to build a "game" with 8 push buttons, 8 led's, and an AVR microcontroller.
Mind you, she is not yet capable of designing either the hardware or the software, so I walk her through all the steps.
But she loves the connect-the-dots part, and I let her lead the way on the design decisions and help her fill in the parts she can't do yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978566</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1265017800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java,</p><p>thanks for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java,thanks for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java,thanks for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972496</id>
	<title>Things have changed -- for the better</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1264968960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Having cut his programming teeth on an Apple ][e as a ten-year-old, Mark Pilgrim laments that Apple now seems to be doing everything in their power to stop his kids from finding the sense of wonder he did."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Apple may be worse than others, but there has been an overall change.  I grew up in the era of the Commode-Door 64 and Radio Shit Color Computer.  In those days I became intensely interested in programming and hacking because I had no choice.    Things were really primitive back then.  You had to hack your system just to make it to do useful things -- like read double-sided floppies instead of being limited to single-sided.
<br> <br>
Over time I lost interest in that sort of thing.  And that's mailnly because computers are so much more powerful und useful than they were "back in the day".  Why spend untold hours creating an application when there are a hundred of them already out there for free (or cheap).  Today, "hacking and programming" tends to involve stuff like getting Linux to run on an Xbox or getting your cellphone to do someting equally pointless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Having cut his programming teeth on an Apple ] [ e as a ten-year-old , Mark Pilgrim laments that Apple now seems to be doing everything in their power to stop his kids from finding the sense of wonder he did .
" Apple may be worse than others , but there has been an overall change .
I grew up in the era of the Commode-Door 64 and Radio Shit Color Computer .
In those days I became intensely interested in programming and hacking because I had no choice .
Things were really primitive back then .
You had to hack your system just to make it to do useful things -- like read double-sided floppies instead of being limited to single-sided .
Over time I lost interest in that sort of thing .
And that 's mailnly because computers are so much more powerful und useful than they were " back in the day " .
Why spend untold hours creating an application when there are a hundred of them already out there for free ( or cheap ) .
Today , " hacking and programming " tends to involve stuff like getting Linux to run on an Xbox or getting your cellphone to do someting equally pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Having cut his programming teeth on an Apple ][e as a ten-year-old, Mark Pilgrim laments that Apple now seems to be doing everything in their power to stop his kids from finding the sense of wonder he did.
"
Apple may be worse than others, but there has been an overall change.
I grew up in the era of the Commode-Door 64 and Radio Shit Color Computer.
In those days I became intensely interested in programming and hacking because I had no choice.
Things were really primitive back then.
You had to hack your system just to make it to do useful things -- like read double-sided floppies instead of being limited to single-sided.
Over time I lost interest in that sort of thing.
And that's mailnly because computers are so much more powerful und useful than they were "back in the day".
Why spend untold hours creating an application when there are a hundred of them already out there for free (or cheap).
Today, "hacking and programming" tends to involve stuff like getting Linux to run on an Xbox or getting your cellphone to do someting equally pointless.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972810</id>
	<title>APPLE = SONY</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1264970640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like it says on the box. Apple is the new Sony. Locked down bricks of proprietary hardware. Not even implementing Flash in their 'web browser' tablet is the final straw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like it says on the box .
Apple is the new Sony .
Locked down bricks of proprietary hardware .
Not even implementing Flash in their 'web browser ' tablet is the final straw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like it says on the box.
Apple is the new Sony.
Locked down bricks of proprietary hardware.
Not even implementing Flash in their 'web browser' tablet is the final straw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972310</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>dotfile</author>
	<datestamp>1264967760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radio Shack has given up on almost everything, but fear not.  There are still plenty of places you can go for electronic kits, experimenters' sets, and all kinds of tinker-it-yourself goodies.  In fact, I would venture to say there may be more now than ever before.  Now with the ability of the average Joe to put up an e-commerce web site and sell his stuff - or just do it on Fleabay - you see a lot more kits and hackable devices around.  All you have to do is look.  Elenco, Ramsey, Vellman, Hendricks, HamGadgets, QRPme, Parallax, the list goes on and on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radio Shack has given up on almost everything , but fear not .
There are still plenty of places you can go for electronic kits , experimenters ' sets , and all kinds of tinker-it-yourself goodies .
In fact , I would venture to say there may be more now than ever before .
Now with the ability of the average Joe to put up an e-commerce web site and sell his stuff - or just do it on Fleabay - you see a lot more kits and hackable devices around .
All you have to do is look .
Elenco , Ramsey , Vellman , Hendricks , HamGadgets , QRPme , Parallax , the list goes on and on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radio Shack has given up on almost everything, but fear not.
There are still plenty of places you can go for electronic kits, experimenters' sets, and all kinds of tinker-it-yourself goodies.
In fact, I would venture to say there may be more now than ever before.
Now with the ability of the average Joe to put up an e-commerce web site and sell his stuff - or just do it on Fleabay - you see a lot more kits and hackable devices around.
All you have to do is look.
Elenco, Ramsey, Vellman, Hendricks, HamGadgets, QRPme, Parallax, the list goes on and on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976100</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid argument</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264947060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets. They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.<br> <br>

Nowadays, the kiddies can't do anything with these newfangled OLED tv sets! How are you going to learn about repairing broken TVs if the TV never breaks???</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Speak for yourself. <a href="http://samygo.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">The Samsung TV's are quite hack-able</a> [sourceforge.net].<br> <br>

I've replaced plenty of LCD backlights, my old boss (an MBA) also used his spare time to repair old laptops and other devices he had hanging around. Granted this was a new hobby and often would be in my office on Monday morning with questions (only questions, he wanted to do the work himself).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets .
They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore , and buy souped up parts to improve the picture .
Nowadays , the kiddies ca n't do anything with these newfangled OLED tv sets !
How are you going to learn about repairing broken TVs if the TV never breaks ? ? ?
Speak for yourself .
The Samsung TV 's are quite hack-able [ sourceforge.net ] .
I 've replaced plenty of LCD backlights , my old boss ( an MBA ) also used his spare time to repair old laptops and other devices he had hanging around .
Granted this was a new hobby and often would be in my office on Monday morning with questions ( only questions , he wanted to do the work himself ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets.
They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.
Nowadays, the kiddies can't do anything with these newfangled OLED tv sets!
How are you going to learn about repairing broken TVs if the TV never breaks???
Speak for yourself.
The Samsung TV's are quite hack-able [sourceforge.net].
I've replaced plenty of LCD backlights, my old boss (an MBA) also used his spare time to repair old laptops and other devices he had hanging around.
Granted this was a new hobby and often would be in my office on Monday morning with questions (only questions, he wanted to do the work himself).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973064</id>
	<title>Re:Very much for tinkerers</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1264928880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Apple ][ came with manuals that had the ROM listings. The ][+ (at least) had a mini-assembler built right in (Sweet-16, baby!). It had full schematics right there in the box.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Interesting. That definitely sets it apart from the TRS-80, for which Radio Shack didn't document the roms at all. There were eventually aftermarket books written by people who'd reverse-engineered them.
</p><blockquote><div><p>The default "shell" was a BASIC interpreter, fer cryin' out loud!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The BASIC interpreter was also the operating system, such as it was. I can imagine the howls of protest from slashdotters if someone praised a computer that had an MS operating system built into it, in rom<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Today if you want to run an alternative OS like linux on your mac or PC, all you have to do is pop a CD in the drive and click OK. Then, the alternative OS was CP/M, and you couldn't run CP/M without hardware modifications. On the Apple II, you needed a Z80 upgrade kit. On a TRS-80, you needed a hardware mod that would map the rom to a different memory location, because CP/M expected to live at 0000.
</p><blockquote><div><p>There's a huge difference between the Apple ][ and pretty much any mainstream computer available today. The Apple ][ (and to a certain extent, the Commodore 64) was simple.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yeah. It's actually kind of ironic. You'd think that if there was any room today for tinker-friendly machines, it would be with the smallest, simplest devices. But computers have gotten so much more complex that even the little ARM-based Debian box I use as a music server is a gazillion times more complicated in terms of software and hardware than an Apple II or a TRS-80. In fact, we're seeing the opposite: the simplest computers, like the iPod, are the ones that tend to be the least tinkerable.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apple ] [ came with manuals that had the ROM listings .
The ] [ + ( at least ) had a mini-assembler built right in ( Sweet-16 , baby ! ) .
It had full schematics right there in the box .
Interesting. That definitely sets it apart from the TRS-80 , for which Radio Shack did n't document the roms at all .
There were eventually aftermarket books written by people who 'd reverse-engineered them .
The default " shell " was a BASIC interpreter , fer cryin ' out loud !
The BASIC interpreter was also the operating system , such as it was .
I can imagine the howls of protest from slashdotters if someone praised a computer that had an MS operating system built into it , in rom : - ) Today if you want to run an alternative OS like linux on your mac or PC , all you have to do is pop a CD in the drive and click OK. Then , the alternative OS was CP/M , and you could n't run CP/M without hardware modifications .
On the Apple II , you needed a Z80 upgrade kit .
On a TRS-80 , you needed a hardware mod that would map the rom to a different memory location , because CP/M expected to live at 0000 .
There 's a huge difference between the Apple ] [ and pretty much any mainstream computer available today .
The Apple ] [ ( and to a certain extent , the Commodore 64 ) was simple .
Yeah. It 's actually kind of ironic .
You 'd think that if there was any room today for tinker-friendly machines , it would be with the smallest , simplest devices .
But computers have gotten so much more complex that even the little ARM-based Debian box I use as a music server is a gazillion times more complicated in terms of software and hardware than an Apple II or a TRS-80 .
In fact , we 're seeing the opposite : the simplest computers , like the iPod , are the ones that tend to be the least tinkerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apple ][ came with manuals that had the ROM listings.
The ][+ (at least) had a mini-assembler built right in (Sweet-16, baby!).
It had full schematics right there in the box.
Interesting. That definitely sets it apart from the TRS-80, for which Radio Shack didn't document the roms at all.
There were eventually aftermarket books written by people who'd reverse-engineered them.
The default "shell" was a BASIC interpreter, fer cryin' out loud!
The BASIC interpreter was also the operating system, such as it was.
I can imagine the howls of protest from slashdotters if someone praised a computer that had an MS operating system built into it, in rom :-) Today if you want to run an alternative OS like linux on your mac or PC, all you have to do is pop a CD in the drive and click OK. Then, the alternative OS was CP/M, and you couldn't run CP/M without hardware modifications.
On the Apple II, you needed a Z80 upgrade kit.
On a TRS-80, you needed a hardware mod that would map the rom to a different memory location, because CP/M expected to live at 0000.
There's a huge difference between the Apple ][ and pretty much any mainstream computer available today.
The Apple ][ (and to a certain extent, the Commodore 64) was simple.
Yeah. It's actually kind of ironic.
You'd think that if there was any room today for tinker-friendly machines, it would be with the smallest, simplest devices.
But computers have gotten so much more complex that even the little ARM-based Debian box I use as a music server is a gazillion times more complicated in terms of software and hardware than an Apple II or a TRS-80.
In fact, we're seeing the opposite: the simplest computers, like the iPod, are the ones that tend to be the least tinkerable.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972006</id>
	<title>Re:True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1264966380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. The iPod and (I think) the iPad are communications tools; they would be miserable development packages no matter what software was loaded onto them.</p><p>As for teaching tinkering to kids, I think that the situation has changed from when we (most of us) were young. Computers were as new to parents as they were to kids and there was more expectation that you had to use a command line to get things to work. The whole environment promoted either tinkering or giving up on the whole experience. Now that computers have more advanced interfaces and parents (often) know how to use them there need to be new sets of learning tools for kids.</p><p>Lego had an excellent, intuitive, graphical programming interface for programming their Lego brick robots; I imagine that by now it's even more advanced. Programming is a great exercise for kids and there are more and more accessible tools out there to make it possible. Now that more accessible tools exist, we should help kids embrace them rather than think it's such a shame that they don't have an Apple ][e because it was way more l33t than what's out there now. I'd love to see more open-source graphical languages designed for kids to learn programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
The iPod and ( I think ) the iPad are communications tools ; they would be miserable development packages no matter what software was loaded onto them.As for teaching tinkering to kids , I think that the situation has changed from when we ( most of us ) were young .
Computers were as new to parents as they were to kids and there was more expectation that you had to use a command line to get things to work .
The whole environment promoted either tinkering or giving up on the whole experience .
Now that computers have more advanced interfaces and parents ( often ) know how to use them there need to be new sets of learning tools for kids.Lego had an excellent , intuitive , graphical programming interface for programming their Lego brick robots ; I imagine that by now it 's even more advanced .
Programming is a great exercise for kids and there are more and more accessible tools out there to make it possible .
Now that more accessible tools exist , we should help kids embrace them rather than think it 's such a shame that they do n't have an Apple ] [ e because it was way more l33t than what 's out there now .
I 'd love to see more open-source graphical languages designed for kids to learn programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
The iPod and (I think) the iPad are communications tools; they would be miserable development packages no matter what software was loaded onto them.As for teaching tinkering to kids, I think that the situation has changed from when we (most of us) were young.
Computers were as new to parents as they were to kids and there was more expectation that you had to use a command line to get things to work.
The whole environment promoted either tinkering or giving up on the whole experience.
Now that computers have more advanced interfaces and parents (often) know how to use them there need to be new sets of learning tools for kids.Lego had an excellent, intuitive, graphical programming interface for programming their Lego brick robots; I imagine that by now it's even more advanced.
Programming is a great exercise for kids and there are more and more accessible tools out there to make it possible.
Now that more accessible tools exist, we should help kids embrace them rather than think it's such a shame that they don't have an Apple ][e because it was way more l33t than what's out there now.
I'd love to see more open-source graphical languages designed for kids to learn programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974468</id>
	<title>Tinker much with your microwave?</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1264936440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The microwave on your kitchen counter started out as a magnetron in a lab that someone was tinkering with. Eventually it was packaged into a home appliance, and now tinkering is more or less impossible. Most people would consider this a good thing.</p><p>Why then, when the same thing happens to computers, do people proclaim it to be a bad thing? Isn't there space in the market for both appliance-like and general-purpose computers, just as there is space in the market for both microwave ovens and raw magnetrons?</p><p>This argument might make sense in a market where it is impossible to tinker -- like cell phones -- but in a market where the vast majority of machines are general-purpose hardware that can be used for any purpose it is simply nostalgic whining from a generation who still sees computers as the one great new technology that will equalize all of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The microwave on your kitchen counter started out as a magnetron in a lab that someone was tinkering with .
Eventually it was packaged into a home appliance , and now tinkering is more or less impossible .
Most people would consider this a good thing.Why then , when the same thing happens to computers , do people proclaim it to be a bad thing ?
Is n't there space in the market for both appliance-like and general-purpose computers , just as there is space in the market for both microwave ovens and raw magnetrons ? This argument might make sense in a market where it is impossible to tinker -- like cell phones -- but in a market where the vast majority of machines are general-purpose hardware that can be used for any purpose it is simply nostalgic whining from a generation who still sees computers as the one great new technology that will equalize all of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The microwave on your kitchen counter started out as a magnetron in a lab that someone was tinkering with.
Eventually it was packaged into a home appliance, and now tinkering is more or less impossible.
Most people would consider this a good thing.Why then, when the same thing happens to computers, do people proclaim it to be a bad thing?
Isn't there space in the market for both appliance-like and general-purpose computers, just as there is space in the market for both microwave ovens and raw magnetrons?This argument might make sense in a market where it is impossible to tinker -- like cell phones -- but in a market where the vast majority of machines are general-purpose hardware that can be used for any purpose it is simply nostalgic whining from a generation who still sees computers as the one great new technology that will equalize all of humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973710</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you meant "It perfectly makes no sense at all".</p><p>You Apple fanboys have perfected the art of being apologists for the inexcusable.  If only Microsoft had such supporters back when they were on the rise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you meant " It perfectly makes no sense at all " .You Apple fanboys have perfected the art of being apologists for the inexcusable .
If only Microsoft had such supporters back when they were on the rise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you meant "It perfectly makes no sense at all".You Apple fanboys have perfected the art of being apologists for the inexcusable.
If only Microsoft had such supporters back when they were on the rise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973132</id>
	<title>Re:Over personalization</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1264929360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except they don't "just work" anymore.  No flash means many websites won't work.  The lockdown of the app store means things don't work as well as they do on other platforms.  My wife's droid interfaces with google voice seemlessly, my iPhone doesn't.</p><p>The fear is that Apple sees the iPhoneOS as the future, and OSX as the past.  The iPad is just a stepping stone.  I wouldn't be surprised if the next macbook runs iPhoneOS, not OSX.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.Except they do n't " just work " anymore .
No flash means many websites wo n't work .
The lockdown of the app store means things do n't work as well as they do on other platforms .
My wife 's droid interfaces with google voice seemlessly , my iPhone does n't.The fear is that Apple sees the iPhoneOS as the future , and OSX as the past .
The iPad is just a stepping stone .
I would n't be surprised if the next macbook runs iPhoneOS , not OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.Except they don't "just work" anymore.
No flash means many websites won't work.
The lockdown of the app store means things don't work as well as they do on other platforms.
My wife's droid interfaces with google voice seemlessly, my iPhone doesn't.The fear is that Apple sees the iPhoneOS as the future, and OSX as the past.
The iPad is just a stepping stone.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next macbook runs iPhoneOS, not OSX.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972320</id>
	<title>How about Python?</title>
	<author>takowl</author>
	<datestamp>1264967880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also cut my teeth on BASIC (slightly later, I used Q-BASIC on Windows machines), and now habitually tinker in python. For starting to program, you can use it in much the same way as BASIC, minus GOTO (and that's not a habit you want to teach them, anyway!). And it's much more powerful if they do want to carry it on.</p><p>No, wait, BASIC did have one thing over Python for children: dead simple, low-res graphics painting. The joy of setting the screen mode and then doing a series of drawing commands. Sadly, DOS emulation in XP didn't include the graphics modes, so all those programs (which I still have, somewhere) are useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also cut my teeth on BASIC ( slightly later , I used Q-BASIC on Windows machines ) , and now habitually tinker in python .
For starting to program , you can use it in much the same way as BASIC , minus GOTO ( and that 's not a habit you want to teach them , anyway ! ) .
And it 's much more powerful if they do want to carry it on.No , wait , BASIC did have one thing over Python for children : dead simple , low-res graphics painting .
The joy of setting the screen mode and then doing a series of drawing commands .
Sadly , DOS emulation in XP did n't include the graphics modes , so all those programs ( which I still have , somewhere ) are useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also cut my teeth on BASIC (slightly later, I used Q-BASIC on Windows machines), and now habitually tinker in python.
For starting to program, you can use it in much the same way as BASIC, minus GOTO (and that's not a habit you want to teach them, anyway!).
And it's much more powerful if they do want to carry it on.No, wait, BASIC did have one thing over Python for children: dead simple, low-res graphics painting.
The joy of setting the screen mode and then doing a series of drawing commands.
Sadly, DOS emulation in XP didn't include the graphics modes, so all those programs (which I still have, somewhere) are useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976978</id>
	<title>Apple interest in tinkering accidental at best.</title>
	<author>Narcogen</author>
	<datestamp>1264955760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a testament to how successful Apple has been in its efforts to make computers "for the rest of us" that such poorly-formed and ill-considered thoughts are able to make it out onto the Internet and land on the front page of a popular website. If any more than minimal effort had been required, presumably this article would not have appeared, and we'd all have been spared one more facepalm for today.</p><p>If one chooses to step out of one's own personal situation for a moment and look at the company being discussed, it's not difficult to see that the company's entire mission and history is based on doing exactly what the article implies is a recent development: moving technology from hobbyists to mass market. The Apple II, here held up as a paragon of a machine for tinkerers, was, in point of fact, exactly the opposite of that within its historical context: it was a personal computer you bought in a plastic case and did not have to assemble yourself. Yes, its design unintentionally made it ideal for hardware hobbyists who could make peripherals, and for software hackers learning the ropes. That was not its intent; that is a side effect. As such, Apple's recent efforts against iPhone jailbreakers is not a new trend; it is one as old as the company itself. Apple emphasizes design and elegance in trying to produce what it thinks is the single best way to accomplish a task to try and streamline those tasks, and will sacrifice power and flexibility to get it. Most tinkerers would not make that tradeoff; intead they seek to maximize power and flexibility at the cost of ease of use.</p><p>Apple does not have a moral obligation to provide for those with an urge to tinker, or to make such devices available to expose people who might have an undiscovered knack for tinkering. That's a phase in the computer industry that is now over, and the fact that it is over says more about the industry than it does about Apple.</p><p>And of course, it goes without saying that most people who used sector copiers on the Apple II were doing it so they could learn about the operating system and eventually become programmers. Not, of course, making free copies of games.</p><p>Aside from the anti-tinkering policies of Apple, much is made of how the iPhone developer program works:</p><blockquote><div><p>Anyone can develop! All you need is a Mac, XCode, an iPhone &ldquo;simulator,&rdquo; and $99 for an auto-expiring developer certificate. The &ldquo;developer certificate&rdquo; is really a cryptographic key that (temporarily) allows you (slightly) elevated access to... your own computer.</p></div></blockquote><p>The implication, of course, is that the distinction between an iPhone belonging to a developer and that belonging to an ordinary user is arbitrary, and that Apple is profiteering off selling access to something that lies dormant in every iPhone.</p><p>Presumably then, this would be acceptable if Apple charged a lot more, removed the functionality from every phone, and produced special "dev kit" versions that cost several times what the ordinary version did. Interestingly enough, that's what Sony and Microsoft do with their consoles. Why people should think of a telephone as something that should be inherently hackable while a game console is not is rather beyond me.</p><blockquote><div><p>"That the iPad is a closed system is harder to forgive. One of the foremost complaints about the iPhone has been Apple&rsquo;s iron fist when it comes to applications and the development direction of the platform. "</p></div></blockquote><p>One of the foremost complaints *from developers* about the iPhone. Ordinary users, I feel safe in saying, mostly don't give a darn. If you try to make the argument from the developer's perspective relevant to the ordinary users, you have to phrase it in terms of what users might be missing out because Apple's policies disallow certain apps or turn off certain developers. However, the App Store has such an embarassment of riches I can't see that argument going anywhere.</p><p>Personally I jailbroke my first two iPhones because there was no App Store when I bought the first, and later there were compelling apps that were not in the store. I now have a factory unlocked 3GS that I have never bothered to jailbreak, because nearly all the capabilities that justified my doing so are now fully supported, and the outlying reasons don't justify the time and effort to do the jailbreak.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a testament to how successful Apple has been in its efforts to make computers " for the rest of us " that such poorly-formed and ill-considered thoughts are able to make it out onto the Internet and land on the front page of a popular website .
If any more than minimal effort had been required , presumably this article would not have appeared , and we 'd all have been spared one more facepalm for today.If one chooses to step out of one 's own personal situation for a moment and look at the company being discussed , it 's not difficult to see that the company 's entire mission and history is based on doing exactly what the article implies is a recent development : moving technology from hobbyists to mass market .
The Apple II , here held up as a paragon of a machine for tinkerers , was , in point of fact , exactly the opposite of that within its historical context : it was a personal computer you bought in a plastic case and did not have to assemble yourself .
Yes , its design unintentionally made it ideal for hardware hobbyists who could make peripherals , and for software hackers learning the ropes .
That was not its intent ; that is a side effect .
As such , Apple 's recent efforts against iPhone jailbreakers is not a new trend ; it is one as old as the company itself .
Apple emphasizes design and elegance in trying to produce what it thinks is the single best way to accomplish a task to try and streamline those tasks , and will sacrifice power and flexibility to get it .
Most tinkerers would not make that tradeoff ; intead they seek to maximize power and flexibility at the cost of ease of use.Apple does not have a moral obligation to provide for those with an urge to tinker , or to make such devices available to expose people who might have an undiscovered knack for tinkering .
That 's a phase in the computer industry that is now over , and the fact that it is over says more about the industry than it does about Apple.And of course , it goes without saying that most people who used sector copiers on the Apple II were doing it so they could learn about the operating system and eventually become programmers .
Not , of course , making free copies of games.Aside from the anti-tinkering policies of Apple , much is made of how the iPhone developer program works : Anyone can develop !
All you need is a Mac , XCode , an iPhone    simulator ,    and $ 99 for an auto-expiring developer certificate .
The    developer certificate    is really a cryptographic key that ( temporarily ) allows you ( slightly ) elevated access to... your own computer.The implication , of course , is that the distinction between an iPhone belonging to a developer and that belonging to an ordinary user is arbitrary , and that Apple is profiteering off selling access to something that lies dormant in every iPhone.Presumably then , this would be acceptable if Apple charged a lot more , removed the functionality from every phone , and produced special " dev kit " versions that cost several times what the ordinary version did .
Interestingly enough , that 's what Sony and Microsoft do with their consoles .
Why people should think of a telephone as something that should be inherently hackable while a game console is not is rather beyond me .
" That the iPad is a closed system is harder to forgive .
One of the foremost complaints about the iPhone has been Apple    s iron fist when it comes to applications and the development direction of the platform .
" One of the foremost complaints * from developers * about the iPhone .
Ordinary users , I feel safe in saying , mostly do n't give a darn .
If you try to make the argument from the developer 's perspective relevant to the ordinary users , you have to phrase it in terms of what users might be missing out because Apple 's policies disallow certain apps or turn off certain developers .
However , the App Store has such an embarassment of riches I ca n't see that argument going anywhere.Personally I jailbroke my first two iPhones because there was no App Store when I bought the first , and later there were compelling apps that were not in the store .
I now have a factory unlocked 3GS that I have never bothered to jailbreak , because nearly all the capabilities that justified my doing so are now fully supported , and the outlying reasons do n't justify the time and effort to do the jailbreak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a testament to how successful Apple has been in its efforts to make computers "for the rest of us" that such poorly-formed and ill-considered thoughts are able to make it out onto the Internet and land on the front page of a popular website.
If any more than minimal effort had been required, presumably this article would not have appeared, and we'd all have been spared one more facepalm for today.If one chooses to step out of one's own personal situation for a moment and look at the company being discussed, it's not difficult to see that the company's entire mission and history is based on doing exactly what the article implies is a recent development: moving technology from hobbyists to mass market.
The Apple II, here held up as a paragon of a machine for tinkerers, was, in point of fact, exactly the opposite of that within its historical context: it was a personal computer you bought in a plastic case and did not have to assemble yourself.
Yes, its design unintentionally made it ideal for hardware hobbyists who could make peripherals, and for software hackers learning the ropes.
That was not its intent; that is a side effect.
As such, Apple's recent efforts against iPhone jailbreakers is not a new trend; it is one as old as the company itself.
Apple emphasizes design and elegance in trying to produce what it thinks is the single best way to accomplish a task to try and streamline those tasks, and will sacrifice power and flexibility to get it.
Most tinkerers would not make that tradeoff; intead they seek to maximize power and flexibility at the cost of ease of use.Apple does not have a moral obligation to provide for those with an urge to tinker, or to make such devices available to expose people who might have an undiscovered knack for tinkering.
That's a phase in the computer industry that is now over, and the fact that it is over says more about the industry than it does about Apple.And of course, it goes without saying that most people who used sector copiers on the Apple II were doing it so they could learn about the operating system and eventually become programmers.
Not, of course, making free copies of games.Aside from the anti-tinkering policies of Apple, much is made of how the iPhone developer program works:Anyone can develop!
All you need is a Mac, XCode, an iPhone “simulator,” and $99 for an auto-expiring developer certificate.
The “developer certificate” is really a cryptographic key that (temporarily) allows you (slightly) elevated access to... your own computer.The implication, of course, is that the distinction between an iPhone belonging to a developer and that belonging to an ordinary user is arbitrary, and that Apple is profiteering off selling access to something that lies dormant in every iPhone.Presumably then, this would be acceptable if Apple charged a lot more, removed the functionality from every phone, and produced special "dev kit" versions that cost several times what the ordinary version did.
Interestingly enough, that's what Sony and Microsoft do with their consoles.
Why people should think of a telephone as something that should be inherently hackable while a game console is not is rather beyond me.
"That the iPad is a closed system is harder to forgive.
One of the foremost complaints about the iPhone has been Apple’s iron fist when it comes to applications and the development direction of the platform.
"One of the foremost complaints *from developers* about the iPhone.
Ordinary users, I feel safe in saying, mostly don't give a darn.
If you try to make the argument from the developer's perspective relevant to the ordinary users, you have to phrase it in terms of what users might be missing out because Apple's policies disallow certain apps or turn off certain developers.
However, the App Store has such an embarassment of riches I can't see that argument going anywhere.Personally I jailbroke my first two iPhones because there was no App Store when I bought the first, and later there were compelling apps that were not in the store.
I now have a factory unlocked 3GS that I have never bothered to jailbreak, because nearly all the capabilities that justified my doing so are now fully supported, and the outlying reasons don't justify the time and effort to do the jailbreak.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976124</id>
	<title>The good old days</title>
	<author>bgspence</author>
	<datestamp>1264947240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure miss the days when the Mac first came out. There were no programming docs at all for about a year, then you could subscribe to them and software supplements for about $5 a month.</p><p>And you had a choice of various developer tools over the years, from Lightspeed, Think and finally Metrowerks. And you could buy various debuggers, and there was Resourcerer for editing resources. I'd spend $300-$500 a year on developer tools if I was on a tight budget.</p><p>Then marketing an app was a really big deal.</p><p>Now all the tools I need come with the system. It's a much less exclusive club of developers. Anyone can write and distribute an app for practically nothing. Way too much competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure miss the days when the Mac first came out .
There were no programming docs at all for about a year , then you could subscribe to them and software supplements for about $ 5 a month.And you had a choice of various developer tools over the years , from Lightspeed , Think and finally Metrowerks .
And you could buy various debuggers , and there was Resourcerer for editing resources .
I 'd spend $ 300- $ 500 a year on developer tools if I was on a tight budget.Then marketing an app was a really big deal.Now all the tools I need come with the system .
It 's a much less exclusive club of developers .
Anyone can write and distribute an app for practically nothing .
Way too much competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure miss the days when the Mac first came out.
There were no programming docs at all for about a year, then you could subscribe to them and software supplements for about $5 a month.And you had a choice of various developer tools over the years, from Lightspeed, Think and finally Metrowerks.
And you could buy various debuggers, and there was Resourcerer for editing resources.
I'd spend $300-$500 a year on developer tools if I was on a tight budget.Then marketing an app was a really big deal.Now all the tools I need come with the system.
It's a much less exclusive club of developers.
Anyone can write and distribute an app for practically nothing.
Way too much competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973232</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1264930020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you <a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500" title="macrumors.com">read the forums</a> [macrumors.com] after the iPod came out, you'd find Apple fans didn't like that either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the forums [ macrumors.com ] after the iPod came out , you 'd find Apple fans did n't like that either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the forums [macrumors.com] after the iPod came out, you'd find Apple fans didn't like that either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900</id>
	<title>Inevitable after Woz left</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1264965900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woz was the tinkerer, who brought the spirit of the tinkerer to Apple. Steve Jobs is the anti-tinkerer; he just wants you to shut up and buy cool looking gadgets from him on a regular schedule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woz was the tinkerer , who brought the spirit of the tinkerer to Apple .
Steve Jobs is the anti-tinkerer ; he just wants you to shut up and buy cool looking gadgets from him on a regular schedule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woz was the tinkerer, who brought the spirit of the tinkerer to Apple.
Steve Jobs is the anti-tinkerer; he just wants you to shut up and buy cool looking gadgets from him on a regular schedule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</id>
	<title>I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a long time I was on the fence about Apple.  I liked their strong sense of making sure everything works<br>
But then I encountered their users, snobby idiots really.  Although it was not because they used Apple, more that those with a specific profession tend to use Macs<br>
Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets. I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in? WTF!<br>
Now yet another reason I dont like Apple, these guys dont seem to realize what they are doing, stagnating their own products by being jackasses about their products.<br>
I have distantly wanted a Mac, just to toy with it... but why?  No reason anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a long time I was on the fence about Apple .
I liked their strong sense of making sure everything works But then I encountered their users , snobby idiots really .
Although it was not because they used Apple , more that those with a specific profession tend to use Macs Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets .
I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in ?
WTF ! Now yet another reason I dont like Apple , these guys dont seem to realize what they are doing , stagnating their own products by being jackasses about their products .
I have distantly wanted a Mac , just to toy with it... but why ?
No reason anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a long time I was on the fence about Apple.
I liked their strong sense of making sure everything works
But then I encountered their users, snobby idiots really.
Although it was not because they used Apple, more that those with a specific profession tend to use Macs
Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets.
I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in?
WTF!
Now yet another reason I dont like Apple, these guys dont seem to realize what they are doing, stagnating their own products by being jackasses about their products.
I have distantly wanted a Mac, just to toy with it... but why?
No reason anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972944</id>
	<title>Re:Another One</title>
	<author>InterStellaArtois</author>
	<datestamp>1264971360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proposition for a Digital Millennium CONSUMER Act: "It's mine so I can do what I like with it (without harming the rights of others, and that does not include the maximisation of the seller's profits).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proposition for a Digital Millennium CONSUMER Act : " It 's mine so I can do what I like with it ( without harming the rights of others , and that does not include the maximisation of the seller 's profits ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proposition for a Digital Millennium CONSUMER Act: "It's mine so I can do what I like with it (without harming the rights of others, and that does not include the maximisation of the seller's profits).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977536</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine.<br>&gt; Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them... they've given up on tinkerers and hackers too.</p><p>Radio Shack of today is not the Radio Shack of our youth but they aren't completely dead yet.<br>Just search for 'Learning Lab' <a href="http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3814337" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3814337</a> [radioshack.com] or 'Snap-Kit' <a href="http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102914" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102914</a> [radioshack.com] to see what they have available.</p><p>Also, IMHO the snap-kits rock.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine. &gt; Alas , Radio Shack no longer sells them... they 've given up on tinkerers and hackers too.Radio Shack of today is not the Radio Shack of our youth but they are n't completely dead yet.Just search for 'Learning Lab ' http : //www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp ? productId = 3814337 [ radioshack.com ] or 'Snap-Kit ' http : //www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp ? productId = 2102914 [ radioshack.com ] to see what they have available.Also , IMHO the snap-kits rock .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine.&gt; Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them... they've given up on tinkerers and hackers too.Radio Shack of today is not the Radio Shack of our youth but they aren't completely dead yet.Just search for 'Learning Lab' http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3814337 [radioshack.com] or 'Snap-Kit' http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102914 [radioshack.com] to see what they have available.Also, IMHO the snap-kits rock.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972444</id>
	<title>Re:Another One</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1264968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines. Hell, there were even magazines with "tricks-n-tips" for useful locations and what values would create what effects. Nowadays I suspect they'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I had the same experience as you (TRS-80 rather than Commodore), but I'm not really convinced by this blog article's argument. The iPad is more of an appliance than a general-purpose computer. I prefer not to own a car that includes a computer I can't tinker with, but a car is qualitatively different from a general-purpose computer.
</p><p>
Others have also complained that since the Apple II days, Apple has drifted toward more closed systems. Well, my experience in the 80's was with a TRS-80, not an Apple II, but I think the situation was pretty similar throughout the whole "microcomputer" industry. Basically it was a hellishly bad environment for tinkerers. Those machines all had MS BASIC in rom, which made it, y'know, kind of hard to tinker with. The roms had various subroutines in them that were useful, but undocumented. People had to disassemble the roms in order to figure out how to access those routines, but if you wrote software that called address 02fc, you knew it was going to break when the next model came out. Hardware was all totally proprietary; it wasn't until the IBM PC that it became possible to go out and buy a generic hard disk or a keyboard and just plug it into a PC.
</p><p>
Moving on to the early Mac era, it's true that Apple was fairly friendly toward hobbyist developers. E.g., they sold Inside Mac, which was a cheap phone-book-formatted guide to all the system calls. But compilers were proprietary and expensive, and all the APIs described in Inside Mac were closed source. Mac hardware was still mostly proprietary. You couldn't use a PS/2 keyboard with a Mac, etc.
</p><p>
Comparing that with modern macs...wow, it's paradise today compared to then. There's a free C compiler. Lots and lots of the OS is open source. Most hardware is nonproprietary.
</p><p>
Of course if you really want an open, tinker-with-able system these days, you want to switch to Linux. That's what I did. But to suggest that Apple has gotten less open over the years seems like a serious distortion to me. They simply don't want to deal with the issues (support, viruses,...) that would come up if they supported the use of an iPod, iPad, etc. as a general-purpose computer. They impose an extra cost on people to get the SDK for these devices. Now personally I don't want to pay extra for the ability to program a computer I own, and that's one of the reasons I don't own an iPod or iPad. But it's not like these devices are totally closed.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines .
Hell , there were even magazines with " tricks-n-tips " for useful locations and what values would create what effects .
Nowadays I suspect they 'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering : - ( I had the same experience as you ( TRS-80 rather than Commodore ) , but I 'm not really convinced by this blog article 's argument .
The iPad is more of an appliance than a general-purpose computer .
I prefer not to own a car that includes a computer I ca n't tinker with , but a car is qualitatively different from a general-purpose computer .
Others have also complained that since the Apple II days , Apple has drifted toward more closed systems .
Well , my experience in the 80 's was with a TRS-80 , not an Apple II , but I think the situation was pretty similar throughout the whole " microcomputer " industry .
Basically it was a hellishly bad environment for tinkerers .
Those machines all had MS BASIC in rom , which made it , y'know , kind of hard to tinker with .
The roms had various subroutines in them that were useful , but undocumented .
People had to disassemble the roms in order to figure out how to access those routines , but if you wrote software that called address 02fc , you knew it was going to break when the next model came out .
Hardware was all totally proprietary ; it was n't until the IBM PC that it became possible to go out and buy a generic hard disk or a keyboard and just plug it into a PC .
Moving on to the early Mac era , it 's true that Apple was fairly friendly toward hobbyist developers .
E.g. , they sold Inside Mac , which was a cheap phone-book-formatted guide to all the system calls .
But compilers were proprietary and expensive , and all the APIs described in Inside Mac were closed source .
Mac hardware was still mostly proprietary .
You could n't use a PS/2 keyboard with a Mac , etc .
Comparing that with modern macs...wow , it 's paradise today compared to then .
There 's a free C compiler .
Lots and lots of the OS is open source .
Most hardware is nonproprietary .
Of course if you really want an open , tinker-with-able system these days , you want to switch to Linux .
That 's what I did .
But to suggest that Apple has gotten less open over the years seems like a serious distortion to me .
They simply do n't want to deal with the issues ( support , viruses,... ) that would come up if they supported the use of an iPod , iPad , etc .
as a general-purpose computer .
They impose an extra cost on people to get the SDK for these devices .
Now personally I do n't want to pay extra for the ability to program a computer I own , and that 's one of the reasons I do n't own an iPod or iPad .
But it 's not like these devices are totally closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines.
Hell, there were even magazines with "tricks-n-tips" for useful locations and what values would create what effects.
Nowadays I suspect they'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering :-(

I had the same experience as you (TRS-80 rather than Commodore), but I'm not really convinced by this blog article's argument.
The iPad is more of an appliance than a general-purpose computer.
I prefer not to own a car that includes a computer I can't tinker with, but a car is qualitatively different from a general-purpose computer.
Others have also complained that since the Apple II days, Apple has drifted toward more closed systems.
Well, my experience in the 80's was with a TRS-80, not an Apple II, but I think the situation was pretty similar throughout the whole "microcomputer" industry.
Basically it was a hellishly bad environment for tinkerers.
Those machines all had MS BASIC in rom, which made it, y'know, kind of hard to tinker with.
The roms had various subroutines in them that were useful, but undocumented.
People had to disassemble the roms in order to figure out how to access those routines, but if you wrote software that called address 02fc, you knew it was going to break when the next model came out.
Hardware was all totally proprietary; it wasn't until the IBM PC that it became possible to go out and buy a generic hard disk or a keyboard and just plug it into a PC.
Moving on to the early Mac era, it's true that Apple was fairly friendly toward hobbyist developers.
E.g., they sold Inside Mac, which was a cheap phone-book-formatted guide to all the system calls.
But compilers were proprietary and expensive, and all the APIs described in Inside Mac were closed source.
Mac hardware was still mostly proprietary.
You couldn't use a PS/2 keyboard with a Mac, etc.
Comparing that with modern macs...wow, it's paradise today compared to then.
There's a free C compiler.
Lots and lots of the OS is open source.
Most hardware is nonproprietary.
Of course if you really want an open, tinker-with-able system these days, you want to switch to Linux.
That's what I did.
But to suggest that Apple has gotten less open over the years seems like a serious distortion to me.
They simply don't want to deal with the issues (support, viruses,...) that would come up if they supported the use of an iPod, iPad, etc.
as a general-purpose computer.
They impose an extra cost on people to get the SDK for these devices.
Now personally I don't want to pay extra for the ability to program a computer I own, and that's one of the reasons I don't own an iPod or iPad.
But it's not like these devices are totally closed.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.31002834</id>
	<title>Re:You say "jailbreak", I say "Trojan."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265114400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know they are more secure. Because they are running on a phone? Have you tried sniffing the traffic to see what is actually going on? Have you verified that they are properly protecting their memory space, and that the OS is enforcing those protections? Have you verified that they aren't storing cache in an accessible space? Have you even checked to see if they are at least using SSL/TLS with reasonable keys?</p><p>You're assuming that it is more secure because it's on a locked down device. In reality, it could be as wide open as a field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know they are more secure .
Because they are running on a phone ?
Have you tried sniffing the traffic to see what is actually going on ?
Have you verified that they are properly protecting their memory space , and that the OS is enforcing those protections ?
Have you verified that they are n't storing cache in an accessible space ?
Have you even checked to see if they are at least using SSL/TLS with reasonable keys ? You 're assuming that it is more secure because it 's on a locked down device .
In reality , it could be as wide open as a field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know they are more secure.
Because they are running on a phone?
Have you tried sniffing the traffic to see what is actually going on?
Have you verified that they are properly protecting their memory space, and that the OS is enforcing those protections?
Have you verified that they aren't storing cache in an accessible space?
Have you even checked to see if they are at least using SSL/TLS with reasonable keys?You're assuming that it is more secure because it's on a locked down device.
In reality, it could be as wide open as a field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973242</id>
	<title>I'm sorry...</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1264930140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your just now realizing this?  Where the hell have you been?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your just now realizing this ?
Where the hell have you been ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your just now realizing this?
Where the hell have you been?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978432</id>
	<title>Re:Over personalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well does her droid interface fine with MobileMe? To me its no suprise that the Droid works with Google Voice and the iPhone dosn't (the web interface aside, and I am aware that apple didn't put it on the App store)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well does her droid interface fine with MobileMe ?
To me its no suprise that the Droid works with Google Voice and the iPhone dos n't ( the web interface aside , and I am aware that apple did n't put it on the App store )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well does her droid interface fine with MobileMe?
To me its no suprise that the Droid works with Google Voice and the iPhone dosn't (the web interface aside, and I am aware that apple didn't put it on the App store)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973666</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Cheech Wizard</author>
	<datestamp>1264932180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My father used to tell me how neat it was when an airplane flew overhead. All the kids would look up and few had ever seen one close up. There was a sense of amazement and wonderment for him and his friends. Alas, today aircraft are so ubiquitous the amazement and wonderment is for the most part lost on today's youth. So it is with computers. 100 years from now anyone who digs up this discussion thread will chuckle just as I do when I think of my father and his amazement and wonderment of 'flying machines'. I'm 60 years old now. I took my first airplane flight (Cincinnati, Ohio to Alanta, GA) at age 5 in 1955. Almost 20 year later (and many, many commercial flights later) I got my pilots license. I haven't flown as PIV in almost 25 years (it just got too expensive for me), but it sure was fun. My point is simply that things change whether you like it or not, and the changes will not always coincide with what you think they should. People have been telling the next generation about the 'good old days' for centuries. You are already doing the same thing. My point is for each thing amazement and wonderment of is lost on, something newer and even more amazing and wonderful will take its place. It won't be many years and computers as we know them will be things of the past just as the horse and buggy have passed into history for all intents and purposes. WoW! And to think when I first learned to program it was all punch cards...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My father used to tell me how neat it was when an airplane flew overhead .
All the kids would look up and few had ever seen one close up .
There was a sense of amazement and wonderment for him and his friends .
Alas , today aircraft are so ubiquitous the amazement and wonderment is for the most part lost on today 's youth .
So it is with computers .
100 years from now anyone who digs up this discussion thread will chuckle just as I do when I think of my father and his amazement and wonderment of 'flying machines' .
I 'm 60 years old now .
I took my first airplane flight ( Cincinnati , Ohio to Alanta , GA ) at age 5 in 1955 .
Almost 20 year later ( and many , many commercial flights later ) I got my pilots license .
I have n't flown as PIV in almost 25 years ( it just got too expensive for me ) , but it sure was fun .
My point is simply that things change whether you like it or not , and the changes will not always coincide with what you think they should .
People have been telling the next generation about the 'good old days ' for centuries .
You are already doing the same thing .
My point is for each thing amazement and wonderment of is lost on , something newer and even more amazing and wonderful will take its place .
It wo n't be many years and computers as we know them will be things of the past just as the horse and buggy have passed into history for all intents and purposes .
WoW ! And to think when I first learned to program it was all punch cards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father used to tell me how neat it was when an airplane flew overhead.
All the kids would look up and few had ever seen one close up.
There was a sense of amazement and wonderment for him and his friends.
Alas, today aircraft are so ubiquitous the amazement and wonderment is for the most part lost on today's youth.
So it is with computers.
100 years from now anyone who digs up this discussion thread will chuckle just as I do when I think of my father and his amazement and wonderment of 'flying machines'.
I'm 60 years old now.
I took my first airplane flight (Cincinnati, Ohio to Alanta, GA) at age 5 in 1955.
Almost 20 year later (and many, many commercial flights later) I got my pilots license.
I haven't flown as PIV in almost 25 years (it just got too expensive for me), but it sure was fun.
My point is simply that things change whether you like it or not, and the changes will not always coincide with what you think they should.
People have been telling the next generation about the 'good old days' for centuries.
You are already doing the same thing.
My point is for each thing amazement and wonderment of is lost on, something newer and even more amazing and wonderful will take its place.
It won't be many years and computers as we know them will be things of the past just as the horse and buggy have passed into history for all intents and purposes.
WoW! And to think when I first learned to program it was all punch cards...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</id>
	<title>Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1264966020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it. They can't figure out what to use it for or they don't like the restrictions. A lot of tablets are coming out this year that are more open.</p><p>Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad. You can only buy more content from apple. I'm wondering if apple did any market research before they crippled it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans do n't seem to like it .
They ca n't figure out what to use it for or they do n't like the restrictions .
A lot of tablets are coming out this year that are more open.Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you ca n't do any of that on the ipad .
You can only buy more content from apple .
I 'm wondering if apple did any market research before they crippled it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it.
They can't figure out what to use it for or they don't like the restrictions.
A lot of tablets are coming out this year that are more open.Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad.
You can only buy more content from apple.
I'm wondering if apple did any market research before they crippled it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974588</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because no techies are ever snobs, amirite?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because no techies are ever snobs , amirite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because no techies are ever snobs, amirite?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977800</id>
	<title>Smile White Pro</title>
	<author>nathaner</author>
	<datestamp>1264963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may never happen. The board of the company choices when it is going to split. I recommend that you sell your Apple stock because it is the highest it is going to go. If you sell now you will make a huge profit.
<a href="http://smilewhitepro.org/" title="smilewhitepro.org" rel="nofollow">Smile White Pro</a> [smilewhitepro.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may never happen .
The board of the company choices when it is going to split .
I recommend that you sell your Apple stock because it is the highest it is going to go .
If you sell now you will make a huge profit .
Smile White Pro [ smilewhitepro.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may never happen.
The board of the company choices when it is going to split.
I recommend that you sell your Apple stock because it is the highest it is going to go.
If you sell now you will make a huge profit.
Smile White Pro [smilewhitepro.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971958</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen the prices. 'Give them OS X' is not really the correct phrase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen the prices .
'Give them OS X ' is not really the correct phrase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen the prices.
'Give them OS X' is not really the correct phrase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977248</id>
	<title>Re:Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The simple fact is that 98\% of people out there just want their computer to work. They don't care about getting under the hood. If it plays their youtube videos, netflix streaming content, and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy, they're happy. That's all that's needed. So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.</p></div><p>Not really. Today's tinkerer is tomorrow's programmer, and as Monkey Boy so cleverly put it, it's all about "developers, developers, developers!". Microsoft doesn't hold over 90\% of the world's desktop marketshare because their OS is a marvel of engineering and their farts smell of sunflowers, they do it because for whatever crap you may think of, somebody, *somewhere* wrote an app to make your life easier at it, and he did it for Microsoft's platform, using Microsoft's tools that were likely given to him for free by Microsoft themselves.</p><p>Screw too much with tinkerers, and you run out of developers. Run out of developers, and your shiny platform with all its usability wonders gets bought only by a few idiots with more money than common sense, while everybody else dismisses it as an useless toy. I'm sure you can think of a couple examples of those on your own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple fact is that 98 \ % of people out there just want their computer to work .
They do n't care about getting under the hood .
If it plays their youtube videos , netflix streaming content , and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy , they 're happy .
That 's all that 's needed .
So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.Not really .
Today 's tinkerer is tomorrow 's programmer , and as Monkey Boy so cleverly put it , it 's all about " developers , developers , developers ! " .
Microsoft does n't hold over 90 \ % of the world 's desktop marketshare because their OS is a marvel of engineering and their farts smell of sunflowers , they do it because for whatever crap you may think of , somebody , * somewhere * wrote an app to make your life easier at it , and he did it for Microsoft 's platform , using Microsoft 's tools that were likely given to him for free by Microsoft themselves.Screw too much with tinkerers , and you run out of developers .
Run out of developers , and your shiny platform with all its usability wonders gets bought only by a few idiots with more money than common sense , while everybody else dismisses it as an useless toy .
I 'm sure you can think of a couple examples of those on your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple fact is that 98\% of people out there just want their computer to work.
They don't care about getting under the hood.
If it plays their youtube videos, netflix streaming content, and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy, they're happy.
That's all that's needed.
So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.Not really.
Today's tinkerer is tomorrow's programmer, and as Monkey Boy so cleverly put it, it's all about "developers, developers, developers!".
Microsoft doesn't hold over 90\% of the world's desktop marketshare because their OS is a marvel of engineering and their farts smell of sunflowers, they do it because for whatever crap you may think of, somebody, *somewhere* wrote an app to make your life easier at it, and he did it for Microsoft's platform, using Microsoft's tools that were likely given to him for free by Microsoft themselves.Screw too much with tinkerers, and you run out of developers.
Run out of developers, and your shiny platform with all its usability wonders gets bought only by a few idiots with more money than common sense, while everybody else dismisses it as an useless toy.
I'm sure you can think of a couple examples of those on your own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973332</id>
	<title>Re:Another One</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the same way. I started out on an Atari 800. But back then, computer companies didn't have to deliver any particular type of experience. It was up to you to make it work to fit your needs. Today the world depends on computing devices for everything and everyone so it makes sense that they only work the way typical user needs them to.</p><p>I still have an Atari hooked up for when I want some bare metal 6502 action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the same way .
I started out on an Atari 800 .
But back then , computer companies did n't have to deliver any particular type of experience .
It was up to you to make it work to fit your needs .
Today the world depends on computing devices for everything and everyone so it makes sense that they only work the way typical user needs them to.I still have an Atari hooked up for when I want some bare metal 6502 action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the same way.
I started out on an Atari 800.
But back then, computer companies didn't have to deliver any particular type of experience.
It was up to you to make it work to fit your needs.
Today the world depends on computing devices for everything and everyone so it makes sense that they only work the way typical user needs them to.I still have an Atari hooked up for when I want some bare metal 6502 action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972298</id>
	<title>No Hacking Tools for iPad</title>
	<author>Your Anus</author>
	<datestamp>1264967700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course there won't be hacking tools for the iPad. It's not going to be on sale long enough for hackers to get one. It's the new Apple Newton with less flexibility. Only hardcore iFags are even looking at it, and they think it sucks.

I suppose someone will tear it down and start reverse-engineering it with a logic analyzer, but it's not going to be worth the effort. Even Apple has much better hardware already shipping. They should have made up a MacBook Tablet or some such.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there wo n't be hacking tools for the iPad .
It 's not going to be on sale long enough for hackers to get one .
It 's the new Apple Newton with less flexibility .
Only hardcore iFags are even looking at it , and they think it sucks .
I suppose someone will tear it down and start reverse-engineering it with a logic analyzer , but it 's not going to be worth the effort .
Even Apple has much better hardware already shipping .
They should have made up a MacBook Tablet or some such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there won't be hacking tools for the iPad.
It's not going to be on sale long enough for hackers to get one.
It's the new Apple Newton with less flexibility.
Only hardcore iFags are even looking at it, and they think it sucks.
I suppose someone will tear it down and start reverse-engineering it with a logic analyzer, but it's not going to be worth the effort.
Even Apple has much better hardware already shipping.
They should have made up a MacBook Tablet or some such.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How are "making a device that can be used by anybody" and "allowing open development" mutually exclusive?  I'm pretty sure Mac OSX has shown that it's not.  Charging $99 for the SDK does nothing to make the device easy to use for computer idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are " making a device that can be used by anybody " and " allowing open development " mutually exclusive ?
I 'm pretty sure Mac OSX has shown that it 's not .
Charging $ 99 for the SDK does nothing to make the device easy to use for computer idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are "making a device that can be used by anybody" and "allowing open development" mutually exclusive?
I'm pretty sure Mac OSX has shown that it's not.
Charging $99 for the SDK does nothing to make the device easy to use for computer idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972792</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264970520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You can make a device usable without denying the ability to run your own software.
</p><p>
Without denying the ability of the hobbyist to develop software for the device without paying <b>$500</b> a year for the "Apple development program"
</p><p>
Without requiring every developer get a certificate and go through this complex process of <b>authorizing</b> their own software for their device for testing.
</p><p>
Without requiring every hacker to go through this "app approval"  process, to let their friends (or customers) install the app on their own devices.
</p><p>
In other words: <b>Making a usable device</b> is  absolutely no excuse for all this.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can make a device usable without denying the ability to run your own software .
Without denying the ability of the hobbyist to develop software for the device without paying $ 500 a year for the " Apple development program " Without requiring every developer get a certificate and go through this complex process of authorizing their own software for their device for testing .
Without requiring every hacker to go through this " app approval " process , to let their friends ( or customers ) install the app on their own devices .
In other words : Making a usable device is absolutely no excuse for all this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You can make a device usable without denying the ability to run your own software.
Without denying the ability of the hobbyist to develop software for the device without paying $500 a year for the "Apple development program"

Without requiring every developer get a certificate and go through this complex process of authorizing their own software for their device for testing.
Without requiring every hacker to go through this "app approval"  process, to let their friends (or customers) install the app on their own devices.
In other words: Making a usable device is  absolutely no excuse for all this.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978376</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1265015340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine. Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them..."</p><p>In Japan, they sell these kinds of things at the bookstore, in the kids section or magazine section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine .
Alas , Radio Shack no longer sells them... " In Japan , they sell these kinds of things at the bookstore , in the kids section or magazine section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine.
Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them..."In Japan, they sell these kinds of things at the bookstore, in the kids section or magazine section.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973024</id>
	<title>Buy a Mac if you want to tinker with Apple stuff.</title>
	<author>DougReed</author>
	<datestamp>1264928580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sheesh!  This thing is a cross between a phone and a PDA.  Who cares?  it isn't a 'Computer'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  sure it has a computer in it, but so does my BMW and the GPS on my boat, but I don't feel any inescapable urge to hack into my GPS unit.  I write software on my PC, my Mac, my Solaris box, and my Kubuntu box all the time, but I have no desire to hack on my Smartphone.</p><p>Apple is trying to build a reliable consumer device, and keeping it pretty standard is the best way to do that, so teach your kid to program his computer and tell him not to mess with the ABS system in your Toyota.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheesh !
This thing is a cross between a phone and a PDA .
Who cares ?
it is n't a 'Computer ' .. sure it has a computer in it , but so does my BMW and the GPS on my boat , but I do n't feel any inescapable urge to hack into my GPS unit .
I write software on my PC , my Mac , my Solaris box , and my Kubuntu box all the time , but I have no desire to hack on my Smartphone.Apple is trying to build a reliable consumer device , and keeping it pretty standard is the best way to do that , so teach your kid to program his computer and tell him not to mess with the ABS system in your Toyota .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheesh!
This thing is a cross between a phone and a PDA.
Who cares?
it isn't a 'Computer' ..  sure it has a computer in it, but so does my BMW and the GPS on my boat, but I don't feel any inescapable urge to hack into my GPS unit.
I write software on my PC, my Mac, my Solaris box, and my Kubuntu box all the time, but I have no desire to hack on my Smartphone.Apple is trying to build a reliable consumer device, and keeping it pretty standard is the best way to do that, so teach your kid to program his computer and tell him not to mess with the ABS system in your Toyota.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972732</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>ProfMobius</author>
	<datestamp>1264970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Allowing people to thinker directly with the iPad and not trough a SDK wouldn't reduce the usability of the device.<p> Even if the basic consumer of a iPad is someone who don't care about computers, why going directly against a group of the population who do indeed care ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allowing people to thinker directly with the iPad and not trough a SDK would n't reduce the usability of the device .
Even if the basic consumer of a iPad is someone who do n't care about computers , why going directly against a group of the population who do indeed care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allowing people to thinker directly with the iPad and not trough a SDK wouldn't reduce the usability of the device.
Even if the basic consumer of a iPad is someone who don't care about computers, why going directly against a group of the population who do indeed care ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972190</id>
	<title>This is silly</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1264967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this person did on his Apple ][e was write software.  You know what?  The mac comes with a sophisticated IDE for free! Any one can buy the computer and write software. It is not like writing software for the ][e because we know how to write that software.  We are beyond shape tables. I thank the heavens that we are past the bastardized language called Pascal. PL is more popular.
<p>
When I was in grade 7-12 school, we had mainframes to learn how to program as well as the Apple.  We did Fortran and C and Basic.   On the Apple we burn EEPROMs for our embedded computer.On my Apple and peripherals I hacked the hardware and soldered in new functionality.  In college we used every machine under the Sun to control experiments and analyze data. Such things taught me the difference between GPC and embedded devices and taught me that software is not all there is to computers.
</p><p>
There is nothing I did back then that I cannot do on the Mac. About the only thing that is missing is PLD software.  The only difference is that software is much more sophisticated, so the learning curve is steeper, but the process is simpler.
</p><p>
Comparing an Apple][ to a iPod or iPhone is also silly. The later are embedded devices.  It is like complaining one can't software hack a thermostat.  Given no mention of Forth in the article(BTW forth was built into Macs until the Intel Mac) I suspect the writer could not hack it anyway.
</p><p>
If the writers wants to teach kids about tinkering, then most hardware is simply too complex anyway.  There are too many levels of abstractions between the hardware and User.  I suggest a subscription to <a href="http://www.circellar.com/" title="circellar.com">circuit celler</a> [circellar.com].  In this issue we have a teletext based tv interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this person did on his Apple ] [ e was write software .
You know what ?
The mac comes with a sophisticated IDE for free !
Any one can buy the computer and write software .
It is not like writing software for the ] [ e because we know how to write that software .
We are beyond shape tables .
I thank the heavens that we are past the bastardized language called Pascal .
PL is more popular .
When I was in grade 7-12 school , we had mainframes to learn how to program as well as the Apple .
We did Fortran and C and Basic .
On the Apple we burn EEPROMs for our embedded computer.On my Apple and peripherals I hacked the hardware and soldered in new functionality .
In college we used every machine under the Sun to control experiments and analyze data .
Such things taught me the difference between GPC and embedded devices and taught me that software is not all there is to computers .
There is nothing I did back then that I can not do on the Mac .
About the only thing that is missing is PLD software .
The only difference is that software is much more sophisticated , so the learning curve is steeper , but the process is simpler .
Comparing an Apple ] [ to a iPod or iPhone is also silly .
The later are embedded devices .
It is like complaining one ca n't software hack a thermostat .
Given no mention of Forth in the article ( BTW forth was built into Macs until the Intel Mac ) I suspect the writer could not hack it anyway .
If the writers wants to teach kids about tinkering , then most hardware is simply too complex anyway .
There are too many levels of abstractions between the hardware and User .
I suggest a subscription to circuit celler [ circellar.com ] .
In this issue we have a teletext based tv interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this person did on his Apple ][e was write software.
You know what?
The mac comes with a sophisticated IDE for free!
Any one can buy the computer and write software.
It is not like writing software for the ][e because we know how to write that software.
We are beyond shape tables.
I thank the heavens that we are past the bastardized language called Pascal.
PL is more popular.
When I was in grade 7-12 school, we had mainframes to learn how to program as well as the Apple.
We did Fortran and C and Basic.
On the Apple we burn EEPROMs for our embedded computer.On my Apple and peripherals I hacked the hardware and soldered in new functionality.
In college we used every machine under the Sun to control experiments and analyze data.
Such things taught me the difference between GPC and embedded devices and taught me that software is not all there is to computers.
There is nothing I did back then that I cannot do on the Mac.
About the only thing that is missing is PLD software.
The only difference is that software is much more sophisticated, so the learning curve is steeper, but the process is simpler.
Comparing an Apple][ to a iPod or iPhone is also silly.
The later are embedded devices.
It is like complaining one can't software hack a thermostat.
Given no mention of Forth in the article(BTW forth was built into Macs until the Intel Mac) I suspect the writer could not hack it anyway.
If the writers wants to teach kids about tinkering, then most hardware is simply too complex anyway.
There are too many levels of abstractions between the hardware and User.
I suggest a subscription to circuit celler [circellar.com].
In this issue we have a teletext based tv interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975432</id>
	<title>What people \_do\_ want</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264942920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They don't *care* - that's not what they want out of a computer.</p></div><p>Sure.  But one thing they do want: low prices.  With a monopoly, you don't get that.  With Apple as the gatekeeper to their own walled garden, they could potentially become a monopoly---I seem to recall a lawsuit in France about Apple having and abusing monopoly power in the online music sales space (you can look up the details; the point: I'm not a lone "Apple m0n0pollies!!11" crackpot)</p><p>What open platforms offer is richer competition: if I can install any application on my $DEVICE, I can in particular install a non-$DEVICE-maker one.  More competition, lower prices.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.</p></div><p>I don't want to adjust to a world where I can't call the shots regarding what my computer do, because I don't want that world.</p><p>Hopefully I won't have to make do with such a world.  I think I've made a case for why openness will survive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't * care * - that 's not what they want out of a computer.Sure .
But one thing they do want : low prices .
With a monopoly , you do n't get that .
With Apple as the gatekeeper to their own walled garden , they could potentially become a monopoly---I seem to recall a lawsuit in France about Apple having and abusing monopoly power in the online music sales space ( you can look up the details ; the point : I 'm not a lone " Apple m0n0pollies !
! 11 " crackpot ) What open platforms offer is richer competition : if I can install any application on my $ DEVICE , I can in particular install a non- $ DEVICE-maker one .
More competition , lower prices.The sooner computer nerds realize that , the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.I do n't want to adjust to a world where I ca n't call the shots regarding what my computer do , because I do n't want that world.Hopefully I wo n't have to make do with such a world .
I think I 've made a case for why openness will survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't *care* - that's not what they want out of a computer.Sure.
But one thing they do want: low prices.
With a monopoly, you don't get that.
With Apple as the gatekeeper to their own walled garden, they could potentially become a monopoly---I seem to recall a lawsuit in France about Apple having and abusing monopoly power in the online music sales space (you can look up the details; the point: I'm not a lone "Apple m0n0pollies!
!11" crackpot)What open platforms offer is richer competition: if I can install any application on my $DEVICE, I can in particular install a non-$DEVICE-maker one.
More competition, lower prices.The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.I don't want to adjust to a world where I can't call the shots regarding what my computer do, because I don't want that world.Hopefully I won't have to make do with such a world.
I think I've made a case for why openness will survive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972642</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stagnating their own products? I can think of at least <a href="http://www.apple.com/ipad/app-store/" title="apple.com">140K</a> [apple.com] ways to prove you wrong there. Also, on your DRM quip, show me 1 thing the MS or Linux camps have done to convince the media companies to drop DRM. MS is busy pushing their own patent and DRM encumbered WMA/WMV, while Linux has no relationship with any of the media companies. Could Apple do more? Perhaps. However, they were instrumental in getting DRM removed from online music sales and (with a bit of time) maybe the same thing will happen to online video sales. Also, just so you know, Apple provides their compiler and IDE for free on the Mac, and there are zero / zip / no restrictions on what you can build there. In fact OS X offers Perl, Ruby, Python, and Java runtimes as well as the GNU toolchains. Also, if you cough up $100 (1/3 the cost of Visual Studio alone), you can get your own cert to do WHATEVER the hell you want on your iPod / iPhone / iPad and 100 of your closest friends devices. If what you want to do falls within some guidelines, you can go beyond your 100 friends and give that app to 60 million of your closest friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stagnating their own products ?
I can think of at least 140K [ apple.com ] ways to prove you wrong there .
Also , on your DRM quip , show me 1 thing the MS or Linux camps have done to convince the media companies to drop DRM .
MS is busy pushing their own patent and DRM encumbered WMA/WMV , while Linux has no relationship with any of the media companies .
Could Apple do more ?
Perhaps. However , they were instrumental in getting DRM removed from online music sales and ( with a bit of time ) maybe the same thing will happen to online video sales .
Also , just so you know , Apple provides their compiler and IDE for free on the Mac , and there are zero / zip / no restrictions on what you can build there .
In fact OS X offers Perl , Ruby , Python , and Java runtimes as well as the GNU toolchains .
Also , if you cough up $ 100 ( 1/3 the cost of Visual Studio alone ) , you can get your own cert to do WHATEVER the hell you want on your iPod / iPhone / iPad and 100 of your closest friends devices .
If what you want to do falls within some guidelines , you can go beyond your 100 friends and give that app to 60 million of your closest friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stagnating their own products?
I can think of at least 140K [apple.com] ways to prove you wrong there.
Also, on your DRM quip, show me 1 thing the MS or Linux camps have done to convince the media companies to drop DRM.
MS is busy pushing their own patent and DRM encumbered WMA/WMV, while Linux has no relationship with any of the media companies.
Could Apple do more?
Perhaps. However, they were instrumental in getting DRM removed from online music sales and (with a bit of time) maybe the same thing will happen to online video sales.
Also, just so you know, Apple provides their compiler and IDE for free on the Mac, and there are zero / zip / no restrictions on what you can build there.
In fact OS X offers Perl, Ruby, Python, and Java runtimes as well as the GNU toolchains.
Also, if you cough up $100 (1/3 the cost of Visual Studio alone), you can get your own cert to do WHATEVER the hell you want on your iPod / iPhone / iPad and 100 of your closest friends devices.
If what you want to do falls within some guidelines, you can go beyond your 100 friends and give that app to 60 million of your closest friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977924</id>
	<title>iPhone/iPad can also provide opportunities</title>
	<author>ispiele</author>
	<datestamp>1264965840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty much any device can be tinkered with, assuming the tinkerer has the right combination of curiosity and determination.  Those of you who remember how easy it was "back in the day" are forgetting how rare (and expensive) computers were, and the desire to actually program one?  It took a special kind of person to spend hours at home learning Basic instead of playing with the other kids outside.
<br> <br>
These days, a kid who's curious about what makes the iPhone tick, can Google the answer in 30 seconds.  One Mac Mini, keyboard, and monitor later he can start tinkering.  Throw in another $99 for the iPhone development certificate and he can put his applications on his iPhone.  Total cost: ~$700.  The computer my parents bought me in 1992 to learn C cost over $3000.
<br> <br>
Even better, if the kid tinkers for awhile and gets to the point where he can make something halfway decent (or clever), he can throw it on the App Store and have a chance to actually make some money!  There's quite a few teenagers hanging out on the iPhone development forums who are doing just that and actually making some decent money (for a teenager).  It's pretty amazing actually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much any device can be tinkered with , assuming the tinkerer has the right combination of curiosity and determination .
Those of you who remember how easy it was " back in the day " are forgetting how rare ( and expensive ) computers were , and the desire to actually program one ?
It took a special kind of person to spend hours at home learning Basic instead of playing with the other kids outside .
These days , a kid who 's curious about what makes the iPhone tick , can Google the answer in 30 seconds .
One Mac Mini , keyboard , and monitor later he can start tinkering .
Throw in another $ 99 for the iPhone development certificate and he can put his applications on his iPhone .
Total cost : ~ $ 700 .
The computer my parents bought me in 1992 to learn C cost over $ 3000 .
Even better , if the kid tinkers for awhile and gets to the point where he can make something halfway decent ( or clever ) , he can throw it on the App Store and have a chance to actually make some money !
There 's quite a few teenagers hanging out on the iPhone development forums who are doing just that and actually making some decent money ( for a teenager ) .
It 's pretty amazing actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much any device can be tinkered with, assuming the tinkerer has the right combination of curiosity and determination.
Those of you who remember how easy it was "back in the day" are forgetting how rare (and expensive) computers were, and the desire to actually program one?
It took a special kind of person to spend hours at home learning Basic instead of playing with the other kids outside.
These days, a kid who's curious about what makes the iPhone tick, can Google the answer in 30 seconds.
One Mac Mini, keyboard, and monitor later he can start tinkering.
Throw in another $99 for the iPhone development certificate and he can put his applications on his iPhone.
Total cost: ~$700.
The computer my parents bought me in 1992 to learn C cost over $3000.
Even better, if the kid tinkers for awhile and gets to the point where he can make something halfway decent (or clever), he can throw it on the App Store and have a chance to actually make some money!
There's quite a few teenagers hanging out on the iPhone development forums who are doing just that and actually making some decent money (for a teenager).
It's pretty amazing actually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972518</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1264969080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It was nice to be able to tinker with early Apples because there were few alternatives. </i> <p>
and few alternatives were needed, because we had the APPLE }{.<br>
Hopefully, NetBSD and Linux/Maemo will be on the iThing before I can afford one anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was nice to be able to tinker with early Apples because there were few alternatives .
and few alternatives were needed , because we had the APPLE } { .
Hopefully , NetBSD and Linux/Maemo will be on the iThing before I can afford one anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was nice to be able to tinker with early Apples because there were few alternatives.
and few alternatives were needed, because we had the APPLE }{.
Hopefully, NetBSD and Linux/Maemo will be on the iThing before I can afford one anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30983030</id>
	<title>Ewoks word for Princess Leia...</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1265047260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of tightly wound hairpieces, might not that be back-translated as "You bun two"?  I'll admit precious few of us who cut our teeth on Apple ][+ at the age of 42 are tinkering with the Linux kernel, but as a sandbox Ubuntu does offer plenty of opportunities for non-productive timewasting and golden idleness.  BASH was fun, but now we've got Perl and Ruby and just recently I stumbled over Code::Blocks IDE, so C is back in the playpen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of tightly wound hairpieces , might not that be back-translated as " You bun two " ?
I 'll admit precious few of us who cut our teeth on Apple ] [ + at the age of 42 are tinkering with the Linux kernel , but as a sandbox Ubuntu does offer plenty of opportunities for non-productive timewasting and golden idleness .
BASH was fun , but now we 've got Perl and Ruby and just recently I stumbled over Code : : Blocks IDE , so C is back in the playpen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of tightly wound hairpieces, might not that be back-translated as "You bun two"?
I'll admit precious few of us who cut our teeth on Apple ][+ at the age of 42 are tinkering with the Linux kernel, but as a sandbox Ubuntu does offer plenty of opportunities for non-productive timewasting and golden idleness.
BASH was fun, but now we've got Perl and Ruby and just recently I stumbled over Code::Blocks IDE, so C is back in the playpen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975924</id>
	<title>Programming in the old days</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1264945980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I remember the time when home computers came with BASIC interpreters.  That was neat.  You know what wasn't?
</p><p>
Paying for anything beyond the BASIC interpreter.  I paid maybe $60 for my TRS-80 assembler, and that was in roughly 1980 dollars.  In order to get into anything beyond that, I had to pay hundreds of dollars.
</p><p>
The TRS-80 Model 4 and 4P ran standard CP/M nicely, and there were lots of language systems available.  For hundreds of dollars, and again we're talking about 1980-era dollars.
</p><p>
Right now, any computer you're likely to buy comes with an operating system suitable for serious software development, and you can get all sorts of language implementations for free.  Apple's XCode comes with every Mac, and you can download SDKs for the iP*s.  Microsoft lets you download VS Express Editions for free.  Beyond that, there's hundreds of high-quality language implementations available from third parties, free for the download.
</p><p>
Hardware hacking has become harder, as boards and such have precision requirements that are unlikely to be met by a semi-novice with a soldering iron.  Software hacking has never been easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the time when home computers came with BASIC interpreters .
That was neat .
You know what was n't ?
Paying for anything beyond the BASIC interpreter .
I paid maybe $ 60 for my TRS-80 assembler , and that was in roughly 1980 dollars .
In order to get into anything beyond that , I had to pay hundreds of dollars .
The TRS-80 Model 4 and 4P ran standard CP/M nicely , and there were lots of language systems available .
For hundreds of dollars , and again we 're talking about 1980-era dollars .
Right now , any computer you 're likely to buy comes with an operating system suitable for serious software development , and you can get all sorts of language implementations for free .
Apple 's XCode comes with every Mac , and you can download SDKs for the iP * s. Microsoft lets you download VS Express Editions for free .
Beyond that , there 's hundreds of high-quality language implementations available from third parties , free for the download .
Hardware hacking has become harder , as boards and such have precision requirements that are unlikely to be met by a semi-novice with a soldering iron .
Software hacking has never been easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I remember the time when home computers came with BASIC interpreters.
That was neat.
You know what wasn't?
Paying for anything beyond the BASIC interpreter.
I paid maybe $60 for my TRS-80 assembler, and that was in roughly 1980 dollars.
In order to get into anything beyond that, I had to pay hundreds of dollars.
The TRS-80 Model 4 and 4P ran standard CP/M nicely, and there were lots of language systems available.
For hundreds of dollars, and again we're talking about 1980-era dollars.
Right now, any computer you're likely to buy comes with an operating system suitable for serious software development, and you can get all sorts of language implementations for free.
Apple's XCode comes with every Mac, and you can download SDKs for the iP*s.  Microsoft lets you download VS Express Editions for free.
Beyond that, there's hundreds of high-quality language implementations available from third parties, free for the download.
Hardware hacking has become harder, as boards and such have precision requirements that are unlikely to be met by a semi-novice with a soldering iron.
Software hacking has never been easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978080</id>
	<title>That's what GNU/Linux is for</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1264967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tinkering is not over, just because you say you can't do it on a Mac. In fact jailbreaking IS tinkering. <br>
If you really want to tinker, move over to GNU/Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tinkering is not over , just because you say you ca n't do it on a Mac .
In fact jailbreaking IS tinkering .
If you really want to tinker , move over to GNU/Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tinkering is not over, just because you say you can't do it on a Mac.
In fact jailbreaking IS tinkering.
If you really want to tinker, move over to GNU/Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972652</id>
	<title>If mobile devices are future PC replacements</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264969860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Then Apple is essentially trying to seize and destroy the promise of computing.
</p><p>
The  iPad is more closed, even than Microsoft's tablet PC platform.
</p><p>
It's insane, and the price of this device is every bit as expensive as <b>real</b> open, cooler PC hardware.    When Apple moves the iMac and Mac book  platforms to the iPhone OS,  I hope there is a mass exodus away from their platform.
</p><p>
Then after that, they might consider opening things back up like they should be...
</p><p>
I don't like Windows, but better than Apple's restricted devices!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Apple is essentially trying to seize and destroy the promise of computing .
The iPad is more closed , even than Microsoft 's tablet PC platform .
It 's insane , and the price of this device is every bit as expensive as real open , cooler PC hardware .
When Apple moves the iMac and Mac book platforms to the iPhone OS , I hope there is a mass exodus away from their platform .
Then after that , they might consider opening things back up like they should be.. . I do n't like Windows , but better than Apple 's restricted devices !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Then Apple is essentially trying to seize and destroy the promise of computing.
The  iPad is more closed, even than Microsoft's tablet PC platform.
It's insane, and the price of this device is every bit as expensive as real open, cooler PC hardware.
When Apple moves the iMac and Mac book  platforms to the iPhone OS,  I hope there is a mass exodus away from their platform.
Then after that, they might consider opening things back up like they should be...

I don't like Windows, but better than Apple's restricted devices!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972902</id>
	<title>So buy your kid...</title>
	<author>absurdist</author>
	<datestamp>1264971120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a Basic Stamp starter kit.  Or an Arduino starter kit.  Or any of the other microcontrollers out there.  There is plenty of hardware available for tinkering and learning without ever needing to deal with Apple's change of direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a Basic Stamp starter kit .
Or an Arduino starter kit .
Or any of the other microcontrollers out there .
There is plenty of hardware available for tinkering and learning without ever needing to deal with Apple 's change of direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a Basic Stamp starter kit.
Or an Arduino starter kit.
Or any of the other microcontrollers out there.
There is plenty of hardware available for tinkering and learning without ever needing to deal with Apple's change of direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974602</id>
	<title>Re:Tinkerers will just screw up the aesthetics</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1264937460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course Apple has to lock out the "tinkerers".  They'll just screw up the aesthetic.</p></div><p>I've often wondered why designers and usability geeks don't make more of a showing in open source projects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Apple has to lock out the " tinkerers " .
They 'll just screw up the aesthetic.I 've often wondered why designers and usability geeks do n't make more of a showing in open source projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course Apple has to lock out the "tinkerers".
They'll just screw up the aesthetic.I've often wondered why designers and usability geeks don't make more of a showing in open source projects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.31011512</id>
	<title>There hasn't been a ResEdit for a long time.</title>
	<author>walter\_f</author>
	<datestamp>1264960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least since Mac OS X has been made available.<br>As to MacsBug, it's even a couple of years longer.</p><p>Anybody remembers HyperTalk, "programming for the rest of us" (as Dan Winkler put it, way back in 1987)?<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Back then, I especially liked to translate code for things like Mandelbrot and Julia fractal diagrams from languages like C and Pascal to HyperTalk.</p><p>I'll always try to keep a Mac running Mac OS 8 or 9 in working order just to be able to write some HyperTalk code (graphics-related) "just for fun" from time to time.</p><p>Oh, well.</p><p>Walter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least since Mac OS X has been made available.As to MacsBug , it 's even a couple of years longer.Anybody remembers HyperTalk , " programming for the rest of us " ( as Dan Winkler put it , way back in 1987 ) ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk [ wikipedia.org ] Back then , I especially liked to translate code for things like Mandelbrot and Julia fractal diagrams from languages like C and Pascal to HyperTalk.I 'll always try to keep a Mac running Mac OS 8 or 9 in working order just to be able to write some HyperTalk code ( graphics-related ) " just for fun " from time to time.Oh , well.Walter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least since Mac OS X has been made available.As to MacsBug, it's even a couple of years longer.Anybody remembers HyperTalk, "programming for the rest of us" (as Dan Winkler put it, way back in 1987)?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk [wikipedia.org]Back then, I especially liked to translate code for things like Mandelbrot and Julia fractal diagrams from languages like C and Pascal to HyperTalk.I'll always try to keep a Mac running Mac OS 8 or 9 in working order just to be able to write some HyperTalk code (graphics-related) "just for fun" from time to time.Oh, well.Walter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978552</id>
	<title>Re:Very much for tinkerers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd wager those who learned computing on the Apple ][ make up a good percentage of the alpha geeks today.</p></div><p>Not outside America - I never even saw an Apple in the flesh until I was 18 (and I'm in my late 30's now). At least in the UK, Apple had virtually no influence until the 90's, and didn't really go mainstream until the iMac's went on sale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wager those who learned computing on the Apple ] [ make up a good percentage of the alpha geeks today.Not outside America - I never even saw an Apple in the flesh until I was 18 ( and I 'm in my late 30 's now ) .
At least in the UK , Apple had virtually no influence until the 90 's , and did n't really go mainstream until the iMac 's went on sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wager those who learned computing on the Apple ][ make up a good percentage of the alpha geeks today.Not outside America - I never even saw an Apple in the flesh until I was 18 (and I'm in my late 30's now).
At least in the UK, Apple had virtually no influence until the 90's, and didn't really go mainstream until the iMac's went on sale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974352</id>
	<title>Re:True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1264935720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Microsoft not being total fools provide a great deal of freebie development tools now too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Microsoft not being total fools provide a great deal of freebie development tools now too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Microsoft not being total fools provide a great deal of freebie development tools now too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977842</id>
	<title>Apple is a media co now</title>
	<author>Ixtl</author>
	<datestamp>1264964520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using Apple machines since I was about 6, and much of my geekiness today is due to the software and hardware tinkering I did with them over the years. I'm pretty disturbed by the direction I see Apple going. iTunes was, I think, the beginning of the end, and the iPad is an unsettling glimpse into the future. Since the iTunes store opened, Apple has gone from being a "computer" company to being a "media" company. The iPad is locked down because of Apple's need to keep the content providers at bay. Now, I know Apple makes a boatload of cash serving all this DRMed content, but really they should have just stuck to geekier pursuits like making nice computers with a slick OS, and left all the intellectual property bullshit to somebody else. I don't have an iPhone, but I wasn't too miffed to learn that it was locked down, because most phones are (I know, I know, the N900). But when I heard they were making a tablet, I pictured a MacBook crammed into tablet form with a cool multitouch version of OS X. So I was disappointed to find that it was this giant iPhone that I'll never be able to run X11 or MacPorts or even Firefox on. I'm hoping that people will realize that they don't need an iPad (despite the reality distortion field that undoubtedly surrounds it) and it will fail miserably, and Apple will go back to the way it was when I was doing Logo on my Apple ][c. Something about Apple's stock prices (like the fact that one share costs about as much as an iPod) tells me that this is unlikely to ever occur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Apple machines since I was about 6 , and much of my geekiness today is due to the software and hardware tinkering I did with them over the years .
I 'm pretty disturbed by the direction I see Apple going .
iTunes was , I think , the beginning of the end , and the iPad is an unsettling glimpse into the future .
Since the iTunes store opened , Apple has gone from being a " computer " company to being a " media " company .
The iPad is locked down because of Apple 's need to keep the content providers at bay .
Now , I know Apple makes a boatload of cash serving all this DRMed content , but really they should have just stuck to geekier pursuits like making nice computers with a slick OS , and left all the intellectual property bullshit to somebody else .
I do n't have an iPhone , but I was n't too miffed to learn that it was locked down , because most phones are ( I know , I know , the N900 ) .
But when I heard they were making a tablet , I pictured a MacBook crammed into tablet form with a cool multitouch version of OS X. So I was disappointed to find that it was this giant iPhone that I 'll never be able to run X11 or MacPorts or even Firefox on .
I 'm hoping that people will realize that they do n't need an iPad ( despite the reality distortion field that undoubtedly surrounds it ) and it will fail miserably , and Apple will go back to the way it was when I was doing Logo on my Apple ] [ c. Something about Apple 's stock prices ( like the fact that one share costs about as much as an iPod ) tells me that this is unlikely to ever occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Apple machines since I was about 6, and much of my geekiness today is due to the software and hardware tinkering I did with them over the years.
I'm pretty disturbed by the direction I see Apple going.
iTunes was, I think, the beginning of the end, and the iPad is an unsettling glimpse into the future.
Since the iTunes store opened, Apple has gone from being a "computer" company to being a "media" company.
The iPad is locked down because of Apple's need to keep the content providers at bay.
Now, I know Apple makes a boatload of cash serving all this DRMed content, but really they should have just stuck to geekier pursuits like making nice computers with a slick OS, and left all the intellectual property bullshit to somebody else.
I don't have an iPhone, but I wasn't too miffed to learn that it was locked down, because most phones are (I know, I know, the N900).
But when I heard they were making a tablet, I pictured a MacBook crammed into tablet form with a cool multitouch version of OS X. So I was disappointed to find that it was this giant iPhone that I'll never be able to run X11 or MacPorts or even Firefox on.
I'm hoping that people will realize that they don't need an iPad (despite the reality distortion field that undoubtedly surrounds it) and it will fail miserably, and Apple will go back to the way it was when I was doing Logo on my Apple ][c. Something about Apple's stock prices (like the fact that one share costs about as much as an iPod) tells me that this is unlikely to ever occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973826</id>
	<title>Re:True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>greggman</author>
	<datestamp>1264933140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that Macs cost 2x to 3x more than a Windows PCs those development tools are not "free". There cost is just included in the higher price of a Mac. You could have bought a Windows PC and used the difference in price to buy your dev tools (and more)</p><p>Of course that same argument doesn't hold for a Linux PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that Macs cost 2x to 3x more than a Windows PCs those development tools are not " free " .
There cost is just included in the higher price of a Mac .
You could have bought a Windows PC and used the difference in price to buy your dev tools ( and more ) Of course that same argument does n't hold for a Linux PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that Macs cost 2x to 3x more than a Windows PCs those development tools are not "free".
There cost is just included in the higher price of a Mac.
You could have bought a Windows PC and used the difference in price to buy your dev tools (and more)Of course that same argument doesn't hold for a Linux PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977502</id>
	<title>Re:seems like a mistake</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The iPad isn't a general purpose computer</p></div><p>YES. That's precisely the problem. General purpose computers are in danger of being replaced by crippled 'appliances'.</p><p><a href="http://futureoftheinternet.org/" title="futureoftheinternet.org">This is a very very dangerous trend.</a> [futureoftheinternet.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad is n't a general purpose computerYES .
That 's precisely the problem .
General purpose computers are in danger of being replaced by crippled 'appliances'.This is a very very dangerous trend .
[ futureoftheinternet.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad isn't a general purpose computerYES.
That's precisely the problem.
General purpose computers are in danger of being replaced by crippled 'appliances'.This is a very very dangerous trend.
[futureoftheinternet.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972604</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Curlsman</author>
	<datestamp>1264969560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the kit from American Science &amp; Surplus (SCIPLUS.COM)? <br>
 I've been wondering how good they are...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the kit from American Science &amp; Surplus ( SCIPLUS.COM ) ?
I 've been wondering how good they are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the kit from American Science &amp; Surplus (SCIPLUS.COM)?
I've been wondering how good they are...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978576</id>
	<title>EU</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1265017920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's time the EU did something against the practices of apple, just like it did against Microsoft.</p><p>I mean, apple is surely showing anti-competitive behavior. Plus, there could be large economical benefits if the apple platform was more open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's time the EU did something against the practices of apple , just like it did against Microsoft.I mean , apple is surely showing anti-competitive behavior .
Plus , there could be large economical benefits if the apple platform was more open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's time the EU did something against the practices of apple, just like it did against Microsoft.I mean, apple is surely showing anti-competitive behavior.
Plus, there could be large economical benefits if the apple platform was more open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974006</id>
	<title>No more Rockbox on ipods too...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, Rockbox (rockbox.org - one of my favourite open source initiatives because I enjoy it daily) can no longer run on any new ipod because Apple is encrypting their firmware and they've prevented any 3rd party firmware from running. It's a shame really...</p><p>Mike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , Rockbox ( rockbox.org - one of my favourite open source initiatives because I enjoy it daily ) can no longer run on any new ipod because Apple is encrypting their firmware and they 've prevented any 3rd party firmware from running .
It 's a shame really...Mike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, Rockbox (rockbox.org - one of my favourite open source initiatives because I enjoy it daily) can no longer run on any new ipod because Apple is encrypting their firmware and they've prevented any 3rd party firmware from running.
It's a shame really...Mike</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976228</id>
	<title>Repeat of 80's</title>
	<author>Enrique1218</author>
	<datestamp>1264948200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One only has to look at Apples position in particular market to understand the contrasts in their developer policies. Apple's PC market penetration is very low. Apple cannot break 5\% market share even after the Vista debacle. As a result, Apple ships the Developers tools free with every Mac, aids Windows installation with Bootcamp, and even takes an open source approach to the core of OS X. In contrast, Apple dominates the iPod market and is a strong contender in the iPhone market. Apples developer policy reflects that position.  Apple forces developers through the iTunes and only Cocoa SDK . I also seriously doubt Apple is making any effort to put Android on the phone. This position is less developer friendly than the Mac. The powers that be at Apple must feel thar the developers need Apple more than Apple needs them. I believe this will hurt them in the long run. This policy is extremely short sighted given the rise of Android (think Windows in the 80's). iPhone OS may be better than Android now but Google is very flexible with their developers policy. Google will allow them to take Android devices a lot further than Apple will their developers go. Apple will lose out again just as they did with Windows. </p><p>Case in point, I am absolutely in love with the iPhone. I would have one right now and would would pay the full price except for one thing. I have to purchase AT&amp;T data plan for $30/month for as long as I have the phone. I have no need for a data plan. I am around wifi most of the time and I would rarely need to use AT&amp;T 3G. If I were so incline to use 3g, I would probably download a tv show off of hulu with Flash. AT&amp;T network can't handle that and Apple won't let me have flash. Moreover, even if they did, it would run very slowly because Apple is not friendly with it developers. I believe Apple is pushing me to buy content from them and pay for a service I will never use. The forced data plan is the same with Android but at least Flash for Android is around the corner. In the race to my pocket, Google may edge out Apple. That is a shame, I do love my Macintosh and would have loved the iPhone. This is bigger than tinkering and I hope Steve Jobs wakes up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One only has to look at Apples position in particular market to understand the contrasts in their developer policies .
Apple 's PC market penetration is very low .
Apple can not break 5 \ % market share even after the Vista debacle .
As a result , Apple ships the Developers tools free with every Mac , aids Windows installation with Bootcamp , and even takes an open source approach to the core of OS X. In contrast , Apple dominates the iPod market and is a strong contender in the iPhone market .
Apples developer policy reflects that position .
Apple forces developers through the iTunes and only Cocoa SDK .
I also seriously doubt Apple is making any effort to put Android on the phone .
This position is less developer friendly than the Mac .
The powers that be at Apple must feel thar the developers need Apple more than Apple needs them .
I believe this will hurt them in the long run .
This policy is extremely short sighted given the rise of Android ( think Windows in the 80 's ) .
iPhone OS may be better than Android now but Google is very flexible with their developers policy .
Google will allow them to take Android devices a lot further than Apple will their developers go .
Apple will lose out again just as they did with Windows .
Case in point , I am absolutely in love with the iPhone .
I would have one right now and would would pay the full price except for one thing .
I have to purchase AT&amp;T data plan for $ 30/month for as long as I have the phone .
I have no need for a data plan .
I am around wifi most of the time and I would rarely need to use AT&amp;T 3G .
If I were so incline to use 3g , I would probably download a tv show off of hulu with Flash .
AT&amp;T network ca n't handle that and Apple wo n't let me have flash .
Moreover , even if they did , it would run very slowly because Apple is not friendly with it developers .
I believe Apple is pushing me to buy content from them and pay for a service I will never use .
The forced data plan is the same with Android but at least Flash for Android is around the corner .
In the race to my pocket , Google may edge out Apple .
That is a shame , I do love my Macintosh and would have loved the iPhone .
This is bigger than tinkering and I hope Steve Jobs wakes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One only has to look at Apples position in particular market to understand the contrasts in their developer policies.
Apple's PC market penetration is very low.
Apple cannot break 5\% market share even after the Vista debacle.
As a result, Apple ships the Developers tools free with every Mac, aids Windows installation with Bootcamp, and even takes an open source approach to the core of OS X. In contrast, Apple dominates the iPod market and is a strong contender in the iPhone market.
Apples developer policy reflects that position.
Apple forces developers through the iTunes and only Cocoa SDK .
I also seriously doubt Apple is making any effort to put Android on the phone.
This position is less developer friendly than the Mac.
The powers that be at Apple must feel thar the developers need Apple more than Apple needs them.
I believe this will hurt them in the long run.
This policy is extremely short sighted given the rise of Android (think Windows in the 80's).
iPhone OS may be better than Android now but Google is very flexible with their developers policy.
Google will allow them to take Android devices a lot further than Apple will their developers go.
Apple will lose out again just as they did with Windows.
Case in point, I am absolutely in love with the iPhone.
I would have one right now and would would pay the full price except for one thing.
I have to purchase AT&amp;T data plan for $30/month for as long as I have the phone.
I have no need for a data plan.
I am around wifi most of the time and I would rarely need to use AT&amp;T 3G.
If I were so incline to use 3g, I would probably download a tv show off of hulu with Flash.
AT&amp;T network can't handle that and Apple won't let me have flash.
Moreover, even if they did, it would run very slowly because Apple is not friendly with it developers.
I believe Apple is pushing me to buy content from them and pay for a service I will never use.
The forced data plan is the same with Android but at least Flash for Android is around the corner.
In the race to my pocket, Google may edge out Apple.
That is a shame, I do love my Macintosh and would have loved the iPhone.
This is bigger than tinkering and I hope Steve Jobs wakes up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30981248</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>stop buying their products. If no one buys it, then it'll flop. Then insist on the forums you would have bought it if you could copy/paste. Every time you spend a dollar you are voting for a company's success. So stop voting for them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>stop buying their products .
If no one buys it , then it 'll flop .
Then insist on the forums you would have bought it if you could copy/paste .
Every time you spend a dollar you are voting for a company 's success .
So stop voting for them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stop buying their products.
If no one buys it, then it'll flop.
Then insist on the forums you would have bought it if you could copy/paste.
Every time you spend a dollar you are voting for a company's success.
So stop voting for them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</id>
	<title>Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the 50's and 60's hobby electronics was a huge thing - it was common to see people tinkering in their basements.  It might still exist now in some manner, but it's far, far less popular and most people just want to come back from the store with an amplifier or radio that "just works".</p><p>It's the same with computers.  We're going through the phase now where hobbyists are lamenting that they're being "locked out of their own computers", but no more than the electronic tinkerers are locked out of their consumer electronics unless they're very good with surface mount soldering and miniaturization.</p><p>The simple fact is that 98\% of people out there just want their computer to work.  They don't care about getting under the hood.  If it plays their youtube videos, netflix streaming content, and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy, they're happy.  That's all that's needed.  So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.</p><p>Yes, it means that the kind of computing we all grew up with in the 70's and 80's will either die or come close.  But that's just the standard life cycle of technologies - it happened with radios just like it's happening now with computers.  It's a mistake to extrapolate our interest to the general public, which doesn't share it.  Since there are 50 or 100 of them for every one of us, they form a FAR larger market, and that is the direction things will inevitably shift over time.  It's a lost cause trying to argue things like "but you're locked out of your own system!!".  They don't *care* - that's not what they want out of a computer.  The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 50 's and 60 's hobby electronics was a huge thing - it was common to see people tinkering in their basements .
It might still exist now in some manner , but it 's far , far less popular and most people just want to come back from the store with an amplifier or radio that " just works " .It 's the same with computers .
We 're going through the phase now where hobbyists are lamenting that they 're being " locked out of their own computers " , but no more than the electronic tinkerers are locked out of their consumer electronics unless they 're very good with surface mount soldering and miniaturization.The simple fact is that 98 \ % of people out there just want their computer to work .
They do n't care about getting under the hood .
If it plays their youtube videos , netflix streaming content , and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy , they 're happy .
That 's all that 's needed .
So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.Yes , it means that the kind of computing we all grew up with in the 70 's and 80 's will either die or come close .
But that 's just the standard life cycle of technologies - it happened with radios just like it 's happening now with computers .
It 's a mistake to extrapolate our interest to the general public , which does n't share it .
Since there are 50 or 100 of them for every one of us , they form a FAR larger market , and that is the direction things will inevitably shift over time .
It 's a lost cause trying to argue things like " but you 're locked out of your own system ! ! " .
They do n't * care * - that 's not what they want out of a computer .
The sooner computer nerds realize that , the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 50's and 60's hobby electronics was a huge thing - it was common to see people tinkering in their basements.
It might still exist now in some manner, but it's far, far less popular and most people just want to come back from the store with an amplifier or radio that "just works".It's the same with computers.
We're going through the phase now where hobbyists are lamenting that they're being "locked out of their own computers", but no more than the electronic tinkerers are locked out of their consumer electronics unless they're very good with surface mount soldering and miniaturization.The simple fact is that 98\% of people out there just want their computer to work.
They don't care about getting under the hood.
If it plays their youtube videos, netflix streaming content, and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy, they're happy.
That's all that's needed.
So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.Yes, it means that the kind of computing we all grew up with in the 70's and 80's will either die or come close.
But that's just the standard life cycle of technologies - it happened with radios just like it's happening now with computers.
It's a mistake to extrapolate our interest to the general public, which doesn't share it.
Since there are 50 or 100 of them for every one of us, they form a FAR larger market, and that is the direction things will inevitably shift over time.
It's a lost cause trying to argue things like "but you're locked out of your own system!!".
They don't *care* - that's not what they want out of a computer.
The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974636</id>
	<title>Re:Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the 50's and 60's hobby electronics was a huge thing - it was common to see people tinkering in their basements.  It might still exist now in some manner, but it's far, far less popular and most people just want to come back from the store with an amplifier or radio that "just works".</p><p>It's the same with computers.  We're going through the phase now where hobbyists are lamenting that they're being "locked out of their own computers", but no more than the electronic tinkerers are locked out of their consumer electronics unless they're very good with surface mount soldering and miniaturization.</p></div><p>I think this is a really important point. A lot of technology has gone through these phases. The 40's and 50's (and into the 60's) was a good time to be an electronics hobbyist - the circuits were simple, made of discrete components and frequently came with circuit diagrams so you could figure out which tube to pick up at the grocery store when one blew out. These days, crack open a commercial piece of electronics and it is all surface mounted, with all the real functionality hidden in a single chip. How about cars (they seem popular for analogies around here)? Advances in technology there has certainly made it a lot harder to just pop the hood and poke around. The same holds for computers. </p><p>As someone in education, another point the "get off my lawn" crowd is neglecting is that the potential of computers and their complexity has grown considerable since the old Apple ][ days. Let's face it, you really could understand everything about how your computer worked back then, but these days with the superscalar architectures, multi-level caching, specialized registers, etc, no one is going to fully understand it just by playing around. Also, it was pretty exciting back then to get a computer to do anything - flash lights in a sequence, draw something on the screen, output digits of PI, etc. That just isn't as exciting anymore (and can usually be done with a library call). We expect more, and the kids \_really\_ expect more. </p><p>Now, as many have said, Apple is quite a long way from being anti-tinker. They give away a rather impressive collection of development tools including python, ruby, and java all installed on every machine, a free SDK with interface builder and IDE, and a suite of interesting profile and tracing tools so you can watch what your code does at a really low level if you want to get into that (this is where complexity becomes an issue for the novice). There may be no more MacBugs or ResEdit, but we now have Shark, Interface Builder and Property Editor that basically gives us the same functionality. Programming for the iPhone/iPod/iPad is also simple and a download away. As someone who used to do some Palm programming, I can assure you that Apple has vastly simplified the process. Does it suck that you need to splash out $99 bucks to actually load programs on your device without jail breaking it? Sure, but that is hardly an insurmountable obstacle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 50 's and 60 's hobby electronics was a huge thing - it was common to see people tinkering in their basements .
It might still exist now in some manner , but it 's far , far less popular and most people just want to come back from the store with an amplifier or radio that " just works " .It 's the same with computers .
We 're going through the phase now where hobbyists are lamenting that they 're being " locked out of their own computers " , but no more than the electronic tinkerers are locked out of their consumer electronics unless they 're very good with surface mount soldering and miniaturization.I think this is a really important point .
A lot of technology has gone through these phases .
The 40 's and 50 's ( and into the 60 's ) was a good time to be an electronics hobbyist - the circuits were simple , made of discrete components and frequently came with circuit diagrams so you could figure out which tube to pick up at the grocery store when one blew out .
These days , crack open a commercial piece of electronics and it is all surface mounted , with all the real functionality hidden in a single chip .
How about cars ( they seem popular for analogies around here ) ?
Advances in technology there has certainly made it a lot harder to just pop the hood and poke around .
The same holds for computers .
As someone in education , another point the " get off my lawn " crowd is neglecting is that the potential of computers and their complexity has grown considerable since the old Apple ] [ days .
Let 's face it , you really could understand everything about how your computer worked back then , but these days with the superscalar architectures , multi-level caching , specialized registers , etc , no one is going to fully understand it just by playing around .
Also , it was pretty exciting back then to get a computer to do anything - flash lights in a sequence , draw something on the screen , output digits of PI , etc .
That just is n't as exciting anymore ( and can usually be done with a library call ) .
We expect more , and the kids \ _really \ _ expect more .
Now , as many have said , Apple is quite a long way from being anti-tinker .
They give away a rather impressive collection of development tools including python , ruby , and java all installed on every machine , a free SDK with interface builder and IDE , and a suite of interesting profile and tracing tools so you can watch what your code does at a really low level if you want to get into that ( this is where complexity becomes an issue for the novice ) .
There may be no more MacBugs or ResEdit , but we now have Shark , Interface Builder and Property Editor that basically gives us the same functionality .
Programming for the iPhone/iPod/iPad is also simple and a download away .
As someone who used to do some Palm programming , I can assure you that Apple has vastly simplified the process .
Does it suck that you need to splash out $ 99 bucks to actually load programs on your device without jail breaking it ?
Sure , but that is hardly an insurmountable obstacle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 50's and 60's hobby electronics was a huge thing - it was common to see people tinkering in their basements.
It might still exist now in some manner, but it's far, far less popular and most people just want to come back from the store with an amplifier or radio that "just works".It's the same with computers.
We're going through the phase now where hobbyists are lamenting that they're being "locked out of their own computers", but no more than the electronic tinkerers are locked out of their consumer electronics unless they're very good with surface mount soldering and miniaturization.I think this is a really important point.
A lot of technology has gone through these phases.
The 40's and 50's (and into the 60's) was a good time to be an electronics hobbyist - the circuits were simple, made of discrete components and frequently came with circuit diagrams so you could figure out which tube to pick up at the grocery store when one blew out.
These days, crack open a commercial piece of electronics and it is all surface mounted, with all the real functionality hidden in a single chip.
How about cars (they seem popular for analogies around here)?
Advances in technology there has certainly made it a lot harder to just pop the hood and poke around.
The same holds for computers.
As someone in education, another point the "get off my lawn" crowd is neglecting is that the potential of computers and their complexity has grown considerable since the old Apple ][ days.
Let's face it, you really could understand everything about how your computer worked back then, but these days with the superscalar architectures, multi-level caching, specialized registers, etc, no one is going to fully understand it just by playing around.
Also, it was pretty exciting back then to get a computer to do anything - flash lights in a sequence, draw something on the screen, output digits of PI, etc.
That just isn't as exciting anymore (and can usually be done with a library call).
We expect more, and the kids \_really\_ expect more.
Now, as many have said, Apple is quite a long way from being anti-tinker.
They give away a rather impressive collection of development tools including python, ruby, and java all installed on every machine, a free SDK with interface builder and IDE, and a suite of interesting profile and tracing tools so you can watch what your code does at a really low level if you want to get into that (this is where complexity becomes an issue for the novice).
There may be no more MacBugs or ResEdit, but we now have Shark, Interface Builder and Property Editor that basically gives us the same functionality.
Programming for the iPhone/iPod/iPad is also simple and a download away.
As someone who used to do some Palm programming, I can assure you that Apple has vastly simplified the process.
Does it suck that you need to splash out $99 bucks to actually load programs on your device without jail breaking it?
Sure, but that is hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974852</id>
	<title>ChomeOS isn't any different</title>
	<author>chrysalis</author>
	<datestamp>1264939140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come nobody realizes that ChromeOS isn't any different?</p><p>For the sake of security, I highly doubt that resources editors and hex editors (in order to patch executable files) would run on ChromeOS.</p><p>It's a tradeoff worth making.</p><p>Joe Hewitt's post about the iPad is worth a read: <a href="http://joehewitt.com/post/ipad/" title="joehewitt.com">http://joehewitt.com/post/ipad/</a> [joehewitt.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come nobody realizes that ChromeOS is n't any different ? For the sake of security , I highly doubt that resources editors and hex editors ( in order to patch executable files ) would run on ChromeOS.It 's a tradeoff worth making.Joe Hewitt 's post about the iPad is worth a read : http : //joehewitt.com/post/ipad/ [ joehewitt.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come nobody realizes that ChromeOS isn't any different?For the sake of security, I highly doubt that resources editors and hex editors (in order to patch executable files) would run on ChromeOS.It's a tradeoff worth making.Joe Hewitt's post about the iPad is worth a read: http://joehewitt.com/post/ipad/ [joehewitt.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978586</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1265018040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real concern, broadly speaking, is what happens to the kids whose parents don't know/care.</p></div><p>People who don't thinker (or don't think at all) turn out to be wonderful consumers. Basically you can sell them anything, no questions asked. IMHO that's at the core of Diesel's <a href="http://www.diesel.com/be-stupid/" title="diesel.com">Be Stupid</a> [diesel.com] commercials. The only smart people a company needs are its employees and its partners. The dumber the rest of the world is, the better it is for its revenues. Dumbing down products is a virtuous circle: you sell more of them because they are undeniably easier to use, you dumb down people, you get customers more likely to buy your products. Reiterate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real concern , broadly speaking , is what happens to the kids whose parents do n't know/care.People who do n't thinker ( or do n't think at all ) turn out to be wonderful consumers .
Basically you can sell them anything , no questions asked .
IMHO that 's at the core of Diesel 's Be Stupid [ diesel.com ] commercials .
The only smart people a company needs are its employees and its partners .
The dumber the rest of the world is , the better it is for its revenues .
Dumbing down products is a virtuous circle : you sell more of them because they are undeniably easier to use , you dumb down people , you get customers more likely to buy your products .
Reiterate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real concern, broadly speaking, is what happens to the kids whose parents don't know/care.People who don't thinker (or don't think at all) turn out to be wonderful consumers.
Basically you can sell them anything, no questions asked.
IMHO that's at the core of Diesel's Be Stupid [diesel.com] commercials.
The only smart people a company needs are its employees and its partners.
The dumber the rest of the world is, the better it is for its revenues.
Dumbing down products is a virtuous circle: you sell more of them because they are undeniably easier to use, you dumb down people, you get customers more likely to buy your products.
Reiterate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976564</id>
	<title>Re:Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264950900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how you spin this as something positive.   what's really happening is that business is locking the devices down to prevent competition and/or create false scarcity because they know they can get away with it due to the increasing level of ignorance of the userbase.  a platform that 'just works' can be open.  there's no requirement of mutual exclusivity.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.</p></div><p>so, nerds aren't allowd to influence the market because they're not the majority?  you know, this whole popularity fallacy thing is getting old.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how you spin this as something positive .
what 's really happening is that business is locking the devices down to prevent competition and/or create false scarcity because they know they can get away with it due to the increasing level of ignorance of the userbase .
a platform that 'just works ' can be open .
there 's no requirement of mutual exclusivity.The sooner computer nerds realize that , the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.so , nerds are n't allowd to influence the market because they 're not the majority ?
you know , this whole popularity fallacy thing is getting old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how you spin this as something positive.
what's really happening is that business is locking the devices down to prevent competition and/or create false scarcity because they know they can get away with it due to the increasing level of ignorance of the userbase.
a platform that 'just works' can be open.
there's no requirement of mutual exclusivity.The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.so, nerds aren't allowd to influence the market because they're not the majority?
you know, this whole popularity fallacy thing is getting old.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975786</id>
	<title>The pre-Facebook POKE</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264945200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The C-64 had keys to change the cursor color, but to change the foreground color the manual told you to POKE 53281, 15 (for whatever color code from 0 to 15).
<br> <br>
I had a ZX81 which didn't have a good way to save machine code programs. The manual said you could set RAMTOP and put stuff into the top of memory, but it wouldn't make it onto the tape drive. The goofball technique in the Sinclair manual was to write a huge BASIC program starting with a shitload of <tt>POKE</tt> statements and ending with something like<br> <br> <tt>LET A = USR(...)</tt>.
<br> <br>
What everyone did (anyone remember this?) was to write a short BASIC program starting with a monster comment-
<br> <br> <tt>
10 REM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...<br>
20 PRINT USR(16514)<br>
30 SAVE<br>
40 GOTO 20</tt>
<br> <br>
Then you started poking machine code instructions into memory starting at address 16514, which was the first A. The REM statement turned into gibberish, and when you finished you entered<br> <tt>RUN 30</tt> <br>
That would save everything onto the tape. Then when you <tt>LOAD</tt> this Sinclair program off the tape (the kind of thing kids today never experience) the execution would resume at line 40 which tried to evaluate USR(16514) for passing to the PRINT command, which never ran because the machine code would start.
<br> <br>What works like that today? Well, there was that Code Red worm a few years back whose attack vector was a huge URL, starting with:<br> <br> <tt>
default.ida?NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN<br>
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN<br>
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN<br>
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN<br>
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN\%u9090\%u6858\%ucbd3<br>
\%u7801\%u9090\%u6858\%ucbd3\%u7801\%u9090\%u6858\%ucbd3<br>
\%u7801\%u9090\%u9090\%u8190\%u00c3\%u0003\%u8b00<br>
\%u531b\%u53ff\%u0078\%u0000</tt>
<br> <br>Upon receipt of a GET request for this thing, a <tt>gets</tt> C function in the IIS indexer tried to store the URL into a fixed-size buffer, which this URL overran. When the <tt>gets</tt> returned, it popped a bullshit return address off the stack and the CPU started executing the machine code instructions that someone had poked into this goddamn URL.<br> <br>You see, kiddies, this is how computers are supposed to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The C-64 had keys to change the cursor color , but to change the foreground color the manual told you to POKE 53281 , 15 ( for whatever color code from 0 to 15 ) .
I had a ZX81 which did n't have a good way to save machine code programs .
The manual said you could set RAMTOP and put stuff into the top of memory , but it would n't make it onto the tape drive .
The goofball technique in the Sinclair manual was to write a huge BASIC program starting with a shitload of POKE statements and ending with something like LET A = USR ( ... ) .
What everyone did ( anyone remember this ?
) was to write a short BASIC program starting with a monster comment- 10 REM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.. . 20 PRINT USR ( 16514 ) 30 SAVE 40 GOTO 20 Then you started poking machine code instructions into memory starting at address 16514 , which was the first A. The REM statement turned into gibberish , and when you finished you entered RUN 30 That would save everything onto the tape .
Then when you LOAD this Sinclair program off the tape ( the kind of thing kids today never experience ) the execution would resume at line 40 which tried to evaluate USR ( 16514 ) for passing to the PRINT command , which never ran because the machine code would start .
What works like that today ?
Well , there was that Code Red worm a few years back whose attack vector was a huge URL , starting with : default.ida ? NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN \ % u9090 \ % u6858 \ % ucbd3 \ % u7801 \ % u9090 \ % u6858 \ % ucbd3 \ % u7801 \ % u9090 \ % u6858 \ % ucbd3 \ % u7801 \ % u9090 \ % u9090 \ % u8190 \ % u00c3 \ % u0003 \ % u8b00 \ % u531b \ % u53ff \ % u0078 \ % u0000 Upon receipt of a GET request for this thing , a gets C function in the IIS indexer tried to store the URL into a fixed-size buffer , which this URL overran .
When the gets returned , it popped a bullshit return address off the stack and the CPU started executing the machine code instructions that someone had poked into this goddamn URL .
You see , kiddies , this is how computers are supposed to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The C-64 had keys to change the cursor color, but to change the foreground color the manual told you to POKE 53281, 15 (for whatever color code from 0 to 15).
I had a ZX81 which didn't have a good way to save machine code programs.
The manual said you could set RAMTOP and put stuff into the top of memory, but it wouldn't make it onto the tape drive.
The goofball technique in the Sinclair manual was to write a huge BASIC program starting with a shitload of POKE statements and ending with something like  LET A = USR(...).
What everyone did (anyone remember this?
) was to write a short BASIC program starting with a monster comment-
  
10 REM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
20 PRINT USR(16514)
30 SAVE
40 GOTO 20
 
Then you started poking machine code instructions into memory starting at address 16514, which was the first A. The REM statement turned into gibberish, and when you finished you entered RUN 30 
That would save everything onto the tape.
Then when you LOAD this Sinclair program off the tape (the kind of thing kids today never experience) the execution would resume at line 40 which tried to evaluate USR(16514) for passing to the PRINT command, which never ran because the machine code would start.
What works like that today?
Well, there was that Code Red worm a few years back whose attack vector was a huge URL, starting with:  
default.ida?NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN\%u9090\%u6858\%ucbd3
\%u7801\%u9090\%u6858\%ucbd3\%u7801\%u9090\%u6858\%ucbd3
\%u7801\%u9090\%u9090\%u8190\%u00c3\%u0003\%u8b00
\%u531b\%u53ff\%u0078\%u0000
 Upon receipt of a GET request for this thing, a gets C function in the IIS indexer tried to store the URL into a fixed-size buffer, which this URL overran.
When the gets returned, it popped a bullshit return address off the stack and the CPU started executing the machine code instructions that someone had poked into this goddamn URL.
You see, kiddies, this is how computers are supposed to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973476</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>FourthAge</author>
	<datestamp>1264931280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple doesn't like DRM? I think that's a bit of a stretch, given that their iPhone needs to be jailbroken before it can load applications that aren't approved by Apple. What is jailbreaking if it is not circumvention of DRM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't like DRM ?
I think that 's a bit of a stretch , given that their iPhone needs to be jailbroken before it can load applications that are n't approved by Apple .
What is jailbreaking if it is not circumvention of DRM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't like DRM?
I think that's a bit of a stretch, given that their iPhone needs to be jailbroken before it can load applications that aren't approved by Apple.
What is jailbreaking if it is not circumvention of DRM?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786</id>
	<title>Article is incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iphone and macbook freely allow tinkering, so I expect the iPod will be much the same.</p><p>If you recall all the peek charts did was give you access to system calls and variables, well... things are a little tighter now thanks to multitasking and you're expected to use an API to access them.  Apart from that though, Apple is quite happy with you tinkering with your own computers to your heart's content.</p><p>What apple tries hard to control is you sharing those hacks with non tinkerers.  Say I wrote an awesome iPad game and distributed the source code over the net for anyone with the SDK (a free download).  Well, Apple would not exactly approve but they wouldn't stop me.  However, say I distributed the same game in binary form, telling anybody interested to email me their IEMI number... well, I suspect Apple would take action at that point.</p><p>I had an Apple II.  I didn't write any C code for it because I didn't have a C compiler, so instead I wrote assembly - in hindsight, how dumb is that!  I mean, great, I can say I wrote 6502 assembly and sound geeky - but I'm sure I would've been more productive using C.  Similarly, I had a Mac Plus and I had to copy someone else's compiler to be able to write software.  Piracy because I wanted to write software... Then I got a 6100, and I shelled out I believe $150 of my hard earned student money to buy a compiler (Metrowerks).  I couldn't afford the apple suite at the time. As I got a bit older and richer, I signed up for an apple developer account which gave me access to tech support (they were amazingly helpful in the days before you could get similar information off the internet or usenet).</p><p>Lets compare that to now, where I can download the SDK for not only my mac but my iPhone completely for free (a colleague of mine would disagree on this point, noting that he wanted to develop for the iPhone but had to buy a mac to do so).  Not only do I get an excellent SDK, but I get video tutorials, lots of example code and even a simulator!  Sadly, I'm too busy to tinker any more but I do feel that Apple is bending over backwards to make it easy for me, completely unlike how they were twenty years ago.</p><p>They could be better - If they embraced open standards a bit more so that say MobileMe could be connected to using LDAP - it would make it easier to do cool stuff in a similar way to how easy it is to do cool stuff in Linux.  But to say they're less tinker friendly because they try and prevent jail-breaking is just... wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iphone and macbook freely allow tinkering , so I expect the iPod will be much the same.If you recall all the peek charts did was give you access to system calls and variables , well... things are a little tighter now thanks to multitasking and you 're expected to use an API to access them .
Apart from that though , Apple is quite happy with you tinkering with your own computers to your heart 's content.What apple tries hard to control is you sharing those hacks with non tinkerers .
Say I wrote an awesome iPad game and distributed the source code over the net for anyone with the SDK ( a free download ) .
Well , Apple would not exactly approve but they would n't stop me .
However , say I distributed the same game in binary form , telling anybody interested to email me their IEMI number... well , I suspect Apple would take action at that point.I had an Apple II .
I did n't write any C code for it because I did n't have a C compiler , so instead I wrote assembly - in hindsight , how dumb is that !
I mean , great , I can say I wrote 6502 assembly and sound geeky - but I 'm sure I would 've been more productive using C. Similarly , I had a Mac Plus and I had to copy someone else 's compiler to be able to write software .
Piracy because I wanted to write software... Then I got a 6100 , and I shelled out I believe $ 150 of my hard earned student money to buy a compiler ( Metrowerks ) .
I could n't afford the apple suite at the time .
As I got a bit older and richer , I signed up for an apple developer account which gave me access to tech support ( they were amazingly helpful in the days before you could get similar information off the internet or usenet ) .Lets compare that to now , where I can download the SDK for not only my mac but my iPhone completely for free ( a colleague of mine would disagree on this point , noting that he wanted to develop for the iPhone but had to buy a mac to do so ) .
Not only do I get an excellent SDK , but I get video tutorials , lots of example code and even a simulator !
Sadly , I 'm too busy to tinker any more but I do feel that Apple is bending over backwards to make it easy for me , completely unlike how they were twenty years ago.They could be better - If they embraced open standards a bit more so that say MobileMe could be connected to using LDAP - it would make it easier to do cool stuff in a similar way to how easy it is to do cool stuff in Linux .
But to say they 're less tinker friendly because they try and prevent jail-breaking is just... wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iphone and macbook freely allow tinkering, so I expect the iPod will be much the same.If you recall all the peek charts did was give you access to system calls and variables, well... things are a little tighter now thanks to multitasking and you're expected to use an API to access them.
Apart from that though, Apple is quite happy with you tinkering with your own computers to your heart's content.What apple tries hard to control is you sharing those hacks with non tinkerers.
Say I wrote an awesome iPad game and distributed the source code over the net for anyone with the SDK (a free download).
Well, Apple would not exactly approve but they wouldn't stop me.
However, say I distributed the same game in binary form, telling anybody interested to email me their IEMI number... well, I suspect Apple would take action at that point.I had an Apple II.
I didn't write any C code for it because I didn't have a C compiler, so instead I wrote assembly - in hindsight, how dumb is that!
I mean, great, I can say I wrote 6502 assembly and sound geeky - but I'm sure I would've been more productive using C.  Similarly, I had a Mac Plus and I had to copy someone else's compiler to be able to write software.
Piracy because I wanted to write software... Then I got a 6100, and I shelled out I believe $150 of my hard earned student money to buy a compiler (Metrowerks).
I couldn't afford the apple suite at the time.
As I got a bit older and richer, I signed up for an apple developer account which gave me access to tech support (they were amazingly helpful in the days before you could get similar information off the internet or usenet).Lets compare that to now, where I can download the SDK for not only my mac but my iPhone completely for free (a colleague of mine would disagree on this point, noting that he wanted to develop for the iPhone but had to buy a mac to do so).
Not only do I get an excellent SDK, but I get video tutorials, lots of example code and even a simulator!
Sadly, I'm too busy to tinker any more but I do feel that Apple is bending over backwards to make it easy for me, completely unlike how they were twenty years ago.They could be better - If they embraced open standards a bit more so that say MobileMe could be connected to using LDAP - it would make it easier to do cool stuff in a similar way to how easy it is to do cool stuff in Linux.
But to say they're less tinker friendly because they try and prevent jail-breaking is just... wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972432</id>
	<title>locked box</title>
	<author>magbottle</author>
	<datestamp>1264968540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is possible that, at some point, the Macintosh itself will be a locked box, not for general computing, with a controlled licensed developer community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible that , at some point , the Macintosh itself will be a locked box , not for general computing , with a controlled licensed developer community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible that, at some point, the Macintosh itself will be a locked box, not for general computing, with a controlled licensed developer community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30979614</id>
	<title>OS X reasonably open</title>
	<author>oudzeeman</author>
	<datestamp>1265031300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can get the kernel source code.  Once upon a time I was developing a kernel extension for a research project I was working on (very specialized memory manager).  We were trying to figure out how something worked, so we took a look at the kernel source code.  We ended up finding an Apple engineer's email address in one of the comments, we asked him a bunch of questions. He was a ton of help.  We also discovered a bug, which he entered into their bug tracking system, and he offered a work around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get the kernel source code .
Once upon a time I was developing a kernel extension for a research project I was working on ( very specialized memory manager ) .
We were trying to figure out how something worked , so we took a look at the kernel source code .
We ended up finding an Apple engineer 's email address in one of the comments , we asked him a bunch of questions .
He was a ton of help .
We also discovered a bug , which he entered into their bug tracking system , and he offered a work around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get the kernel source code.
Once upon a time I was developing a kernel extension for a research project I was working on (very specialized memory manager).
We were trying to figure out how something worked, so we took a look at the kernel source code.
We ended up finding an Apple engineer's email address in one of the comments, we asked him a bunch of questions.
He was a ton of help.
We also discovered a bug, which he entered into their bug tracking system, and he offered a work around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973060</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>mozumder</author>
	<datestamp>1264928880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's mutually exclusive because open development prevents control.</p><p>Be glad Apple maintains such controls that prevents developers from doing stupid things that only a programmer would appreciate.</p><p>If we allowed open development, it would make the system much worse.  Imagine if your documents had to open every new file standard, for example, or if the app store had no quality checks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mutually exclusive because open development prevents control.Be glad Apple maintains such controls that prevents developers from doing stupid things that only a programmer would appreciate.If we allowed open development , it would make the system much worse .
Imagine if your documents had to open every new file standard , for example , or if the app store had no quality checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mutually exclusive because open development prevents control.Be glad Apple maintains such controls that prevents developers from doing stupid things that only a programmer would appreciate.If we allowed open development, it would make the system much worse.
Imagine if your documents had to open every new file standard, for example, or if the app store had no quality checks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972624</id>
	<title>another issue...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that a computer back then would always boot clean from rom after a power cycle.</p><p>today, if you mess up some files on the drive, it will be a lengthy recovery cycle.</p><p>with basic back then, if you poked the wrong ram area, you would get some garbage on screen and loose whatever code you had written so far. "Poke" the wrong file today and you may well be badly toast. This especially in a *nix box where the devices are exposed as files, where the right dd command may well fill a drive with garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that a computer back then would always boot clean from rom after a power cycle.today , if you mess up some files on the drive , it will be a lengthy recovery cycle.with basic back then , if you poked the wrong ram area , you would get some garbage on screen and loose whatever code you had written so far .
" Poke " the wrong file today and you may well be badly toast .
This especially in a * nix box where the devices are exposed as files , where the right dd command may well fill a drive with garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that a computer back then would always boot clean from rom after a power cycle.today, if you mess up some files on the drive, it will be a lengthy recovery cycle.with basic back then, if you poked the wrong ram area, you would get some garbage on screen and loose whatever code you had written so far.
"Poke" the wrong file today and you may well be badly toast.
This especially in a *nix box where the devices are exposed as files, where the right dd command may well fill a drive with garbage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973980</id>
	<title>Re:Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While in a sense what you say is true, in reality it reflects on the anti-intellectual nature and stupidity of most of the population.</p></div><p>  So - You're saying that if all I want my computer to do is protein analysis and I'm not interested in "getting under the hood" I have an anti-intellectual nature and I'm stupid? Pot, meet kettle. My, we do think highly of our self don't we... OK - Everyone has an anti-intellectual nature and is stupid other than you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While in a sense what you say is true , in reality it reflects on the anti-intellectual nature and stupidity of most of the population .
So - You 're saying that if all I want my computer to do is protein analysis and I 'm not interested in " getting under the hood " I have an anti-intellectual nature and I 'm stupid ?
Pot , meet kettle .
My , we do think highly of our self do n't we... OK - Everyone has an anti-intellectual nature and is stupid other than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While in a sense what you say is true, in reality it reflects on the anti-intellectual nature and stupidity of most of the population.
So - You're saying that if all I want my computer to do is protein analysis and I'm not interested in "getting under the hood" I have an anti-intellectual nature and I'm stupid?
Pot, meet kettle.
My, we do think highly of our self don't we... OK - Everyone has an anti-intellectual nature and is stupid other than you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972354</id>
	<title>Typo</title>
	<author>KC1P</author>
	<datestamp>1264968060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't resist the nitpick -- the twee's name is spelled Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//e.  The square brackets are for the Apple ][ and Apple ][+.</p><p>It's definitely true though -- ever since the original Mac (with its hard-to-open case and lack of expansion slots), Apple totally turned its back on hobbyists, which is bizarre because the Apple ]['s success was entirely because of its easy-to-interface-to expansion bus and the fact that the commented ROM listings were available in a manual that high penniless high school kids could afford.  IBM copied both ideas and mopped the floor with the Mac market, until IBM themselves got lost in the woods with MCA and the PS/2 (but at least they came to their senses later after the clone market taught them some respect).</p><p>At the same time it seems like it would be hard for present-day geeks to follow in the exact footsteps of us old codgers.  One of the nice things about an Apple ][ or a Commodore PET or a TRS-80 was that it was entirely possible for a suitably nerdly high school kit to understand pretty much every single detail about it, if they read the ROM listings and marked up the schematics and traced through the OS with a debugger or whatever.  Even minis and mainframes had wonderful documentation (cheap too) and often some access to source code.  These days all the important stuff is hidden inside undocumented ASICs and vendor-supplied drivers and it's just not possible for one person to understand the entire system with the kind of detail that was possible with the little toy computers we used to have such fun with.  Well at least there are PIC CPUs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't resist the nitpick -- the twee 's name is spelled Apple //e .
The square brackets are for the Apple ] [ and Apple ] [ + .It 's definitely true though -- ever since the original Mac ( with its hard-to-open case and lack of expansion slots ) , Apple totally turned its back on hobbyists , which is bizarre because the Apple ] [ 's success was entirely because of its easy-to-interface-to expansion bus and the fact that the commented ROM listings were available in a manual that high penniless high school kids could afford .
IBM copied both ideas and mopped the floor with the Mac market , until IBM themselves got lost in the woods with MCA and the PS/2 ( but at least they came to their senses later after the clone market taught them some respect ) .At the same time it seems like it would be hard for present-day geeks to follow in the exact footsteps of us old codgers .
One of the nice things about an Apple ] [ or a Commodore PET or a TRS-80 was that it was entirely possible for a suitably nerdly high school kit to understand pretty much every single detail about it , if they read the ROM listings and marked up the schematics and traced through the OS with a debugger or whatever .
Even minis and mainframes had wonderful documentation ( cheap too ) and often some access to source code .
These days all the important stuff is hidden inside undocumented ASICs and vendor-supplied drivers and it 's just not possible for one person to understand the entire system with the kind of detail that was possible with the little toy computers we used to have such fun with .
Well at least there are PIC CPUs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't resist the nitpick -- the twee's name is spelled Apple //e.
The square brackets are for the Apple ][ and Apple ][+.It's definitely true though -- ever since the original Mac (with its hard-to-open case and lack of expansion slots), Apple totally turned its back on hobbyists, which is bizarre because the Apple ]['s success was entirely because of its easy-to-interface-to expansion bus and the fact that the commented ROM listings were available in a manual that high penniless high school kids could afford.
IBM copied both ideas and mopped the floor with the Mac market, until IBM themselves got lost in the woods with MCA and the PS/2 (but at least they came to their senses later after the clone market taught them some respect).At the same time it seems like it would be hard for present-day geeks to follow in the exact footsteps of us old codgers.
One of the nice things about an Apple ][ or a Commodore PET or a TRS-80 was that it was entirely possible for a suitably nerdly high school kit to understand pretty much every single detail about it, if they read the ROM listings and marked up the schematics and traced through the OS with a debugger or whatever.
Even minis and mainframes had wonderful documentation (cheap too) and often some access to source code.
These days all the important stuff is hidden inside undocumented ASICs and vendor-supplied drivers and it's just not possible for one person to understand the entire system with the kind of detail that was possible with the little toy computers we used to have such fun with.
Well at least there are PIC CPUs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972692</id>
	<title>Give me a break.</title>
	<author>diesel66</author>
	<datestamp>1264970100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently caught one colleague crying that the iPad is merely a digital consumption device.  He pays more than $120 per month for cable TV.  The irony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently caught one colleague crying that the iPad is merely a digital consumption device .
He pays more than $ 120 per month for cable TV .
The irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently caught one colleague crying that the iPad is merely a digital consumption device.
He pays more than $120 per month for cable TV.
The irony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30996422</id>
	<title>Trending AWAY?</title>
	<author>KlomDark</author>
	<datestamp>1265130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of revisionist history is this? They've NEVER been too cool about people writing their own programs for their machines.</p><p>I learned that in the Apple ][ days - back then I had a bunch of detentions to make up in high school my senior year. The principal made me a deal - (I was the star computer geek of my little mid-Nebraska high school) if I'd write software to track detentions, then I wouldn't have to sit for 200+ hours in detention before graduating. (I got one hour of detention originally for taing a "long lunch" with my girlfriend [Yes, I'm a freak of nature - I had both a computer and a girlfriend in high school!], but they had a policy of doubling the number every time you didn't show up. I got to 2^8 and then they realized it was retarded.)</p><p>I thought it was a great deal and accepted. Their computer lab at school was based on TRS-80 Model IV's at the time, and I had a C64 at home. Could have done it quickly on either. Then I found out he wanted it done on an Apple ][e as that's what they used in the office. I tried really hard, but could not find any information about doing random access files (The way to store data back in the pre-SQL days.) on an Apple. I called the local Apple dealer, I read everything I could find, and could not get any info other than "Apple doesn't usually give out this information". I was used to the more open C64/TRS-80 world, where tech specs were easily accessible.</p><p>So, I didn't get out of my detentions, I went to the last day of school, went the next Monday and took my GED test (Scoring 100\% on 3 of 5 tests, and 99\%s on the other two), got my GED, went to collge, never looked back, and thus began my detesting of anything Apple.</p><p>So FUCK YOU Steve Jobs, your power-mad ways cost me my high school diploma. (Not that it hurt me much, (Probably set me back three years on getting my career going well) but it's the principle of the thing. No reason to withhold tech specs on your shiny toys.) I shall malign your company and products forever! Fuck Apple, fuck Steve Jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of revisionist history is this ?
They 've NEVER been too cool about people writing their own programs for their machines.I learned that in the Apple ] [ days - back then I had a bunch of detentions to make up in high school my senior year .
The principal made me a deal - ( I was the star computer geek of my little mid-Nebraska high school ) if I 'd write software to track detentions , then I would n't have to sit for 200 + hours in detention before graduating .
( I got one hour of detention originally for taing a " long lunch " with my girlfriend [ Yes , I 'm a freak of nature - I had both a computer and a girlfriend in high school !
] , but they had a policy of doubling the number every time you did n't show up .
I got to 2 ^ 8 and then they realized it was retarded .
) I thought it was a great deal and accepted .
Their computer lab at school was based on TRS-80 Model IV 's at the time , and I had a C64 at home .
Could have done it quickly on either .
Then I found out he wanted it done on an Apple ] [ e as that 's what they used in the office .
I tried really hard , but could not find any information about doing random access files ( The way to store data back in the pre-SQL days .
) on an Apple .
I called the local Apple dealer , I read everything I could find , and could not get any info other than " Apple does n't usually give out this information " .
I was used to the more open C64/TRS-80 world , where tech specs were easily accessible.So , I did n't get out of my detentions , I went to the last day of school , went the next Monday and took my GED test ( Scoring 100 \ % on 3 of 5 tests , and 99 \ % s on the other two ) , got my GED , went to collge , never looked back , and thus began my detesting of anything Apple.So FUCK YOU Steve Jobs , your power-mad ways cost me my high school diploma .
( Not that it hurt me much , ( Probably set me back three years on getting my career going well ) but it 's the principle of the thing .
No reason to withhold tech specs on your shiny toys .
) I shall malign your company and products forever !
Fuck Apple , fuck Steve Jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of revisionist history is this?
They've NEVER been too cool about people writing their own programs for their machines.I learned that in the Apple ][ days - back then I had a bunch of detentions to make up in high school my senior year.
The principal made me a deal - (I was the star computer geek of my little mid-Nebraska high school) if I'd write software to track detentions, then I wouldn't have to sit for 200+ hours in detention before graduating.
(I got one hour of detention originally for taing a "long lunch" with my girlfriend [Yes, I'm a freak of nature - I had both a computer and a girlfriend in high school!
], but they had a policy of doubling the number every time you didn't show up.
I got to 2^8 and then they realized it was retarded.
)I thought it was a great deal and accepted.
Their computer lab at school was based on TRS-80 Model IV's at the time, and I had a C64 at home.
Could have done it quickly on either.
Then I found out he wanted it done on an Apple ][e as that's what they used in the office.
I tried really hard, but could not find any information about doing random access files (The way to store data back in the pre-SQL days.
) on an Apple.
I called the local Apple dealer, I read everything I could find, and could not get any info other than "Apple doesn't usually give out this information".
I was used to the more open C64/TRS-80 world, where tech specs were easily accessible.So, I didn't get out of my detentions, I went to the last day of school, went the next Monday and took my GED test (Scoring 100\% on 3 of 5 tests, and 99\%s on the other two), got my GED, went to collge, never looked back, and thus began my detesting of anything Apple.So FUCK YOU Steve Jobs, your power-mad ways cost me my high school diploma.
(Not that it hurt me much, (Probably set me back three years on getting my career going well) but it's the principle of the thing.
No reason to withhold tech specs on your shiny toys.
) I shall malign your company and products forever!
Fuck Apple, fuck Steve Jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</id>
	<title>True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Mac OS X comes with development tools right on the install CD.  How expensive (or difficult, back before bit torrent) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to Linux and I'm pleased that Apple make it so easy to get programming tools on your Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Mac OS X comes with development tools right on the install CD .
How expensive ( or difficult , back before bit torrent ) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to Linux and I 'm pleased that Apple make it so easy to get programming tools on your Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Mac OS X comes with development tools right on the install CD.
How expensive (or difficult, back before bit torrent) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to Linux and I'm pleased that Apple make it so easy to get programming tools on your Mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972182</id>
	<title>don't real hackers go wintel/unix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by definition, anyone who is "hackign" an apple is an artistic type, for whome electronics is secondary, or a hacker wannabee</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by definition , anyone who is " hackign " an apple is an artistic type , for whome electronics is secondary , or a hacker wannabee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by definition, anyone who is "hackign" an apple is an artistic type, for whome electronics is secondary, or a hacker wannabee</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972940</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264971360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad.</p></div><p>You can't play Farmville on a Nintendo DS either. In general, a competing platform is likely (but unfortunately not certain) to have a program in the same genre, even if it's a different title. PC has Farmville; DS has Harvest Moon. PC has Windows Movie Maker; Mac has iMovie. Wii has Metroid Prime; Xbox has Halo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you ca n't do any of that on the ipad.You ca n't play Farmville on a Nintendo DS either .
In general , a competing platform is likely ( but unfortunately not certain ) to have a program in the same genre , even if it 's a different title .
PC has Farmville ; DS has Harvest Moon .
PC has Windows Movie Maker ; Mac has iMovie .
Wii has Metroid Prime ; Xbox has Halo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad.You can't play Farmville on a Nintendo DS either.
In general, a competing platform is likely (but unfortunately not certain) to have a program in the same genre, even if it's a different title.
PC has Farmville; DS has Harvest Moon.
PC has Windows Movie Maker; Mac has iMovie.
Wii has Metroid Prime; Xbox has Halo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978604</id>
	<title>Re:Over personalization</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1265018220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google would beg to differ..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google would beg to differ. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google would beg to differ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972556</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine. Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them...</i></p><p>Yes they do: <a href="http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3814337" title="radioshack.com">http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3814337</a> [radioshack.com]</p><p>You're so busy being nostalgic that you forgot to actually fact-check your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine .
Alas , Radio Shack no longer sells them...Yes they do : http : //www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp ? productId = 3814337 [ radioshack.com ] You 're so busy being nostalgic that you forgot to actually fact-check your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine.
Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them...Yes they do: http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3814337 [radioshack.com]You're so busy being nostalgic that you forgot to actually fact-check your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973016</id>
	<title>So get a N900</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1264928580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most awesome phone ever. Completely open, runs a very normal Linux distro, and you can "apt-get install" stuff on it.</p><p>No jailbreaking needed, the terminal is one of the applications in the default installation, and you can install SSH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most awesome phone ever .
Completely open , runs a very normal Linux distro , and you can " apt-get install " stuff on it.No jailbreaking needed , the terminal is one of the applications in the default installation , and you can install SSH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most awesome phone ever.
Completely open, runs a very normal Linux distro, and you can "apt-get install" stuff on it.No jailbreaking needed, the terminal is one of the applications in the default installation, and you can install SSH.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986110</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1265016000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, why should opening your TV and replacing its components void the warranty? Because it's no longer the thing you bought, so expecting the manufactuers to fix it seems wildly unreasonable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , why should opening your TV and replacing its components void the warranty ?
Because it 's no longer the thing you bought , so expecting the manufactuers to fix it seems wildly unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, why should opening your TV and replacing its components void the warranty?
Because it's no longer the thing you bought, so expecting the manufactuers to fix it seems wildly unreasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30979054</id>
	<title>Thank you!</title>
	<author>Kagetsuki</author>
	<datestamp>1265024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally! A story pointing this out that Slashdot let slip by. I was starting to think I was the only one who thought "Think Different" was possibly the most untrue and unfitting slogan for Apple. "Think our way, or we'll stop you from thinking different with our next update we force on you."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally !
A story pointing this out that Slashdot let slip by .
I was starting to think I was the only one who thought " Think Different " was possibly the most untrue and unfitting slogan for Apple .
" Think our way , or we 'll stop you from thinking different with our next update we force on you .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally!
A story pointing this out that Slashdot let slip by.
I was starting to think I was the only one who thought "Think Different" was possibly the most untrue and unfitting slogan for Apple.
"Think our way, or we'll stop you from thinking different with our next update we force on you.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974182</id>
	<title>Locked down for the wrong reasons</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1264934880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying it's wrong for systems to be locked down. But when they are, it's usually for a good reason. I can't tinker with the electronics in my Toyota because it would be stupid and possibly dangerous to do so.</p><p>Apple, on the other hand, is locking down these systems for the wrong reasons. Just as they always have, they lock things down for profit. You can't make an email client because Apple wants you to use theirs. You can't make a video download service because Apple wants to funnel you into their store. Most fundamentally, you can't even by apps from a store other than Apple's.</p><p>This is just plain asinine. If Microsoft did this, they would be sued for antitrust. But Apple being the "underdog" goes along merrily while locking people into their systems. If Apple did this for usability alone I wouldn't condone them. However more often than not they do it to lock people into their profit streams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying it 's wrong for systems to be locked down .
But when they are , it 's usually for a good reason .
I ca n't tinker with the electronics in my Toyota because it would be stupid and possibly dangerous to do so.Apple , on the other hand , is locking down these systems for the wrong reasons .
Just as they always have , they lock things down for profit .
You ca n't make an email client because Apple wants you to use theirs .
You ca n't make a video download service because Apple wants to funnel you into their store .
Most fundamentally , you ca n't even by apps from a store other than Apple 's.This is just plain asinine .
If Microsoft did this , they would be sued for antitrust .
But Apple being the " underdog " goes along merrily while locking people into their systems .
If Apple did this for usability alone I would n't condone them .
However more often than not they do it to lock people into their profit streams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying it's wrong for systems to be locked down.
But when they are, it's usually for a good reason.
I can't tinker with the electronics in my Toyota because it would be stupid and possibly dangerous to do so.Apple, on the other hand, is locking down these systems for the wrong reasons.
Just as they always have, they lock things down for profit.
You can't make an email client because Apple wants you to use theirs.
You can't make a video download service because Apple wants to funnel you into their store.
Most fundamentally, you can't even by apps from a store other than Apple's.This is just plain asinine.
If Microsoft did this, they would be sued for antitrust.
But Apple being the "underdog" goes along merrily while locking people into their systems.
If Apple did this for usability alone I wouldn't condone them.
However more often than not they do it to lock people into their profit streams.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971920</id>
	<title>Never understood that.</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1264965960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was 1 when the Apple II came out and grew up around them for a bit.  Honestly, they never really struck me as a tinker's machine.  I also had the impression that Apple was about trying to prevent people from tinkering with their stuff.  It always seemed like a generic computer to me.  I know that those who owned them will disagree and you are right too, I'm just sharing my opinion from my point of view.</p><p>So while you are saying that Apple has changed, I just don't see that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was 1 when the Apple II came out and grew up around them for a bit .
Honestly , they never really struck me as a tinker 's machine .
I also had the impression that Apple was about trying to prevent people from tinkering with their stuff .
It always seemed like a generic computer to me .
I know that those who owned them will disagree and you are right too , I 'm just sharing my opinion from my point of view.So while you are saying that Apple has changed , I just do n't see that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was 1 when the Apple II came out and grew up around them for a bit.
Honestly, they never really struck me as a tinker's machine.
I also had the impression that Apple was about trying to prevent people from tinkering with their stuff.
It always seemed like a generic computer to me.
I know that those who owned them will disagree and you are right too, I'm just sharing my opinion from my point of view.So while you are saying that Apple has changed, I just don't see that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978990</id>
	<title>Re:python?</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This. Python gives us back something we haven't seen since we were little kids typing commands into BBC BASIC: a command line interpreter. If you type in "print 'hello'" to Python, it will do just that right on the screen immediately. Isn't that the first step we all took? It's important, psychologically. A computer is an expensive, complex, obscure and intimidating machine. But interacting with it like this shows us the truth: that the computer is in fact a total idiot that will do exactly what it is told, and we can tell it to do whatever we please.

<p>Then we learn how to string commands together in a row, and that's our first program. Then we learn how to make a loop, so we can make the computer print 'boobies' over and over. And twenty or thirty years on, here we all are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
Python gives us back something we have n't seen since we were little kids typing commands into BBC BASIC : a command line interpreter .
If you type in " print 'hello ' " to Python , it will do just that right on the screen immediately .
Is n't that the first step we all took ?
It 's important , psychologically .
A computer is an expensive , complex , obscure and intimidating machine .
But interacting with it like this shows us the truth : that the computer is in fact a total idiot that will do exactly what it is told , and we can tell it to do whatever we please .
Then we learn how to string commands together in a row , and that 's our first program .
Then we learn how to make a loop , so we can make the computer print 'boobies ' over and over .
And twenty or thirty years on , here we all are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
Python gives us back something we haven't seen since we were little kids typing commands into BBC BASIC: a command line interpreter.
If you type in "print 'hello'" to Python, it will do just that right on the screen immediately.
Isn't that the first step we all took?
It's important, psychologically.
A computer is an expensive, complex, obscure and intimidating machine.
But interacting with it like this shows us the truth: that the computer is in fact a total idiot that will do exactly what it is told, and we can tell it to do whatever we please.
Then we learn how to string commands together in a row, and that's our first program.
Then we learn how to make a loop, so we can make the computer print 'boobies' over and over.
And twenty or thirty years on, here we all are...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972352</id>
	<title>Re:Apple products are for old people</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264968060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno,  I usually find that the people "not willing to learn the in's and out's" are the same people who aren't willing to consider Mac as an option.  They want to eat their cake and have it too: they don't want a machine that is considered "easy to use" as an affront to their egos, but they don't want to spend any effort learning either.</p><p>There is also the money thing, but often as not I'll see them drop more bucks on a noisy beige box with too-small screen than they would have spent on the "low end" apple.  And although there is much more variety of PC equipment, they will inexplicably end up with slower specs than the low end apple.</p><p>Of course it's not helped that the stores put the ram capacity on the sticker, but the ram speed is unmentioned.  Or the raw clock rate of the cpu, but not the size of the last level cache.</p><p>Anyway, my answer is usually "get the one that feels right for you" and if pressed, tell them I have a apple because of the unix (and milled aluminum case, which although fashionable, is also comfortably rigid giving it a "not a toy" feel.).  Also file  vault, which windows still offers no equivalent to unless you buy the ultimate extreem mega costly edition.</p><p>If they're willing to learn the ins and outs, mac actually has a lot to offer.  But if they need excel macros, Windows is the only choice: office mac doesn't have 'em. (or doesn't have vbscript or something.  It's not the complete ms office product) and mac's office suite doesn't understand 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , I usually find that the people " not willing to learn the in 's and out 's " are the same people who are n't willing to consider Mac as an option .
They want to eat their cake and have it too : they do n't want a machine that is considered " easy to use " as an affront to their egos , but they do n't want to spend any effort learning either.There is also the money thing , but often as not I 'll see them drop more bucks on a noisy beige box with too-small screen than they would have spent on the " low end " apple .
And although there is much more variety of PC equipment , they will inexplicably end up with slower specs than the low end apple.Of course it 's not helped that the stores put the ram capacity on the sticker , but the ram speed is unmentioned .
Or the raw clock rate of the cpu , but not the size of the last level cache.Anyway , my answer is usually " get the one that feels right for you " and if pressed , tell them I have a apple because of the unix ( and milled aluminum case , which although fashionable , is also comfortably rigid giving it a " not a toy " feel. ) .
Also file vault , which windows still offers no equivalent to unless you buy the ultimate extreem mega costly edition.If they 're willing to learn the ins and outs , mac actually has a lot to offer .
But if they need excel macros , Windows is the only choice : office mac does n't have 'em .
( or does n't have vbscript or something .
It 's not the complete ms office product ) and mac 's office suite does n't understand 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno,  I usually find that the people "not willing to learn the in's and out's" are the same people who aren't willing to consider Mac as an option.
They want to eat their cake and have it too: they don't want a machine that is considered "easy to use" as an affront to their egos, but they don't want to spend any effort learning either.There is also the money thing, but often as not I'll see them drop more bucks on a noisy beige box with too-small screen than they would have spent on the "low end" apple.
And although there is much more variety of PC equipment, they will inexplicably end up with slower specs than the low end apple.Of course it's not helped that the stores put the ram capacity on the sticker, but the ram speed is unmentioned.
Or the raw clock rate of the cpu, but not the size of the last level cache.Anyway, my answer is usually "get the one that feels right for you" and if pressed, tell them I have a apple because of the unix (and milled aluminum case, which although fashionable, is also comfortably rigid giving it a "not a toy" feel.).
Also file  vault, which windows still offers no equivalent to unless you buy the ultimate extreem mega costly edition.If they're willing to learn the ins and outs, mac actually has a lot to offer.
But if they need excel macros, Windows is the only choice: office mac doesn't have 'em.
(or doesn't have vbscript or something.
It's not the complete ms office product) and mac's office suite doesn't understand 'em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972398</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1264968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, the problem is that I feel this had already happened to some extent.  The computer is generally viewed now as a social interaction tool (think FB, IM, email) more than anything else.  When I was growing up on the geeks had computers or even wanted one.  The amazement and wonderment of computers is for the most part lost on todays youth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , the problem is that I feel this had already happened to some extent .
The computer is generally viewed now as a social interaction tool ( think FB , IM , email ) more than anything else .
When I was growing up on the geeks had computers or even wanted one .
The amazement and wonderment of computers is for the most part lost on todays youth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, the problem is that I feel this had already happened to some extent.
The computer is generally viewed now as a social interaction tool (think FB, IM, email) more than anything else.
When I was growing up on the geeks had computers or even wanted one.
The amazement and wonderment of computers is for the most part lost on todays youth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972304</id>
	<title>A difference of philosophies</title>
	<author>screamline</author>
	<datestamp>1264967700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>System design lies on a spectrum, with powerful, flexible functionality on one end, and user-friendly but inflexible functionality on the other. Apple chooses to build their systems closer to the user-friendly-but-inflexible end of the spectrum. That may not be what all their users want, but it's the market they've been targeting for years. And at least they do choose a side; Microsoft typically tries to offer both (i.e., to provide powerful solutions that will allow advanced users to do whatever they want, while at the same time attempting to anticipate what those users will want to do and doing it for them) and ends up with neither.</htmltext>
<tokenext>System design lies on a spectrum , with powerful , flexible functionality on one end , and user-friendly but inflexible functionality on the other .
Apple chooses to build their systems closer to the user-friendly-but-inflexible end of the spectrum .
That may not be what all their users want , but it 's the market they 've been targeting for years .
And at least they do choose a side ; Microsoft typically tries to offer both ( i.e. , to provide powerful solutions that will allow advanced users to do whatever they want , while at the same time attempting to anticipate what those users will want to do and doing it for them ) and ends up with neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>System design lies on a spectrum, with powerful, flexible functionality on one end, and user-friendly but inflexible functionality on the other.
Apple chooses to build their systems closer to the user-friendly-but-inflexible end of the spectrum.
That may not be what all their users want, but it's the market they've been targeting for years.
And at least they do choose a side; Microsoft typically tries to offer both (i.e., to provide powerful solutions that will allow advanced users to do whatever they want, while at the same time attempting to anticipate what those users will want to do and doing it for them) and ends up with neither.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974892</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1264939440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At first, I thought your comment was spot-on.  But maybe not...<p><div class="quote"><p>If tinkerability is default in all computers, all children in computer owning households, whatever their parents motives/level of interest/level of information get access to it. If tinkerability is a special feature, one that you have to trade off against shiny for, a much smaller percentage of children will have access to it.</p></div><p>Who owns a <i>computer</i> that isn't "tinkerable"?  Sure, some aspects of the more fundamental aspects of the OS are harder to get access to (on some systems) these days then they were a couple decades ago, but so what?  There are still oodles of things one can fiddle with on any standard OS.  And if you haven't noticed, now kids have access to <i>the internet</i>, which has orders of magnitude more possibilities for exploration, tinkering, things you can download to tinker with on your computer, etc.  If kids are sufficiently interested, they could just as easily do the same sort of stuff on a computer today that they did on a supposedly more "tinkerable" computer in the 1980s... but they choose to do other things instead, because there are so many possibilities they have access to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't a "OMG, the iCops are violating your rights" thing; but it could easily be the case that the rise of appliances results in a reduction of children's access to tinkering and future motivation <b>in certain directions</b>.</p></div><p>Yes, we get it.  But perhaps the motivation "in certain directions" no longer happens because other opportunities to tinker take their place.</p><p>

There will always be the fringe world of tinkering and experimentation.  It may not be about the same things you did as a kid, but there will still be plenty of opportunities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first , I thought your comment was spot-on .
But maybe not...If tinkerability is default in all computers , all children in computer owning households , whatever their parents motives/level of interest/level of information get access to it .
If tinkerability is a special feature , one that you have to trade off against shiny for , a much smaller percentage of children will have access to it.Who owns a computer that is n't " tinkerable " ?
Sure , some aspects of the more fundamental aspects of the OS are harder to get access to ( on some systems ) these days then they were a couple decades ago , but so what ?
There are still oodles of things one can fiddle with on any standard OS .
And if you have n't noticed , now kids have access to the internet , which has orders of magnitude more possibilities for exploration , tinkering , things you can download to tinker with on your computer , etc .
If kids are sufficiently interested , they could just as easily do the same sort of stuff on a computer today that they did on a supposedly more " tinkerable " computer in the 1980s... but they choose to do other things instead , because there are so many possibilities they have access to.This is n't a " OMG , the iCops are violating your rights " thing ; but it could easily be the case that the rise of appliances results in a reduction of children 's access to tinkering and future motivation in certain directions.Yes , we get it .
But perhaps the motivation " in certain directions " no longer happens because other opportunities to tinker take their place .
There will always be the fringe world of tinkering and experimentation .
It may not be about the same things you did as a kid , but there will still be plenty of opportunities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first, I thought your comment was spot-on.
But maybe not...If tinkerability is default in all computers, all children in computer owning households, whatever their parents motives/level of interest/level of information get access to it.
If tinkerability is a special feature, one that you have to trade off against shiny for, a much smaller percentage of children will have access to it.Who owns a computer that isn't "tinkerable"?
Sure, some aspects of the more fundamental aspects of the OS are harder to get access to (on some systems) these days then they were a couple decades ago, but so what?
There are still oodles of things one can fiddle with on any standard OS.
And if you haven't noticed, now kids have access to the internet, which has orders of magnitude more possibilities for exploration, tinkering, things you can download to tinker with on your computer, etc.
If kids are sufficiently interested, they could just as easily do the same sort of stuff on a computer today that they did on a supposedly more "tinkerable" computer in the 1980s... but they choose to do other things instead, because there are so many possibilities they have access to.This isn't a "OMG, the iCops are violating your rights" thing; but it could easily be the case that the rise of appliances results in a reduction of children's access to tinkering and future motivation in certain directions.Yes, we get it.
But perhaps the motivation "in certain directions" no longer happens because other opportunities to tinker take their place.
There will always be the fringe world of tinkering and experimentation.
It may not be about the same things you did as a kid, but there will still be plenty of opportunities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972362</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But then I encountered their users, snobby idiots really. Although it was not because they used Apple, more that those with a specific profession tend to use Macs</p></div></blockquote><p>All groups have segments that are assholes.  Many linux users are the same way thinking they are elite because they can click install.  There was a time in the past when linux was hard to install but not anymore.</p><blockquote><div><p>Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets. I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in? WTF!</p></div></blockquote><p>Apple removed all DRM off their music awhile ago.  From what I understand you can change the battery in ipods with a replacement and a butter knife.</p><p>There are lots of things to bitch at Apple about.  For example, the iPad should be more computer and less iPhone than the other way around.  Moaning about their users, DRM, or a 1 button mouse (I know you didn't bring it up but all Apple rants seem to end up there) is just dumb.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then I encountered their users , snobby idiots really .
Although it was not because they used Apple , more that those with a specific profession tend to use MacsAll groups have segments that are assholes .
Many linux users are the same way thinking they are elite because they can click install .
There was a time in the past when linux was hard to install but not anymore.Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets .
I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in ?
WTF ! Apple removed all DRM off their music awhile ago .
From what I understand you can change the battery in ipods with a replacement and a butter knife.There are lots of things to bitch at Apple about .
For example , the iPad should be more computer and less iPhone than the other way around .
Moaning about their users , DRM , or a 1 button mouse ( I know you did n't bring it up but all Apple rants seem to end up there ) is just dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then I encountered their users, snobby idiots really.
Although it was not because they used Apple, more that those with a specific profession tend to use MacsAll groups have segments that are assholes.
Many linux users are the same way thinking they are elite because they can click install.
There was a time in the past when linux was hard to install but not anymore.Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets.
I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in?
WTF!Apple removed all DRM off their music awhile ago.
From what I understand you can change the battery in ipods with a replacement and a butter knife.There are lots of things to bitch at Apple about.
For example, the iPad should be more computer and less iPhone than the other way around.
Moaning about their users, DRM, or a 1 button mouse (I know you didn't bring it up but all Apple rants seem to end up there) is just dumb.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971940</id>
	<title>A different world, a different audience</title>
	<author>haralds</author>
	<datestamp>1264966020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, it is sad that things are changing in this regard, but the world has changed. It is more hostile, and almost every avenue for customization is also a path for malware and viruses. And most users are not savvy, and become victim of external attacks.<br>Unfortunately, no matter what the root cause, the vendor ends up getting the blame.</p><p>However, it would be nice if there was a switch that could be thrown, perhaps as part of the XCode install...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , it is sad that things are changing in this regard , but the world has changed .
It is more hostile , and almost every avenue for customization is also a path for malware and viruses .
And most users are not savvy , and become victim of external attacks.Unfortunately , no matter what the root cause , the vendor ends up getting the blame.However , it would be nice if there was a switch that could be thrown , perhaps as part of the XCode install.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, it is sad that things are changing in this regard, but the world has changed.
It is more hostile, and almost every avenue for customization is also a path for malware and viruses.
And most users are not savvy, and become victim of external attacks.Unfortunately, no matter what the root cause, the vendor ends up getting the blame.However, it would be nice if there was a switch that could be thrown, perhaps as part of the XCode install...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978638</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty fucked-up actually, why should installing another OS void your warranty? Are you sure this isn't a ploy to encourage a significant percentage of customers to void their warranties, so they save money on replacing defective units?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty fucked-up actually , why should installing another OS void your warranty ?
Are you sure this is n't a ploy to encourage a significant percentage of customers to void their warranties , so they save money on replacing defective units ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty fucked-up actually, why should installing another OS void your warranty?
Are you sure this isn't a ploy to encourage a significant percentage of customers to void their warranties, so they save money on replacing defective units?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972898</id>
	<title>You say "jailbreak", I say "Trojan."</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1264971120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every jailbreak relies on finding a way to to crash the phone and insert code. This is a bug in the system, which has to be fixed to protect legions of other users, some of whom do their banking on their iPhone -- and remember, Bruce Schneier warned people not to do their banking on Windows, because it's too easy to "insert code" on a Windows computer. The banking apps on an iPhone are inherently more secure than anything on the web, or anything accessed through IE. A jailbreak so you can put on a cool program that Apple didn't pass can also put trojans there, too. Apple isn't being unduly mean to jailbreakers. If they really want to get good at it, they can figure out what to do next. Leave the debuggers to other platforms.</p><p>And that's all that Apple's "doing" to jailbreakers. Lots of people who want to do that are still doing that. No lawsuits that I know of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every jailbreak relies on finding a way to to crash the phone and insert code .
This is a bug in the system , which has to be fixed to protect legions of other users , some of whom do their banking on their iPhone -- and remember , Bruce Schneier warned people not to do their banking on Windows , because it 's too easy to " insert code " on a Windows computer .
The banking apps on an iPhone are inherently more secure than anything on the web , or anything accessed through IE .
A jailbreak so you can put on a cool program that Apple did n't pass can also put trojans there , too .
Apple is n't being unduly mean to jailbreakers .
If they really want to get good at it , they can figure out what to do next .
Leave the debuggers to other platforms.And that 's all that Apple 's " doing " to jailbreakers .
Lots of people who want to do that are still doing that .
No lawsuits that I know of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every jailbreak relies on finding a way to to crash the phone and insert code.
This is a bug in the system, which has to be fixed to protect legions of other users, some of whom do their banking on their iPhone -- and remember, Bruce Schneier warned people not to do their banking on Windows, because it's too easy to "insert code" on a Windows computer.
The banking apps on an iPhone are inherently more secure than anything on the web, or anything accessed through IE.
A jailbreak so you can put on a cool program that Apple didn't pass can also put trojans there, too.
Apple isn't being unduly mean to jailbreakers.
If they really want to get good at it, they can figure out what to do next.
Leave the debuggers to other platforms.And that's all that Apple's "doing" to jailbreakers.
Lots of people who want to do that are still doing that.
No lawsuits that I know of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986610</id>
	<title>Re:Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think popularity is hard to measure.  I would guess there are actually more people tinkering now than there were then, just the community is overrun by people that don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think popularity is hard to measure .
I would guess there are actually more people tinkering now than there were then , just the community is overrun by people that do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think popularity is hard to measure.
I would guess there are actually more people tinkering now than there were then, just the community is overrun by people that don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971968</id>
	<title>As one who cut his teeth toggling in values</title>
	<author>mikefocke</author>
	<datestamp>1264966200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in machine language...</p><p>Few people want to play at that level any more and few need to. Most want to create really cool apps and for them access to the GUI is enough. Heck, C isn't taught in many schools any more.</p><p>But if a kid wants to play at low level, there are $25 or less offers on the web for the computers of yore. Or they can start reading code..it isn't like lots isn't available. And even for most OSS, the docs are so much more than the manufacturers manuals were in the 60s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in machine language...Few people want to play at that level any more and few need to .
Most want to create really cool apps and for them access to the GUI is enough .
Heck , C is n't taught in many schools any more.But if a kid wants to play at low level , there are $ 25 or less offers on the web for the computers of yore .
Or they can start reading code..it is n't like lots is n't available .
And even for most OSS , the docs are so much more than the manufacturers manuals were in the 60s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in machine language...Few people want to play at that level any more and few need to.
Most want to create really cool apps and for them access to the GUI is enough.
Heck, C isn't taught in many schools any more.But if a kid wants to play at low level, there are $25 or less offers on the web for the computers of yore.
Or they can start reading code..it isn't like lots isn't available.
And even for most OSS, the docs are so much more than the manufacturers manuals were in the 60s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972226</id>
	<title>python?</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1264967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think python may fit that bill better than Tcl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think python may fit that bill better than Tcl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think python may fit that bill better than Tcl</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975696</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have three classes of devices, (and cars) at home. There is tier 1 - used for work. These must work, must always be available, and I don't mess with them much. This for me is my Mac Mini, all the house phones and VoIP gear and my Toyota MR2 (OK, my MR2 is lightly modified, but then so is my Mac 8)) Tier 2 is the stuff used by my Wife and kids daily. The Windows7 desktop I built her, and her Ford Mondeo. These I also dont mess with unless tried on Tier3 first - the toys. Slightly older desktops, Linux, Virtual machines( Mail server, LAMP server, VPN gateway, VoIP PBX (second line on my VoIP providor, doesn't affect the main house phones)), an Acer One netbook, Jailbroken iPod Touch, hacked old XBoxes, and the toy vehicle is my Chopper.<br>No-one can take tier three away from me (except my wife) These tools are the ones I'm going to show the kids how to mess with and hack. These are the ones that will get torn down, and if broken beyond repair -replaced.<br>iPad will probably be in Tier2 for me as the wife wants it. She saw the photoframe mode when the screen is locked, and the idea of all the games she borrows my iPhone for running on the bigger screen and she was sold.</p><p>Hacking - It starts with getting them interested in the tech first, then moving on with restricted budget - this enhances creativity and do-it-yourself. Cant afford to buy a case for the latest creation? Cut and bend one up from scrap aluminium yourself. Need a photo sensor for a robot? Make it from a kit from an electronics shop. These things all cost a fortune when I was a kids, they are dirt cheap now.<br>When I grew up, I went through 2 ZX81s before my dad finally bought a Spectrum. We both worked on the spectrum building a floppy drive interface and a new case and keyboard. Then we got given a Commodore128. This was cool becasue it ran the Commodore64 games, but could also run CPM and had faster parallel drives and printer (I used this to start working on a spreadsheet simulating WWI era planes rates of movement/climb/decent at varous airspeeds for a tabletop 3D WWI dogfighting game I was writing with a friend (We eventually had to scale it up to 1/72 scale models (Airfix is your friend) on 3 meter tall sticks, on 1/100 scale ground in a large hall (300M or 1000ft between ground and cloud) (Yes a Pup could fly faster than a Triplane on the level, but the Triplane will be right up your ass in a dive at speeds that will tear the wings off the pup)<br>For me and I hope my kids, how it comes from the factory will never be good enough. Just a place to start 8)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have three classes of devices , ( and cars ) at home .
There is tier 1 - used for work .
These must work , must always be available , and I do n't mess with them much .
This for me is my Mac Mini , all the house phones and VoIP gear and my Toyota MR2 ( OK , my MR2 is lightly modified , but then so is my Mac 8 ) ) Tier 2 is the stuff used by my Wife and kids daily .
The Windows7 desktop I built her , and her Ford Mondeo .
These I also dont mess with unless tried on Tier3 first - the toys .
Slightly older desktops , Linux , Virtual machines ( Mail server , LAMP server , VPN gateway , VoIP PBX ( second line on my VoIP providor , does n't affect the main house phones ) ) , an Acer One netbook , Jailbroken iPod Touch , hacked old XBoxes , and the toy vehicle is my Chopper.No-one can take tier three away from me ( except my wife ) These tools are the ones I 'm going to show the kids how to mess with and hack .
These are the ones that will get torn down , and if broken beyond repair -replaced.iPad will probably be in Tier2 for me as the wife wants it .
She saw the photoframe mode when the screen is locked , and the idea of all the games she borrows my iPhone for running on the bigger screen and she was sold.Hacking - It starts with getting them interested in the tech first , then moving on with restricted budget - this enhances creativity and do-it-yourself .
Cant afford to buy a case for the latest creation ?
Cut and bend one up from scrap aluminium yourself .
Need a photo sensor for a robot ?
Make it from a kit from an electronics shop .
These things all cost a fortune when I was a kids , they are dirt cheap now.When I grew up , I went through 2 ZX81s before my dad finally bought a Spectrum .
We both worked on the spectrum building a floppy drive interface and a new case and keyboard .
Then we got given a Commodore128 .
This was cool becasue it ran the Commodore64 games , but could also run CPM and had faster parallel drives and printer ( I used this to start working on a spreadsheet simulating WWI era planes rates of movement/climb/decent at varous airspeeds for a tabletop 3D WWI dogfighting game I was writing with a friend ( We eventually had to scale it up to 1/72 scale models ( Airfix is your friend ) on 3 meter tall sticks , on 1/100 scale ground in a large hall ( 300M or 1000ft between ground and cloud ) ( Yes a Pup could fly faster than a Triplane on the level , but the Triplane will be right up your ass in a dive at speeds that will tear the wings off the pup ) For me and I hope my kids , how it comes from the factory will never be good enough .
Just a place to start 8 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have three classes of devices, (and cars) at home.
There is tier 1 - used for work.
These must work, must always be available, and I don't mess with them much.
This for me is my Mac Mini, all the house phones and VoIP gear and my Toyota MR2 (OK, my MR2 is lightly modified, but then so is my Mac 8)) Tier 2 is the stuff used by my Wife and kids daily.
The Windows7 desktop I built her, and her Ford Mondeo.
These I also dont mess with unless tried on Tier3 first - the toys.
Slightly older desktops, Linux, Virtual machines( Mail server, LAMP server, VPN gateway, VoIP PBX (second line on my VoIP providor, doesn't affect the main house phones)), an Acer One netbook, Jailbroken iPod Touch, hacked old XBoxes, and the toy vehicle is my Chopper.No-one can take tier three away from me (except my wife) These tools are the ones I'm going to show the kids how to mess with and hack.
These are the ones that will get torn down, and if broken beyond repair -replaced.iPad will probably be in Tier2 for me as the wife wants it.
She saw the photoframe mode when the screen is locked, and the idea of all the games she borrows my iPhone for running on the bigger screen and she was sold.Hacking - It starts with getting them interested in the tech first, then moving on with restricted budget - this enhances creativity and do-it-yourself.
Cant afford to buy a case for the latest creation?
Cut and bend one up from scrap aluminium yourself.
Need a photo sensor for a robot?
Make it from a kit from an electronics shop.
These things all cost a fortune when I was a kids, they are dirt cheap now.When I grew up, I went through 2 ZX81s before my dad finally bought a Spectrum.
We both worked on the spectrum building a floppy drive interface and a new case and keyboard.
Then we got given a Commodore128.
This was cool becasue it ran the Commodore64 games, but could also run CPM and had faster parallel drives and printer (I used this to start working on a spreadsheet simulating WWI era planes rates of movement/climb/decent at varous airspeeds for a tabletop 3D WWI dogfighting game I was writing with a friend (We eventually had to scale it up to 1/72 scale models (Airfix is your friend) on 3 meter tall sticks, on 1/100 scale ground in a large hall (300M or 1000ft between ground and cloud) (Yes a Pup could fly faster than a Triplane on the level, but the Triplane will be right up your ass in a dive at speeds that will tear the wings off the pup)For me and I hope my kids, how it comes from the factory will never be good enough.
Just a place to start 8)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976430</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264949460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the people you see ranting are the ones who don't have any ideas or ability to do anything useful with it.</p><p>The people with stuff to do on it are writing apps so they'll be ready when the time comes for it to hit the shelves.</p><p>For every bad review (of anything, computer related or anything else like cars or restuarnts) there are 100 people with a good experience.  People who are happy just enjoy it, people who are pissed off vent on forums or review sites.</p><p>This is why you can't use something like CitySearch to get reviews of a business, all you'll see are bad reviews and maybe one or two good ones from the few people that read all the bad ones, went anyway, and then felt the need to set the record straight for others to enjoy it.</p><p>Whiners tend to drown everyone else out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the people you see ranting are the ones who do n't have any ideas or ability to do anything useful with it.The people with stuff to do on it are writing apps so they 'll be ready when the time comes for it to hit the shelves.For every bad review ( of anything , computer related or anything else like cars or restuarnts ) there are 100 people with a good experience .
People who are happy just enjoy it , people who are pissed off vent on forums or review sites.This is why you ca n't use something like CitySearch to get reviews of a business , all you 'll see are bad reviews and maybe one or two good ones from the few people that read all the bad ones , went anyway , and then felt the need to set the record straight for others to enjoy it.Whiners tend to drown everyone else out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the people you see ranting are the ones who don't have any ideas or ability to do anything useful with it.The people with stuff to do on it are writing apps so they'll be ready when the time comes for it to hit the shelves.For every bad review (of anything, computer related or anything else like cars or restuarnts) there are 100 people with a good experience.
People who are happy just enjoy it, people who are pissed off vent on forums or review sites.This is why you can't use something like CitySearch to get reviews of a business, all you'll see are bad reviews and maybe one or two good ones from the few people that read all the bad ones, went anyway, and then felt the need to set the record straight for others to enjoy it.Whiners tend to drown everyone else out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974358</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264935720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My kids use Linux.  But sadly, even under Linux, there's no dead-easy kid-friendly way for them to learn programming the way I learned BASIC on my TRS-80 CoCo.</p></div><p> <a href="http://docs.python.org/library/turtle.html" title="python.org" rel="nofollow">http://docs.python.org/library/turtle.html</a> [python.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My kids use Linux .
But sadly , even under Linux , there 's no dead-easy kid-friendly way for them to learn programming the way I learned BASIC on my TRS-80 CoCo .
http : //docs.python.org/library/turtle.html [ python.org ] : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My kids use Linux.
But sadly, even under Linux, there's no dead-easy kid-friendly way for them to learn programming the way I learned BASIC on my TRS-80 CoCo.
http://docs.python.org/library/turtle.html [python.org] :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974618</id>
	<title>Re:Article is incorrect</title>
	<author>jisatsusha</author>
	<datestamp>1264937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit. You can't load any code onto an iPhone without a signing key from Apple, costing $100 per year. And no, jailbreaking does not count.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
You ca n't load any code onto an iPhone without a signing key from Apple , costing $ 100 per year .
And no , jailbreaking does not count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
You can't load any code onto an iPhone without a signing key from Apple, costing $100 per year.
And no, jailbreaking does not count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973282</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forty-nine years ago when I was twelve, I had a friend who was gifted a chemistry set for some occasion. We had a lot of fun with it and he really got into it. One day, I saw the cops at his house. He had blown off his thumb and part of two fingers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forty-nine years ago when I was twelve , I had a friend who was gifted a chemistry set for some occasion .
We had a lot of fun with it and he really got into it .
One day , I saw the cops at his house .
He had blown off his thumb and part of two fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forty-nine years ago when I was twelve, I had a friend who was gifted a chemistry set for some occasion.
We had a lot of fun with it and he really got into it.
One day, I saw the cops at his house.
He had blown off his thumb and part of two fingers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973432</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1264931100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"iPads are meant for people that DON'T care about computers, but about real world activity."<br> <br>
I disagree with that partially.  I don't think there's any reason this is limited to non technical people.  I'm a Software Engineer and I will probably get the iPad.  The reason being is that when you are on the couch you don't necessarily need a full blown computer all the time.  Laptops get warm on your lap sometimes and just having this thing around reduces the need to bring the laptop in some circumstances.  Surely it'll appeal to a non technical crowd but I don't think that means it's not appealing to anyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" iPads are meant for people that DO N'T care about computers , but about real world activity .
" I disagree with that partially .
I do n't think there 's any reason this is limited to non technical people .
I 'm a Software Engineer and I will probably get the iPad .
The reason being is that when you are on the couch you do n't necessarily need a full blown computer all the time .
Laptops get warm on your lap sometimes and just having this thing around reduces the need to bring the laptop in some circumstances .
Surely it 'll appeal to a non technical crowd but I do n't think that means it 's not appealing to anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"iPads are meant for people that DON'T care about computers, but about real world activity.
" 
I disagree with that partially.
I don't think there's any reason this is limited to non technical people.
I'm a Software Engineer and I will probably get the iPad.
The reason being is that when you are on the couch you don't necessarily need a full blown computer all the time.
Laptops get warm on your lap sometimes and just having this thing around reduces the need to bring the laptop in some circumstances.
Surely it'll appeal to a non technical crowd but I don't think that means it's not appealing to anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971988</id>
	<title>Over personalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple isn't out to fight people that want to 'tinker', they are just going after a different market now, the 'consumer market'. Its where the real money is to be made, and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.</p><p>If you still want to 'tinker', you still can, just you do it elsewhere.  Give your kid a FPGA board and some books on basic logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is n't out to fight people that want to 'tinker ' , they are just going after a different market now , the 'consumer market' .
Its where the real money is to be made , and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.If you still want to 'tinker ' , you still can , just you do it elsewhere .
Give your kid a FPGA board and some books on basic logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple isn't out to fight people that want to 'tinker', they are just going after a different market now, the 'consumer market'.
Its where the real money is to be made, and the side effect are shiny closed boxes that 'just work'.If you still want to 'tinker', you still can, just you do it elsewhere.
Give your kid a FPGA board and some books on basic logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973042</id>
	<title>I learned on an Apple //e too</title>
	<author>Kevinv</author>
	<datestamp>1264928760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy crap this is idiotic.</p><p>I learned on an Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//e. The only language available was Applesoft. It was great I did some neat things with it.  But when I wanted to expand and do another language, 6502 Assembler in my case, it was too expensive to get a compiler/editor so I got a pirated one.</p><p>For the Mac and iPhone OS Apple now gives away the entire IDE, compilers, simulators, everything FOR FREE.</p><p>Sure if I want to load an app I wrote on to my iPod Touch the "official" way I have to pay Apple $99 for the developer membership (there is no need for Apple approval of any app you write to load on your own device.) Or if I can't afford the $99 -- I jailbreak my iPod. Considering the few qualms I had about pirating an Assembler, if i were in a tinkering mood jailbreaking would be a no brainer. Heck, it isn't even stealing like my pirating was.</p><p>If anything the tools and capabilties of tinkering with todays devices is WAY cooler than when I was kid. Peek/Poke. Screw that, now you can write Objective-C. And if it turns out really, really cool you can sell it to a world wide audience for only $99.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy crap this is idiotic.I learned on an Apple //e .
The only language available was Applesoft .
It was great I did some neat things with it .
But when I wanted to expand and do another language , 6502 Assembler in my case , it was too expensive to get a compiler/editor so I got a pirated one.For the Mac and iPhone OS Apple now gives away the entire IDE , compilers , simulators , everything FOR FREE.Sure if I want to load an app I wrote on to my iPod Touch the " official " way I have to pay Apple $ 99 for the developer membership ( there is no need for Apple approval of any app you write to load on your own device .
) Or if I ca n't afford the $ 99 -- I jailbreak my iPod .
Considering the few qualms I had about pirating an Assembler , if i were in a tinkering mood jailbreaking would be a no brainer .
Heck , it is n't even stealing like my pirating was.If anything the tools and capabilties of tinkering with todays devices is WAY cooler than when I was kid .
Peek/Poke. Screw that , now you can write Objective-C. And if it turns out really , really cool you can sell it to a world wide audience for only $ 99 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy crap this is idiotic.I learned on an Apple //e.
The only language available was Applesoft.
It was great I did some neat things with it.
But when I wanted to expand and do another language, 6502 Assembler in my case, it was too expensive to get a compiler/editor so I got a pirated one.For the Mac and iPhone OS Apple now gives away the entire IDE, compilers, simulators, everything FOR FREE.Sure if I want to load an app I wrote on to my iPod Touch the "official" way I have to pay Apple $99 for the developer membership (there is no need for Apple approval of any app you write to load on your own device.
) Or if I can't afford the $99 -- I jailbreak my iPod.
Considering the few qualms I had about pirating an Assembler, if i were in a tinkering mood jailbreaking would be a no brainer.
Heck, it isn't even stealing like my pirating was.If anything the tools and capabilties of tinkering with todays devices is WAY cooler than when I was kid.
Peek/Poke. Screw that, now you can write Objective-C. And if it turns out really, really cool you can sell it to a world wide audience for only $99.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972062</id>
	<title>Haven't seen nothing yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody has held the device in their hands, so only speculation on how hard it will be to hack.<br>I suspect that their own ARM based CPU is going to be pretty close to the Cell PPC (IBM: Sony PS3) in terms of security.<br>It looks really cool, but I'm not going to wait 3+ years to do whatever I want with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody has held the device in their hands , so only speculation on how hard it will be to hack.I suspect that their own ARM based CPU is going to be pretty close to the Cell PPC ( IBM : Sony PS3 ) in terms of security.It looks really cool , but I 'm not going to wait 3 + years to do whatever I want with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody has held the device in their hands, so only speculation on how hard it will be to hack.I suspect that their own ARM based CPU is going to be pretty close to the Cell PPC (IBM: Sony PS3) in terms of security.It looks really cool, but I'm not going to wait 3+ years to do whatever I want with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971816</id>
	<title>It's true</title>
	<author>Kell Bengal</author>
	<datestamp>1264965300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What makes computers great are their flexibility - it's an entire world to discover to someone young and new.  Are we going to be in the insane situation where our children will need to dust off the old C64 from half a century ago just to learn the basics for themselves?<br> <br>If all you've got is locked content on locked machines, you end up with mind firmly locked shut.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes computers great are their flexibility - it 's an entire world to discover to someone young and new .
Are we going to be in the insane situation where our children will need to dust off the old C64 from half a century ago just to learn the basics for themselves ?
If all you 've got is locked content on locked machines , you end up with mind firmly locked shut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes computers great are their flexibility - it's an entire world to discover to someone young and new.
Are we going to be in the insane situation where our children will need to dust off the old C64 from half a century ago just to learn the basics for themselves?
If all you've got is locked content on locked machines, you end up with mind firmly locked shut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972336</id>
	<title>So run Linux</title>
	<author>Progman3K</author>
	<datestamp>1264967940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that will never be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that will never be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that will never be a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973906</id>
	<title>Re:This is Dumb</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264933500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is the problem here? That you can't program the iPad on the iPad?</p></div><p>Yes. Because something like an iPad will end up being the only computer in some households. We don't yet know whether the iPad will be able to function without a "real" computer to sync to, but I believe Apple would be mad not to target that market.</p><p>Why do people buy computers? For web browsing, word processing, photos and games.</p><p>How do young people get into programming? By tinkering with a computer that was bought for some other purpose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the problem here ?
That you ca n't program the iPad on the iPad ? Yes .
Because something like an iPad will end up being the only computer in some households .
We do n't yet know whether the iPad will be able to function without a " real " computer to sync to , but I believe Apple would be mad not to target that market.Why do people buy computers ?
For web browsing , word processing , photos and games.How do young people get into programming ?
By tinkering with a computer that was bought for some other purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the problem here?
That you can't program the iPad on the iPad?Yes.
Because something like an iPad will end up being the only computer in some households.
We don't yet know whether the iPad will be able to function without a "real" computer to sync to, but I believe Apple would be mad not to target that market.Why do people buy computers?
For web browsing, word processing, photos and games.How do young people get into programming?
By tinkering with a computer that was bought for some other purpose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972480</id>
	<title>Victimized by their own success</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1264968900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>'Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world. With every software update, the previous generation of "jailbreaks" stop working...</i>
</p><p>I can't see any reason for Apple to do things any other way.  In some ways they're victims of their own success, just like Dell, HP, Microsoft and many other big companies.  They've become so absorbed with their own chic they've lost sight of who helped get to where they are today.  The artsy types have taken over from the tinkerers.

</p><p>It's too bad their sense of style trumped everything else, because that used to be a nice bonus with Apple products, the "and they look cool" factor.  Now style and marketing have edged out other factors.  They're so absorbed protecting their market rice bowls they stopped caring about expanding it.

</p><p>Tinkerers will always have a home with Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world .
With every software update , the previous generation of " jailbreaks " stop working.. . I ca n't see any reason for Apple to do things any other way .
In some ways they 're victims of their own success , just like Dell , HP , Microsoft and many other big companies .
They 've become so absorbed with their own chic they 've lost sight of who helped get to where they are today .
The artsy types have taken over from the tinkerers .
It 's too bad their sense of style trumped everything else , because that used to be a nice bonus with Apple products , the " and they look cool " factor .
Now style and marketing have edged out other factors .
They 're so absorbed protecting their market rice bowls they stopped caring about expanding it .
Tinkerers will always have a home with Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world.
With every software update, the previous generation of "jailbreaks" stop working...
I can't see any reason for Apple to do things any other way.
In some ways they're victims of their own success, just like Dell, HP, Microsoft and many other big companies.
They've become so absorbed with their own chic they've lost sight of who helped get to where they are today.
The artsy types have taken over from the tinkerers.
It's too bad their sense of style trumped everything else, because that used to be a nice bonus with Apple products, the "and they look cool" factor.
Now style and marketing have edged out other factors.
They're so absorbed protecting their market rice bowls they stopped caring about expanding it.
Tinkerers will always have a home with Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978780</id>
	<title>bullshit</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to tinker with your iPhone or iPad? Get an Apple Developers account and you can unlock it and write any Objective-C code you want and put it on the device.</p><p>So maybe program X won't be available on the App Store, but you can easily compile and install it on your personal iPhone. Oh yeah, it takes a developer account, whine about that. But while you're whining, do agree that the statements made in the summary are simply false to fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to tinker with your iPhone or iPad ?
Get an Apple Developers account and you can unlock it and write any Objective-C code you want and put it on the device.So maybe program X wo n't be available on the App Store , but you can easily compile and install it on your personal iPhone .
Oh yeah , it takes a developer account , whine about that .
But while you 're whining , do agree that the statements made in the summary are simply false to fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to tinker with your iPhone or iPad?
Get an Apple Developers account and you can unlock it and write any Objective-C code you want and put it on the device.So maybe program X won't be available on the App Store, but you can easily compile and install it on your personal iPhone.
Oh yeah, it takes a developer account, whine about that.
But while you're whining, do agree that the statements made in the summary are simply false to fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973350</id>
	<title>Re:boo hoo</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264930620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, just don't confuse them with personal computers. Put them in the <b>smart terminal tablet</b> category and we are fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , just do n't confuse them with personal computers .
Put them in the smart terminal tablet category and we are fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, just don't confuse them with personal computers.
Put them in the smart terminal tablet category and we are fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972086</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1264966680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can download the SDK for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can download the SDK for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can download the SDK for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975232</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>GreatDrok</author>
	<datestamp>1264941720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For a long time I was on the fence about Apple. I liked their strong sense of making sure everything works<br>But then I encountered their users, snobby idiots really. Although it was not because they used Apple, more that those with a specific profession tend to use Macs"</p><p>I've been programming for 30 years now on everything from the old Commodore Pet right through supercomputers (MasPar, Thinking Machines, Transputers and these days clusters and vector units) and since 1990 I've been UNIX all the way.  I *HATED* Macs not because of their users but because of the OS which stunk up the room.  OS X is a different beast.  I couldn't give a stuff about the snobby tossers who think Apple is cool - I use Macs because they are simply the best combination of hardware and operating system I have encountered and I'm so grateful I don't have to mess with cheap PC hardware to get my UNIX fix any more.  My Mac reminds me of everything I loved about my old Sun SPARCStation - elegant design and a solid OS.  I don't care that the chips can be found in just about any PC, it is how it is put together that matters.</p><p>"Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets. I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in? WTF!"</p><p>You mean the DRM that was forced on Apple by the record companies otherwise they wouldn't have anything to sell in the iTunes store, and that they used their market power to remove?  Hopefully, the same thing will happen with their movies - it is nice that many Blu-ray discs come with a DVD copy or a digital download version these days but it would be better to have an unencumbered version.</p><p>As for the battery - they can be replaced.  I replaced the battery in my 6 year old iPod 3G recently and it wasn't all that difficult.  There isn't much point having an openable door on the back when the battery will last five years.  The battery replacement kits come with the necessary tools and instructions to open up the iPod and my 3rd Gen is back up and running with longer battery life than it had when it was new.</p><p>"Now yet another reason I dont like Apple, these guys dont seem to realize what they are doing, stagnating their own products by being jackasses about their products.<br>I have distantly wanted a Mac, just to toy with it... but why? No reason anymore."</p><p>You're missing out.  OS X is very open and the dev tools are excellent and freely available.  The locking down of the iPhone, iPod Touch and now the iPad is not representative of Macs in general and simply a feature of the type of use as an appliance.  The recent issue with the jailbroken iPhones being hacked is good enough reason for the tight control of the platform.  It isn't a general purpose computer no matter what you might think - if you want one of those a Mac is the best solution out there - just don't sit in Starbucks drinking overpriced crap coffee and no-one will think you're a twat.  In my field (computational biology) Macs vastly outnumber Windows and Linux users because it is the best platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For a long time I was on the fence about Apple .
I liked their strong sense of making sure everything worksBut then I encountered their users , snobby idiots really .
Although it was not because they used Apple , more that those with a specific profession tend to use Macs " I 've been programming for 30 years now on everything from the old Commodore Pet right through supercomputers ( MasPar , Thinking Machines , Transputers and these days clusters and vector units ) and since 1990 I 've been UNIX all the way .
I * HATED * Macs not because of their users but because of the OS which stunk up the room .
OS X is a different beast .
I could n't give a stuff about the snobby tossers who think Apple is cool - I use Macs because they are simply the best combination of hardware and operating system I have encountered and I 'm so grateful I do n't have to mess with cheap PC hardware to get my UNIX fix any more .
My Mac reminds me of everything I loved about my old Sun SPARCStation - elegant design and a solid OS .
I do n't care that the chips can be found in just about any PC , it is how it is put together that matters .
" Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets .
I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in ?
WTF ! " You mean the DRM that was forced on Apple by the record companies otherwise they would n't have anything to sell in the iTunes store , and that they used their market power to remove ?
Hopefully , the same thing will happen with their movies - it is nice that many Blu-ray discs come with a DVD copy or a digital download version these days but it would be better to have an unencumbered version.As for the battery - they can be replaced .
I replaced the battery in my 6 year old iPod 3G recently and it was n't all that difficult .
There is n't much point having an openable door on the back when the battery will last five years .
The battery replacement kits come with the necessary tools and instructions to open up the iPod and my 3rd Gen is back up and running with longer battery life than it had when it was new .
" Now yet another reason I dont like Apple , these guys dont seem to realize what they are doing , stagnating their own products by being jackasses about their products.I have distantly wanted a Mac , just to toy with it... but why ?
No reason anymore .
" You 're missing out .
OS X is very open and the dev tools are excellent and freely available .
The locking down of the iPhone , iPod Touch and now the iPad is not representative of Macs in general and simply a feature of the type of use as an appliance .
The recent issue with the jailbroken iPhones being hacked is good enough reason for the tight control of the platform .
It is n't a general purpose computer no matter what you might think - if you want one of those a Mac is the best solution out there - just do n't sit in Starbucks drinking overpriced crap coffee and no-one will think you 're a twat .
In my field ( computational biology ) Macs vastly outnumber Windows and Linux users because it is the best platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For a long time I was on the fence about Apple.
I liked their strong sense of making sure everything worksBut then I encountered their users, snobby idiots really.
Although it was not because they used Apple, more that those with a specific profession tend to use Macs"I've been programming for 30 years now on everything from the old Commodore Pet right through supercomputers (MasPar, Thinking Machines, Transputers and these days clusters and vector units) and since 1990 I've been UNIX all the way.
I *HATED* Macs not because of their users but because of the OS which stunk up the room.
OS X is a different beast.
I couldn't give a stuff about the snobby tossers who think Apple is cool - I use Macs because they are simply the best combination of hardware and operating system I have encountered and I'm so grateful I don't have to mess with cheap PC hardware to get my UNIX fix any more.
My Mac reminds me of everything I loved about my old Sun SPARCStation - elegant design and a solid OS.
I don't care that the chips can be found in just about any PC, it is how it is put together that matters.
"Recently I havent liked Apple because of their DRM and crazy control they have over their products and markets.
I mean IPods that you cant change the battery in?
WTF!"You mean the DRM that was forced on Apple by the record companies otherwise they wouldn't have anything to sell in the iTunes store, and that they used their market power to remove?
Hopefully, the same thing will happen with their movies - it is nice that many Blu-ray discs come with a DVD copy or a digital download version these days but it would be better to have an unencumbered version.As for the battery - they can be replaced.
I replaced the battery in my 6 year old iPod 3G recently and it wasn't all that difficult.
There isn't much point having an openable door on the back when the battery will last five years.
The battery replacement kits come with the necessary tools and instructions to open up the iPod and my 3rd Gen is back up and running with longer battery life than it had when it was new.
"Now yet another reason I dont like Apple, these guys dont seem to realize what they are doing, stagnating their own products by being jackasses about their products.I have distantly wanted a Mac, just to toy with it... but why?
No reason anymore.
"You're missing out.
OS X is very open and the dev tools are excellent and freely available.
The locking down of the iPhone, iPod Touch and now the iPad is not representative of Macs in general and simply a feature of the type of use as an appliance.
The recent issue with the jailbroken iPhones being hacked is good enough reason for the tight control of the platform.
It isn't a general purpose computer no matter what you might think - if you want one of those a Mac is the best solution out there - just don't sit in Starbucks drinking overpriced crap coffee and no-one will think you're a twat.
In my field (computational biology) Macs vastly outnumber Windows and Linux users because it is the best platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972018</id>
	<title>Silly article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Ipad with it's overgrow screen is not targeted for the young, is an iTouch targeted for the elderly. When do those people start to tinker?</p><p>If they are already tinkerers they don't need that outlet, they have a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Ipad with it 's overgrow screen is not targeted for the young , is an iTouch targeted for the elderly .
When do those people start to tinker ? If they are already tinkerers they do n't need that outlet , they have a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Ipad with it's overgrow screen is not targeted for the young, is an iTouch targeted for the elderly.
When do those people start to tinker?If they are already tinkerers they don't need that outlet, they have a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30981652</id>
	<title>Apple has 91\% of market for $1,000+ PCs</title>
	<author>Feral Bueller</author>
	<datestamp>1265041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> First off, last time I checked, mac had a market share around 5\%. Now if you want to quote a source saying over 10\%, be my guest.
 Secondly, even if it was above 10\%, I think that could be considered a fraction of the installed windows user base.</p></div><p>This took all of about 15 seconds:</p><p>
<a href="http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624" title="betanews.com">http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624</a> [betanews.com]
</p><p>
Was the last time you checked? 1997?
</p><p>
The market share argument is getting about as dated as the "one button mouse LOL" argument.  Try again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , last time I checked , mac had a market share around 5 \ % .
Now if you want to quote a source saying over 10 \ % , be my guest .
Secondly , even if it was above 10 \ % , I think that could be considered a fraction of the installed windows user base.This took all of about 15 seconds : http : //www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624 [ betanews.com ] Was the last time you checked ?
1997 ? The market share argument is getting about as dated as the " one button mouse LOL " argument .
Try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> First off, last time I checked, mac had a market share around 5\%.
Now if you want to quote a source saying over 10\%, be my guest.
Secondly, even if it was above 10\%, I think that could be considered a fraction of the installed windows user base.This took all of about 15 seconds:
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624 [betanews.com]

Was the last time you checked?
1997?

The market share argument is getting about as dated as the "one button mouse LOL" argument.
Try again.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978112</id>
	<title>iPad runs the same apps as Chrome OS</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1265054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is so backwards. It is also sad to see yet another everybody-should-be-a-computer-nerd story.</p><p>iPad runs the same apps as Chrome OS. If you're going to say that Apple is anti-tinkerer, then what is Google? Chrome OS is a subset of iPhone OS: Unix core, HTML5 browser. But on iPad OS you get native app development also. So you can run a multitrack recorder and tinker with music. Chrome OS is much more limited than iPhone OS.</p><p>There's tons of open source code running in an iPad. Is that anti-tinkerer? Are the people who are making all the iPhone OS apps and games anti-tinkerer? Are the people who make music and movies and books for iPad anti-tinkerer? Just because they tinker with music, not software code?</p><p>The development platform for iPhone OS is the Mac, which comes with dev tools, is Unix-certified, and includes Apache2, PHP5, Python, Perl, Ruby, and more. It also has tons of open source software, including Apple WebKit, which enables standards-based Web development for consumers who have iPad or iPhone or iPod or Chrome or Android or Nokia or Palm instead of the bullshit IE-specific Web development Microsoft propagates. Is WebKit anti-tinkerer? The Mac also comes with a multitrack music studio, a video editor, a photo light box. There is a ton of stuff to discover on Apple platforms, not just coding. But if you're into coding, the entire Mac UI can be scripted and so can the Unix shell of course. There are about 10 computer languages built into every Mac.</p><p>Some of us get a sense of wonder from writing books or music, not fucking around endlessly with computers. I got my nerd on as a kid in-between a set of headphones, listening to an LP, looking at album art, reading the lyrics. The iPad is the perfect device to provide the 21st century version of that. Many, many kids will discover music, movies, literature, websites on iPad and want to make those things. Hopefully they will also discover the idea of making stuff with some QUALITY which they certainly will not get from running most computing platforms. Making stuff for iPad is as easy as getting a Mac, which is $400 per year including the service plan, and if anything stops you from being able to make music today, you take the Mac to Apple and they fix it. So if you are a music tinkerer, you don't have to take a course in computer science, you take a course in music.</p><p>I'm truly tired of this everybody-should-be-a-computer-nerd philosophy of computing. Have you watched most people use a computer? It's like they are sentenced to hard labor.</p><p>At the iPad introduction, Steve Jobs said "Apple sees itself at the intersection of technology and liberal arts." The idea is to enhance the entire broad field of human endeavor with computers, not enslave them with computer science tasks. To enable them to enhance their own work (i.e. doctor, musician, architect) with computing, not sit and do various mindless steps to get anything done. What is joyful coding to a computer scientist is grim slavery to 90\% of humanity. Many people do not have the kind of memory it takes to find the 15th nested dialog box in Outlook that lets them change their email signature. Me, I can hear any melody once and remember it forever, but I don't say that everyone should have to be able to do that in order to listen to music.</p><p>The funniest thing about this everybody-should-be-a-tinkerer idea is that computer scientists are among the most focused people on the planet. The joke is that they don't shower or shave because they're too into the computer. So to have computer scientists say that everyone else should have to learn more about the computer before they listen to music or read a book or whatever they do is outrageous. What if you were forced to learn a musical instrument in order to use a computer? You'd lose your fucking mind.</p><p>The switch to digital is not an excuse to force computer science on the rest of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is so backwards .
It is also sad to see yet another everybody-should-be-a-computer-nerd story.iPad runs the same apps as Chrome OS .
If you 're going to say that Apple is anti-tinkerer , then what is Google ?
Chrome OS is a subset of iPhone OS : Unix core , HTML5 browser .
But on iPad OS you get native app development also .
So you can run a multitrack recorder and tinker with music .
Chrome OS is much more limited than iPhone OS.There 's tons of open source code running in an iPad .
Is that anti-tinkerer ?
Are the people who are making all the iPhone OS apps and games anti-tinkerer ?
Are the people who make music and movies and books for iPad anti-tinkerer ?
Just because they tinker with music , not software code ? The development platform for iPhone OS is the Mac , which comes with dev tools , is Unix-certified , and includes Apache2 , PHP5 , Python , Perl , Ruby , and more .
It also has tons of open source software , including Apple WebKit , which enables standards-based Web development for consumers who have iPad or iPhone or iPod or Chrome or Android or Nokia or Palm instead of the bullshit IE-specific Web development Microsoft propagates .
Is WebKit anti-tinkerer ?
The Mac also comes with a multitrack music studio , a video editor , a photo light box .
There is a ton of stuff to discover on Apple platforms , not just coding .
But if you 're into coding , the entire Mac UI can be scripted and so can the Unix shell of course .
There are about 10 computer languages built into every Mac.Some of us get a sense of wonder from writing books or music , not fucking around endlessly with computers .
I got my nerd on as a kid in-between a set of headphones , listening to an LP , looking at album art , reading the lyrics .
The iPad is the perfect device to provide the 21st century version of that .
Many , many kids will discover music , movies , literature , websites on iPad and want to make those things .
Hopefully they will also discover the idea of making stuff with some QUALITY which they certainly will not get from running most computing platforms .
Making stuff for iPad is as easy as getting a Mac , which is $ 400 per year including the service plan , and if anything stops you from being able to make music today , you take the Mac to Apple and they fix it .
So if you are a music tinkerer , you do n't have to take a course in computer science , you take a course in music.I 'm truly tired of this everybody-should-be-a-computer-nerd philosophy of computing .
Have you watched most people use a computer ?
It 's like they are sentenced to hard labor.At the iPad introduction , Steve Jobs said " Apple sees itself at the intersection of technology and liberal arts .
" The idea is to enhance the entire broad field of human endeavor with computers , not enslave them with computer science tasks .
To enable them to enhance their own work ( i.e .
doctor , musician , architect ) with computing , not sit and do various mindless steps to get anything done .
What is joyful coding to a computer scientist is grim slavery to 90 \ % of humanity .
Many people do not have the kind of memory it takes to find the 15th nested dialog box in Outlook that lets them change their email signature .
Me , I can hear any melody once and remember it forever , but I do n't say that everyone should have to be able to do that in order to listen to music.The funniest thing about this everybody-should-be-a-tinkerer idea is that computer scientists are among the most focused people on the planet .
The joke is that they do n't shower or shave because they 're too into the computer .
So to have computer scientists say that everyone else should have to learn more about the computer before they listen to music or read a book or whatever they do is outrageous .
What if you were forced to learn a musical instrument in order to use a computer ?
You 'd lose your fucking mind.The switch to digital is not an excuse to force computer science on the rest of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is so backwards.
It is also sad to see yet another everybody-should-be-a-computer-nerd story.iPad runs the same apps as Chrome OS.
If you're going to say that Apple is anti-tinkerer, then what is Google?
Chrome OS is a subset of iPhone OS: Unix core, HTML5 browser.
But on iPad OS you get native app development also.
So you can run a multitrack recorder and tinker with music.
Chrome OS is much more limited than iPhone OS.There's tons of open source code running in an iPad.
Is that anti-tinkerer?
Are the people who are making all the iPhone OS apps and games anti-tinkerer?
Are the people who make music and movies and books for iPad anti-tinkerer?
Just because they tinker with music, not software code?The development platform for iPhone OS is the Mac, which comes with dev tools, is Unix-certified, and includes Apache2, PHP5, Python, Perl, Ruby, and more.
It also has tons of open source software, including Apple WebKit, which enables standards-based Web development for consumers who have iPad or iPhone or iPod or Chrome or Android or Nokia or Palm instead of the bullshit IE-specific Web development Microsoft propagates.
Is WebKit anti-tinkerer?
The Mac also comes with a multitrack music studio, a video editor, a photo light box.
There is a ton of stuff to discover on Apple platforms, not just coding.
But if you're into coding, the entire Mac UI can be scripted and so can the Unix shell of course.
There are about 10 computer languages built into every Mac.Some of us get a sense of wonder from writing books or music, not fucking around endlessly with computers.
I got my nerd on as a kid in-between a set of headphones, listening to an LP, looking at album art, reading the lyrics.
The iPad is the perfect device to provide the 21st century version of that.
Many, many kids will discover music, movies, literature, websites on iPad and want to make those things.
Hopefully they will also discover the idea of making stuff with some QUALITY which they certainly will not get from running most computing platforms.
Making stuff for iPad is as easy as getting a Mac, which is $400 per year including the service plan, and if anything stops you from being able to make music today, you take the Mac to Apple and they fix it.
So if you are a music tinkerer, you don't have to take a course in computer science, you take a course in music.I'm truly tired of this everybody-should-be-a-computer-nerd philosophy of computing.
Have you watched most people use a computer?
It's like they are sentenced to hard labor.At the iPad introduction, Steve Jobs said "Apple sees itself at the intersection of technology and liberal arts.
" The idea is to enhance the entire broad field of human endeavor with computers, not enslave them with computer science tasks.
To enable them to enhance their own work (i.e.
doctor, musician, architect) with computing, not sit and do various mindless steps to get anything done.
What is joyful coding to a computer scientist is grim slavery to 90\% of humanity.
Many people do not have the kind of memory it takes to find the 15th nested dialog box in Outlook that lets them change their email signature.
Me, I can hear any melody once and remember it forever, but I don't say that everyone should have to be able to do that in order to listen to music.The funniest thing about this everybody-should-be-a-tinkerer idea is that computer scientists are among the most focused people on the planet.
The joke is that they don't shower or shave because they're too into the computer.
So to have computer scientists say that everyone else should have to learn more about the computer before they listen to music or read a book or whatever they do is outrageous.
What if you were forced to learn a musical instrument in order to use a computer?
You'd lose your fucking mind.The switch to digital is not an excuse to force computer science on the rest of humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977490</id>
	<title>Re:Even the apple fan boys hate it</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1264960680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"All I've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web, reading books, and things like that."</p><p>And your Web experience includes no Flash applets, ever?</p><p>Heck, Flash runs on my Linux box just fine.</p><p>Mad props to Steve for finally creating a Mac which does less than Linux does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" All I 've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web , reading books , and things like that .
" And your Web experience includes no Flash applets , ever ? Heck , Flash runs on my Linux box just fine.Mad props to Steve for finally creating a Mac which does less than Linux does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All I've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web, reading books, and things like that.
"And your Web experience includes no Flash applets, ever?Heck, Flash runs on my Linux box just fine.Mad props to Steve for finally creating a Mac which does less than Linux does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973926</id>
	<title>Re:Good &amp; Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe it's not the best computer to learn on, as you don't seem to learn very much when everything is supposed to be so intuitive and so task focused, but as a tool to get certain types of work done, it's great, because you don't have to worry about anything but the job you want accomplished.</p></div><p>But why can't it be both? These things are not mutually exclusive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's not the best computer to learn on , as you do n't seem to learn very much when everything is supposed to be so intuitive and so task focused , but as a tool to get certain types of work done , it 's great , because you do n't have to worry about anything but the job you want accomplished.But why ca n't it be both ?
These things are not mutually exclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's not the best computer to learn on, as you don't seem to learn very much when everything is supposed to be so intuitive and so task focused, but as a tool to get certain types of work done, it's great, because you don't have to worry about anything but the job you want accomplished.But why can't it be both?
These things are not mutually exclusive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975472</id>
	<title>Re:Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Moof123</author>
	<datestamp>1264943100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen!  Even in the last 15 years since I was a student EE I am have amazed, and somewhat horrified, at the pace at which "tinkerable" electronics has vanished.</p><p>Op-Amps for example don't "just work", as many are such a high GBW product as to be very prone to oscillation in all but the cleanest bread boarding situations.  Most are only available in SMT packages that are getting too dense for me to work with without a microscope (and I'm only in my 30's).</p><p>In many ways it is for the better, as the 98\% of mainstream usage is in dense high functionality applications.  But the days to going to cobble together the next revolution in your spare time are all but dead.  Even getting my boss to approve the $$$ for bread boarding project related circuits is damn hard.  We instead rely on a lot more leaps of faith hoping that damn fast circuits live up to their datasheets, and in many cases live up to what we have to read between the lines on the datasheet.</p><p>On the other hand, I find it easy to run circles around the poor green engineers that show up not knowing which end of the soldering iron to hold.  Job security isn't always a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen !
Even in the last 15 years since I was a student EE I am have amazed , and somewhat horrified , at the pace at which " tinkerable " electronics has vanished.Op-Amps for example do n't " just work " , as many are such a high GBW product as to be very prone to oscillation in all but the cleanest bread boarding situations .
Most are only available in SMT packages that are getting too dense for me to work with without a microscope ( and I 'm only in my 30 's ) .In many ways it is for the better , as the 98 \ % of mainstream usage is in dense high functionality applications .
But the days to going to cobble together the next revolution in your spare time are all but dead .
Even getting my boss to approve the $ $ $ for bread boarding project related circuits is damn hard .
We instead rely on a lot more leaps of faith hoping that damn fast circuits live up to their datasheets , and in many cases live up to what we have to read between the lines on the datasheet.On the other hand , I find it easy to run circles around the poor green engineers that show up not knowing which end of the soldering iron to hold .
Job security is n't always a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen!
Even in the last 15 years since I was a student EE I am have amazed, and somewhat horrified, at the pace at which "tinkerable" electronics has vanished.Op-Amps for example don't "just work", as many are such a high GBW product as to be very prone to oscillation in all but the cleanest bread boarding situations.
Most are only available in SMT packages that are getting too dense for me to work with without a microscope (and I'm only in my 30's).In many ways it is for the better, as the 98\% of mainstream usage is in dense high functionality applications.
But the days to going to cobble together the next revolution in your spare time are all but dead.
Even getting my boss to approve the $$$ for bread boarding project related circuits is damn hard.
We instead rely on a lot more leaps of faith hoping that damn fast circuits live up to their datasheets, and in many cases live up to what we have to read between the lines on the datasheet.On the other hand, I find it easy to run circles around the poor green engineers that show up not knowing which end of the soldering iron to hold.
Job security isn't always a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30979276</id>
	<title>Re:Very much for tinkerers</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1265027400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BASIC interpreter was also the operating system, such as it was. I can imagine the howls of protest from slashdotters if someone praised a computer that had an MS operating system built into it, in rom<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Today if you want to run an alternative OS like linux on your mac or PC, all you have to do is pop a CD in the drive and click OK. Then, the alternative OS was CP/M, and you couldn't run CP/M without hardware modifications.</p></div><p>Applesoft Basic was sitting in ROM and functional without an operating system, but it by no means was a proper operating system.  It barely knew enough to boot a proper disk-based OS.</p><p>You needed a card to run CP/M because it wasn't ported to the 6502.  No reason they couldn't have done it, just nobody gave a damn.</p><p>There were multiple operating systems available for the Apple II series.  There was the original Apple DOS, with both integer basic and floating point variations.  Apple ProDOS was a second.  And in a completely different vein, there was Apple Pascal.  That required a hardware upgrade initially--you needed a smarter disk controller ROM and more RAM to make it run in an Apple II+--but by the time the 64K Apple IIe came out all that stuff was integrated into the standard package and it was just another piece of software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BASIC interpreter was also the operating system , such as it was .
I can imagine the howls of protest from slashdotters if someone praised a computer that had an MS operating system built into it , in rom : - ) Today if you want to run an alternative OS like linux on your mac or PC , all you have to do is pop a CD in the drive and click OK. Then , the alternative OS was CP/M , and you could n't run CP/M without hardware modifications.Applesoft Basic was sitting in ROM and functional without an operating system , but it by no means was a proper operating system .
It barely knew enough to boot a proper disk-based OS.You needed a card to run CP/M because it was n't ported to the 6502 .
No reason they could n't have done it , just nobody gave a damn.There were multiple operating systems available for the Apple II series .
There was the original Apple DOS , with both integer basic and floating point variations .
Apple ProDOS was a second .
And in a completely different vein , there was Apple Pascal .
That required a hardware upgrade initially--you needed a smarter disk controller ROM and more RAM to make it run in an Apple II + --but by the time the 64K Apple IIe came out all that stuff was integrated into the standard package and it was just another piece of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BASIC interpreter was also the operating system, such as it was.
I can imagine the howls of protest from slashdotters if someone praised a computer that had an MS operating system built into it, in rom :-) Today if you want to run an alternative OS like linux on your mac or PC, all you have to do is pop a CD in the drive and click OK. Then, the alternative OS was CP/M, and you couldn't run CP/M without hardware modifications.Applesoft Basic was sitting in ROM and functional without an operating system, but it by no means was a proper operating system.
It barely knew enough to boot a proper disk-based OS.You needed a card to run CP/M because it wasn't ported to the 6502.
No reason they couldn't have done it, just nobody gave a damn.There were multiple operating systems available for the Apple II series.
There was the original Apple DOS, with both integer basic and floating point variations.
Apple ProDOS was a second.
And in a completely different vein, there was Apple Pascal.
That required a hardware upgrade initially--you needed a smarter disk controller ROM and more RAM to make it run in an Apple II+--but by the time the 64K Apple IIe came out all that stuff was integrated into the standard package and it was just another piece of software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972446</id>
	<title>Tinkerers will just screw up the aesthetics</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Of course Apple has to lock out the "tinkerers".  They'll just screw up the aesthetic.
</p><p>
Look at most open source programs.  The icons suck.  The fonts suck. The layout sucks. The usability sucks. Few people can get those things right. Open source doesn't have a <a href="http://www.kare.com/" title="kare.com">Susan Kare.</a> [kare.com]
</p><p>
You know what tinkerers will do.  "See, if you press here, it pops up a keyboard image and you can use VI commands." Name one open source program that's undergone usability testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Apple has to lock out the " tinkerers " .
They 'll just screw up the aesthetic .
Look at most open source programs .
The icons suck .
The fonts suck .
The layout sucks .
The usability sucks .
Few people can get those things right .
Open source does n't have a Susan Kare .
[ kare.com ] You know what tinkerers will do .
" See , if you press here , it pops up a keyboard image and you can use VI commands .
" Name one open source program that 's undergone usability testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Of course Apple has to lock out the "tinkerers".
They'll just screw up the aesthetic.
Look at most open source programs.
The icons suck.
The fonts suck.
The layout sucks.
The usability sucks.
Few people can get those things right.
Open source doesn't have a Susan Kare.
[kare.com]

You know what tinkerers will do.
"See, if you press here, it pops up a keyboard image and you can use VI commands.
" Name one open source program that's undergone usability testing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975382</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason I disliked Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from my experience, from my family and friends colleagues, a very small percentage has ever had to change a battery on their phones or mp3 players, and when they do it's either the thing is a few years old and starting to get old and it's time to a change, or the thing was faulty to start with and it's still under warranty.</p><p>Now I think the reason Apple made their batteries a little hard for the average Joe to replace is because these things are becoming extremely dangerous and Apple doesn't want to get sued by someone who put the wrong battery in the wrong machine or some shorted the battery...</p><p>just my 2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from my experience , from my family and friends colleagues , a very small percentage has ever had to change a battery on their phones or mp3 players , and when they do it 's either the thing is a few years old and starting to get old and it 's time to a change , or the thing was faulty to start with and it 's still under warranty.Now I think the reason Apple made their batteries a little hard for the average Joe to replace is because these things are becoming extremely dangerous and Apple does n't want to get sued by someone who put the wrong battery in the wrong machine or some shorted the battery...just my 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from my experience, from my family and friends colleagues, a very small percentage has ever had to change a battery on their phones or mp3 players, and when they do it's either the thing is a few years old and starting to get old and it's time to a change, or the thing was faulty to start with and it's still under warranty.Now I think the reason Apple made their batteries a little hard for the average Joe to replace is because these things are becoming extremely dangerous and Apple doesn't want to get sued by someone who put the wrong battery in the wrong machine or some shorted the battery...just my 2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973566</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264931700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe your kids are dumb?</p><p>+5 Insightful</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe your kids are dumb ? + 5 Insightful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe your kids are dumb?+5 Insightful</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973008</id>
	<title>Ridiculous Post</title>
	<author>thornybranch</author>
	<datestamp>1264928580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jeez, It's not preventing anyone's opportunity to tinker.  It's a product that resulted from tinkering.

The logic of this post is like saying "Building schools prevents children from experimenting with wood."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeez , It 's not preventing anyone 's opportunity to tinker .
It 's a product that resulted from tinkering .
The logic of this post is like saying " Building schools prevents children from experimenting with wood .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeez, It's not preventing anyone's opportunity to tinker.
It's a product that resulted from tinkering.
The logic of this post is like saying "Building schools prevents children from experimenting with wood.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973822</id>
	<title>Re:Tinkerers will just screw up the aesthetics</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264933140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would guess that nearly every open source application has undergone usability testing, it just hasn't been very extensive or very effective.</p><p>More seriously, would Firefox count? I'm pretty sure they do some usability testing, but it is easy to discard as a special case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would guess that nearly every open source application has undergone usability testing , it just has n't been very extensive or very effective.More seriously , would Firefox count ?
I 'm pretty sure they do some usability testing , but it is easy to discard as a special case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would guess that nearly every open source application has undergone usability testing, it just hasn't been very extensive or very effective.More seriously, would Firefox count?
I'm pretty sure they do some usability testing, but it is easy to discard as a special case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971992</id>
	<title>One era ends, annother limps into being ...</title>
	<author>DrogMan</author>
	<datestamp>1264966320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too cut my programming teeth on an Apple ][

<p>I have a copy of the original "red book" with hand-written notes on shape tables, etc. I also had a plethora of other sources of information - the Wozpack, Disk Doctor, early copies of call-apple and coutless others which were hard to come-by in the UK at the time.

</p><p>Kids of today, get off my lawn, etc.

</p><p>So what we have now are "appliances" and lawyers.

</p><p>And as they say; If you can't open it, you don't own it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too cut my programming teeth on an Apple ] [ I have a copy of the original " red book " with hand-written notes on shape tables , etc .
I also had a plethora of other sources of information - the Wozpack , Disk Doctor , early copies of call-apple and coutless others which were hard to come-by in the UK at the time .
Kids of today , get off my lawn , etc .
So what we have now are " appliances " and lawyers .
And as they say ; If you ca n't open it , you do n't own it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too cut my programming teeth on an Apple ][

I have a copy of the original "red book" with hand-written notes on shape tables, etc.
I also had a plethora of other sources of information - the Wozpack, Disk Doctor, early copies of call-apple and coutless others which were hard to come-by in the UK at the time.
Kids of today, get off my lawn, etc.
So what we have now are "appliances" and lawyers.
And as they say; If you can't open it, you don't own it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972000</id>
	<title>Apple products are for old people</title>
	<author>HycoWhit</author>
	<datestamp>1264966380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too grew up with the Apple IIe.  I fondly remember the days of the computer problems being solved by ensuring all the chips were firmly seated.  Ahh those were the days.<br> <br>
As I'm sure most folks are on this site, friends and family always come to me asking for computer purchasing advice. My advice is if the person still has a brain capable of learning--get a PC based computer.  If the computer is for someone not willing to learn the in's and out's of computing--get them the Mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too grew up with the Apple IIe .
I fondly remember the days of the computer problems being solved by ensuring all the chips were firmly seated .
Ahh those were the days .
As I 'm sure most folks are on this site , friends and family always come to me asking for computer purchasing advice .
My advice is if the person still has a brain capable of learning--get a PC based computer .
If the computer is for someone not willing to learn the in 's and out 's of computing--get them the Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too grew up with the Apple IIe.
I fondly remember the days of the computer problems being solved by ensuring all the chips were firmly seated.
Ahh those were the days.
As I'm sure most folks are on this site, friends and family always come to me asking for computer purchasing advice.
My advice is if the person still has a brain capable of learning--get a PC based computer.
If the computer is for someone not willing to learn the in's and out's of computing--get them the Mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975016</id>
	<title>Re:One era ends, annother limps into being ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, How much did you had to pay back then for compiler software? Only the very primitive Basic was free on the Apple ][. I could not afford 6502 assembly compiler as a kid.<br>Back then, everyone, not just Apple, sucked out the developers's money. Now, it's the opposite. All the tools are free, the more apps, the more their device becomes THE de facto standard. WinCE VS SDK for your pocket PC in 2001 (f... better than the Palm OS SDK at the time)? Free! With a special version of VS for your desktop/ win ce debugger etc. Free! Java SDK Free. Eclipse JDT Free. Apple IPhone SDK free! Includes emulators so you don't even need to buy a device if you just want to try that stuff out.<br>Come on, now is paradise for developers. Multitouch screens to play with, internet, multi-threading, 3D luring around. Fun fun fun.<br>The noticeable exception I know off is Adobe Flash IDE. But even the base Flash SDK is free anyway.<br>And yeah, Android, linux etc. Things have never been so much fun for developers. The explosion of devices and peripherals is way more exciting than the variety of 8 bit machines we learned on which all had the same looking keyboard / screen and IOs. Anyway, I love(d) them all...</p><p>25 years old software veteran, turning grey hair but still having the same fun every day</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , How much did you had to pay back then for compiler software ?
Only the very primitive Basic was free on the Apple ] [ .
I could not afford 6502 assembly compiler as a kid.Back then , everyone , not just Apple , sucked out the developers 's money .
Now , it 's the opposite .
All the tools are free , the more apps , the more their device becomes THE de facto standard .
WinCE VS SDK for your pocket PC in 2001 ( f... better than the Palm OS SDK at the time ) ?
Free ! With a special version of VS for your desktop/ win ce debugger etc .
Free ! Java SDK Free .
Eclipse JDT Free .
Apple IPhone SDK free !
Includes emulators so you do n't even need to buy a device if you just want to try that stuff out.Come on , now is paradise for developers .
Multitouch screens to play with , internet , multi-threading , 3D luring around .
Fun fun fun.The noticeable exception I know off is Adobe Flash IDE .
But even the base Flash SDK is free anyway.And yeah , Android , linux etc .
Things have never been so much fun for developers .
The explosion of devices and peripherals is way more exciting than the variety of 8 bit machines we learned on which all had the same looking keyboard / screen and IOs .
Anyway , I love ( d ) them all...25 years old software veteran , turning grey hair but still having the same fun every day</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, How much did you had to pay back then for compiler software?
Only the very primitive Basic was free on the Apple ][.
I could not afford 6502 assembly compiler as a kid.Back then, everyone, not just Apple, sucked out the developers's money.
Now, it's the opposite.
All the tools are free, the more apps, the more their device becomes THE de facto standard.
WinCE VS SDK for your pocket PC in 2001 (f... better than the Palm OS SDK at the time)?
Free! With a special version of VS for your desktop/ win ce debugger etc.
Free! Java SDK Free.
Eclipse JDT Free.
Apple IPhone SDK free!
Includes emulators so you don't even need to buy a device if you just want to try that stuff out.Come on, now is paradise for developers.
Multitouch screens to play with, internet, multi-threading, 3D luring around.
Fun fun fun.The noticeable exception I know off is Adobe Flash IDE.
But even the base Flash SDK is free anyway.And yeah, Android, linux etc.
Things have never been so much fun for developers.
The explosion of devices and peripherals is way more exciting than the variety of 8 bit machines we learned on which all had the same looking keyboard / screen and IOs.
Anyway, I love(d) them all...25 years old software veteran, turning grey hair but still having the same fun every day</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976348</id>
	<title>and Microsoft is evil how?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1264949040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple continues to get away with their ridiculous locked down, all inclusive, dictatorship business practices... and we all bitch and moan about Microsoft being evil.</p><p>True, MS has earned it, but isnt it about time that we look at Apple in the proper light.</p><p>Apple makes cool, and great things.... but they also dictate what you can and cant do on their devices, what media formats you can use, what browser, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple continues to get away with their ridiculous locked down , all inclusive , dictatorship business practices... and we all bitch and moan about Microsoft being evil.True , MS has earned it , but isnt it about time that we look at Apple in the proper light.Apple makes cool , and great things.... but they also dictate what you can and cant do on their devices , what media formats you can use , what browser , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple continues to get away with their ridiculous locked down, all inclusive, dictatorship business practices... and we all bitch and moan about Microsoft being evil.True, MS has earned it, but isnt it about time that we look at Apple in the proper light.Apple makes cool, and great things.... but they also dictate what you can and cant do on their devices, what media formats you can use, what browser, etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972116</id>
	<title>DMCA and Buy Something Else</title>
	<author>eieken</author>
	<datestamp>1264966800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What we should be doing is trying to get the DMCA overturned; It is the bane of the tinker.  It's ironic because I'm guessing many of the people working on this stuff over at Apple got interested in computers because of the creativity they could express by hacking away at computers.
<br> <br>
I should say though, that Apple is not the only company in town creating hardware, I mean honestly a lot of these articles seem to make some leap at some point about how Apple is representative of all hardware manufacturers, when I think that's just not true.  They create some stylish products, people buy them, and then they miss out on hacking the hardware.  If people really want the option to hack the hardware, don't buy this locked down crap.  It's not like Apple is the only game in town, they live off this spotlight everyone creates for them.  Just get that less stylish piece of hardware that offers tons of customization and hopefully at some point Apple will have to learn what they should be doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we should be doing is trying to get the DMCA overturned ; It is the bane of the tinker .
It 's ironic because I 'm guessing many of the people working on this stuff over at Apple got interested in computers because of the creativity they could express by hacking away at computers .
I should say though , that Apple is not the only company in town creating hardware , I mean honestly a lot of these articles seem to make some leap at some point about how Apple is representative of all hardware manufacturers , when I think that 's just not true .
They create some stylish products , people buy them , and then they miss out on hacking the hardware .
If people really want the option to hack the hardware , do n't buy this locked down crap .
It 's not like Apple is the only game in town , they live off this spotlight everyone creates for them .
Just get that less stylish piece of hardware that offers tons of customization and hopefully at some point Apple will have to learn what they should be doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we should be doing is trying to get the DMCA overturned; It is the bane of the tinker.
It's ironic because I'm guessing many of the people working on this stuff over at Apple got interested in computers because of the creativity they could express by hacking away at computers.
I should say though, that Apple is not the only company in town creating hardware, I mean honestly a lot of these articles seem to make some leap at some point about how Apple is representative of all hardware manufacturers, when I think that's just not true.
They create some stylish products, people buy them, and then they miss out on hacking the hardware.
If people really want the option to hack the hardware, don't buy this locked down crap.
It's not like Apple is the only game in town, they live off this spotlight everyone creates for them.
Just get that less stylish piece of hardware that offers tons of customization and hopefully at some point Apple will have to learn what they should be doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972840</id>
	<title>Modem Speeds?</title>
	<author>meehawl</author>
	<datestamp>1264970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How expensive (or difficult, back before bit torrent) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to Linux</i></p><p>Right, because something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAMPP" title="wikipedia.org">XAMPP</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygwin" title="wikipedia.org">Cygwin</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse\_(software)" title="wikipedia.org">Eclipse</a> [wikipedia.org] is just plain impossible to obtain without The Bittorrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How expensive ( or difficult , back before bit torrent ) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to LinuxRight , because something like XAMPP [ wikipedia.org ] or Cygwin [ wikipedia.org ] or Eclipse [ wikipedia.org ] is just plain impossible to obtain without The Bittorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How expensive (or difficult, back before bit torrent) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to LinuxRight, because something like XAMPP [wikipedia.org] or Cygwin [wikipedia.org] or Eclipse [wikipedia.org] is just plain impossible to obtain without The Bittorrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974172</id>
	<title>This is a travesty!</title>
	<author>Grail</author>
	<datestamp>1264934820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, too, am terribly upset over the ongoing process of locking down anything and everything. The fact that I can't tinker with the contents of my fluorescent lights, that I need a special licence to mess with the contents of the toaster, and am outright prohibited from building my own nuclear reactor in my backyard are all setting the world back 20 years in technological advancement.</p><p>In the meantime I'm glad that I have access to the free development environment of XCode on a Mac which lets me emulate devices such as the iPod and iPad, so I can mess around with software projects without actually buying a $800 slate that I don't need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , too , am terribly upset over the ongoing process of locking down anything and everything .
The fact that I ca n't tinker with the contents of my fluorescent lights , that I need a special licence to mess with the contents of the toaster , and am outright prohibited from building my own nuclear reactor in my backyard are all setting the world back 20 years in technological advancement.In the meantime I 'm glad that I have access to the free development environment of XCode on a Mac which lets me emulate devices such as the iPod and iPad , so I can mess around with software projects without actually buying a $ 800 slate that I do n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, too, am terribly upset over the ongoing process of locking down anything and everything.
The fact that I can't tinker with the contents of my fluorescent lights, that I need a special licence to mess with the contents of the toaster, and am outright prohibited from building my own nuclear reactor in my backyard are all setting the world back 20 years in technological advancement.In the meantime I'm glad that I have access to the free development environment of XCode on a Mac which lets me emulate devices such as the iPod and iPad, so I can mess around with software projects without actually buying a $800 slate that I don't need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972610</id>
	<title>Why the free pass?</title>
	<author>Burdell</author>
	<datestamp>1264969620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading comments, it seems many are claiming that the iPad is not a "computer" but an "appliance", and therefore doesn't need to be opened up (physically or programmatically).  Why do people give Apple a free pass on this?  Apple is pushing it to be better than a netbook, and those are "computers" that are not locked down.  Apple isn't locking the iPad down for any reason other than to sell more stuff (the lock-down is for Apple's sake, not the end-user's).</p><p>But hey, let's compare the iPad to some appliances around the house.  My washing machine came with an exploded parts diagram (and I have ordered replacement parts to fix it myself).  I don't have to buy my food through Whirlpool to put it in my refrigerator or microwave.  Panasonic doesn't get to approve all the TV programs I watch, or what devices I plug into my TV.  My cordless drill had a battery wear out, so I bought a third-party battery.  The drill also came with a parts diagram (which I also used to fix it once).</p><p>Why is it "good" that after you pay Apple for the privilege of owning an iPad, you also have to pay Apple for the privilege of loading applications on the device you bought?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading comments , it seems many are claiming that the iPad is not a " computer " but an " appliance " , and therefore does n't need to be opened up ( physically or programmatically ) .
Why do people give Apple a free pass on this ?
Apple is pushing it to be better than a netbook , and those are " computers " that are not locked down .
Apple is n't locking the iPad down for any reason other than to sell more stuff ( the lock-down is for Apple 's sake , not the end-user 's ) .But hey , let 's compare the iPad to some appliances around the house .
My washing machine came with an exploded parts diagram ( and I have ordered replacement parts to fix it myself ) .
I do n't have to buy my food through Whirlpool to put it in my refrigerator or microwave .
Panasonic does n't get to approve all the TV programs I watch , or what devices I plug into my TV .
My cordless drill had a battery wear out , so I bought a third-party battery .
The drill also came with a parts diagram ( which I also used to fix it once ) .Why is it " good " that after you pay Apple for the privilege of owning an iPad , you also have to pay Apple for the privilege of loading applications on the device you bought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading comments, it seems many are claiming that the iPad is not a "computer" but an "appliance", and therefore doesn't need to be opened up (physically or programmatically).
Why do people give Apple a free pass on this?
Apple is pushing it to be better than a netbook, and those are "computers" that are not locked down.
Apple isn't locking the iPad down for any reason other than to sell more stuff (the lock-down is for Apple's sake, not the end-user's).But hey, let's compare the iPad to some appliances around the house.
My washing machine came with an exploded parts diagram (and I have ordered replacement parts to fix it myself).
I don't have to buy my food through Whirlpool to put it in my refrigerator or microwave.
Panasonic doesn't get to approve all the TV programs I watch, or what devices I plug into my TV.
My cordless drill had a battery wear out, so I bought a third-party battery.
The drill also came with a parts diagram (which I also used to fix it once).Why is it "good" that after you pay Apple for the privilege of owning an iPad, you also have to pay Apple for the privilege of loading applications on the device you bought?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976158</id>
	<title>Re:True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1264947480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 to 3 times? Your hyperbole-fu is weak, old man.</p><p>I was given a PC once, but when I bought a Mac it cost me over a thousand dollars. That's infinitely more than the PC!</p><p>Macs are infinitely expensive. Soon, only the three richest people on Earth will own one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 to 3 times ?
Your hyperbole-fu is weak , old man.I was given a PC once , but when I bought a Mac it cost me over a thousand dollars .
That 's infinitely more than the PC ! Macs are infinitely expensive .
Soon , only the three richest people on Earth will own one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 to 3 times?
Your hyperbole-fu is weak, old man.I was given a PC once, but when I bought a Mac it cost me over a thousand dollars.
That's infinitely more than the PC!Macs are infinitely expensive.
Soon, only the three richest people on Earth will own one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976560</id>
	<title>The Right to Read</title>
	<author>Darren Hiebert</author>
	<datestamp>1264950840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Richard Stallman already warned us about this threat to liberty 11 years ago in <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">The Right to Read</a> [gnu.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Stallman already warned us about this threat to liberty 11 years ago in The Right to Read [ gnu.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Stallman already warned us about this threat to liberty 11 years ago in The Right to Read [gnu.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973162</id>
	<title>I wrote Sector Inspector back in the day...</title>
	<author>ComeTheDay</author>
	<datestamp>1264929480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bow down to my assembly prowess!!! Merlin and BigMac were the bomb! The geekiest freaking thing I ever wrote...sold at SDSU AppleCorps user group meetings...I think I made a whole couple hundred dollars off that thing.

Fond memories of getting up at 5:00am to get to my H.S. business lab where a kind old lady got in early due to her husband's defense dept job. A whole 2.5 hours to hack before Calculus class...which I would sleep thru.

Until the arrival of the Apple ][ (no floating point yet) my mom and neighbor buddy used to drag me out of bed minutes before class...my mom was worried about the 'new behaviour' of getting up early and actually thought I may be doing drugs or something...in a way I was "addicted".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bow down to my assembly prowess ! ! !
Merlin and BigMac were the bomb !
The geekiest freaking thing I ever wrote...sold at SDSU AppleCorps user group meetings...I think I made a whole couple hundred dollars off that thing .
Fond memories of getting up at 5 : 00am to get to my H.S .
business lab where a kind old lady got in early due to her husband 's defense dept job .
A whole 2.5 hours to hack before Calculus class...which I would sleep thru .
Until the arrival of the Apple ] [ ( no floating point yet ) my mom and neighbor buddy used to drag me out of bed minutes before class...my mom was worried about the 'new behaviour ' of getting up early and actually thought I may be doing drugs or something...in a way I was " addicted " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bow down to my assembly prowess!!!
Merlin and BigMac were the bomb!
The geekiest freaking thing I ever wrote...sold at SDSU AppleCorps user group meetings...I think I made a whole couple hundred dollars off that thing.
Fond memories of getting up at 5:00am to get to my H.S.
business lab where a kind old lady got in early due to her husband's defense dept job.
A whole 2.5 hours to hack before Calculus class...which I would sleep thru.
Until the arrival of the Apple ][ (no floating point yet) my mom and neighbor buddy used to drag me out of bed minutes before class...my mom was worried about the 'new behaviour' of getting up early and actually thought I may be doing drugs or something...in a way I was "addicted".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972276</id>
	<title>pwnedulongtime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's days are numbered...they will go the way MS has gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's days are numbered...they will go the way MS has gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's days are numbered...they will go the way MS has gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30981948</id>
	<title>Re:Inevitable after Woz left</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  Why do they give away the development tool chain with every Mac including full access to the system shell then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Why do they give away the development tool chain with every Mac including full access to the system shell then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Why do they give away the development tool chain with every Mac including full access to the system shell then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976664</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1264951980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That whole voiding the warranty bit ought to be illegal (in fact, I suspect it probably is in many jurisdictions).</p><p>Now, if you brick your phone and the only way to get it to boot is with a JTAG, I can see them not honoring the warranty on that (it isn't a defect in manufacture - you made it that way).</p><p>On the other hand, if two weeks after rooting your phone the display dies, then they shouldn't be able to deny coverage because of 3rd-party firmware, unless it can be shown that the firmware caused the problem.  That would be like Ford voiding your warranty because you bought non-Ford oil for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That whole voiding the warranty bit ought to be illegal ( in fact , I suspect it probably is in many jurisdictions ) .Now , if you brick your phone and the only way to get it to boot is with a JTAG , I can see them not honoring the warranty on that ( it is n't a defect in manufacture - you made it that way ) .On the other hand , if two weeks after rooting your phone the display dies , then they should n't be able to deny coverage because of 3rd-party firmware , unless it can be shown that the firmware caused the problem .
That would be like Ford voiding your warranty because you bought non-Ford oil for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That whole voiding the warranty bit ought to be illegal (in fact, I suspect it probably is in many jurisdictions).Now, if you brick your phone and the only way to get it to boot is with a JTAG, I can see them not honoring the warranty on that (it isn't a defect in manufacture - you made it that way).On the other hand, if two weeks after rooting your phone the display dies, then they shouldn't be able to deny coverage because of 3rd-party firmware, unless it can be shown that the firmware caused the problem.
That would be like Ford voiding your warranty because you bought non-Ford oil for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there are (or soon will be) numerous alternatives that are not as tightly locked.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Sure. Like the Nexus One. Not only is the SDK free, easy to program (java), flexible (you can replace most of the built in apps) but the phone itself isn't locked. <a href="http://lifehacker.com/5446107/unlock-and-root-a-nexus-one" title="lifehacker.com">Watch this video if you don't believe me</a> [lifehacker.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the shipping phone doesn't need a "jailbreak" because you can simply run an officially provided command and after informing you that you void the warranty, the phone will let you reflash to any OS   (it changes the bootup logo to make it harder to resell trojaned/warranty voided phones but that seems reasonable).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there are ( or soon will be ) numerous alternatives that are not as tightly locked .
Sure. Like the Nexus One .
Not only is the SDK free , easy to program ( java ) , flexible ( you can replace most of the built in apps ) but the phone itself is n't locked .
Watch this video if you do n't believe me [ lifehacker.com ] ... the shipping phone does n't need a " jailbreak " because you can simply run an officially provided command and after informing you that you void the warranty , the phone will let you reflash to any OS ( it changes the bootup logo to make it harder to resell trojaned/warranty voided phones but that seems reasonable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are (or soon will be) numerous alternatives that are not as tightly locked.
Sure. Like the Nexus One.
Not only is the SDK free, easy to program (java), flexible (you can replace most of the built in apps) but the phone itself isn't locked.
Watch this video if you don't believe me [lifehacker.com] ... the shipping phone doesn't need a "jailbreak" because you can simply run an officially provided command and after informing you that you void the warranty, the phone will let you reflash to any OS   (it changes the bootup logo to make it harder to resell trojaned/warranty voided phones but that seems reasonable).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30983748</id>
	<title>Re:Buy something else</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1265050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This +10.</p><p>I'm in my early 30's now, and got my first computer as a late 21st birthday present because my handwriting was so bad no-one could read my uni assignments. I hated using computers at the cluster rooms, hated using my computer at home a little less... because I just couldn't understand how they work. I hadn't really had enough exposure to them, other than basic IT lessons in school.</p><p>My dad designs medical equipment and we're a scientific family in general; I spent half my childhood dismantling and re-assembling various machines that were lying around the house. Indeed, Tim Hunkin's masterful "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Secret\_Life\_of\_Machines" title="wikipedia.org">The Secret Life of Machines</a> [wikipedia.org]" was one of those magical programs from my childhood that inspired my interest in science and engineering. This is basically what I did with my first computer - instead of doing any actual uni work on it, I spend months taking windows to bits via snippets of info I found on google. Predictably, I broke the computer and had to figure out how to put it back together again (I was lucky I'd opted for windows 2000 instead of ME). Rinse and repeat about twenty times and I'd pretty much taught myself a huge amount about how computers work, both electrically, mechanically and as a software stack. I barely scrape through my geology degree, but due to an accidentally awesome interview I end up starting work in the computer industry, and I've risen over people supposedly better qualified than me based solely on merit (cue the usual bitching about ); all the best people (and my bosses too, thankfully) I know in this industry know that common sense, experience and a desire to learn is worth a hundred MCSE's.</p><p>Having an accessible computer certainly helped immensely (as did google and copious free time), but the key element was being brought up in an environment where tinkering was actively encouraged; if you don't get the bug for "how does it work?" (I'm not really comfortable using anything unless I know how it works) at an early age your capacity for learning new tech is significantly diminished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This + 10.I 'm in my early 30 's now , and got my first computer as a late 21st birthday present because my handwriting was so bad no-one could read my uni assignments .
I hated using computers at the cluster rooms , hated using my computer at home a little less... because I just could n't understand how they work .
I had n't really had enough exposure to them , other than basic IT lessons in school.My dad designs medical equipment and we 're a scientific family in general ; I spent half my childhood dismantling and re-assembling various machines that were lying around the house .
Indeed , Tim Hunkin 's masterful " The Secret Life of Machines [ wikipedia.org ] " was one of those magical programs from my childhood that inspired my interest in science and engineering .
This is basically what I did with my first computer - instead of doing any actual uni work on it , I spend months taking windows to bits via snippets of info I found on google .
Predictably , I broke the computer and had to figure out how to put it back together again ( I was lucky I 'd opted for windows 2000 instead of ME ) .
Rinse and repeat about twenty times and I 'd pretty much taught myself a huge amount about how computers work , both electrically , mechanically and as a software stack .
I barely scrape through my geology degree , but due to an accidentally awesome interview I end up starting work in the computer industry , and I 've risen over people supposedly better qualified than me based solely on merit ( cue the usual bitching about ) ; all the best people ( and my bosses too , thankfully ) I know in this industry know that common sense , experience and a desire to learn is worth a hundred MCSE 's.Having an accessible computer certainly helped immensely ( as did google and copious free time ) , but the key element was being brought up in an environment where tinkering was actively encouraged ; if you do n't get the bug for " how does it work ?
" ( I 'm not really comfortable using anything unless I know how it works ) at an early age your capacity for learning new tech is significantly diminished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This +10.I'm in my early 30's now, and got my first computer as a late 21st birthday present because my handwriting was so bad no-one could read my uni assignments.
I hated using computers at the cluster rooms, hated using my computer at home a little less... because I just couldn't understand how they work.
I hadn't really had enough exposure to them, other than basic IT lessons in school.My dad designs medical equipment and we're a scientific family in general; I spent half my childhood dismantling and re-assembling various machines that were lying around the house.
Indeed, Tim Hunkin's masterful "The Secret Life of Machines [wikipedia.org]" was one of those magical programs from my childhood that inspired my interest in science and engineering.
This is basically what I did with my first computer - instead of doing any actual uni work on it, I spend months taking windows to bits via snippets of info I found on google.
Predictably, I broke the computer and had to figure out how to put it back together again (I was lucky I'd opted for windows 2000 instead of ME).
Rinse and repeat about twenty times and I'd pretty much taught myself a huge amount about how computers work, both electrically, mechanically and as a software stack.
I barely scrape through my geology degree, but due to an accidentally awesome interview I end up starting work in the computer industry, and I've risen over people supposedly better qualified than me based solely on merit (cue the usual bitching about ); all the best people (and my bosses too, thankfully) I know in this industry know that common sense, experience and a desire to learn is worth a hundred MCSE's.Having an accessible computer certainly helped immensely (as did google and copious free time), but the key element was being brought up in an environment where tinkering was actively encouraged; if you don't get the bug for "how does it work?
" (I'm not really comfortable using anything unless I know how it works) at an early age your capacity for learning new tech is significantly diminished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973650</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>HyoImowano</author>
	<datestamp>1264932060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radio Shack has give up on tinkerers and hackers? It may no longer be the store it once was, but:</p><p><a href="http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2117994" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2117994</a> [radioshack.com]<br><a href="http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032230" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032230</a> [radioshack.com]<br><a href="http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032236" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032236</a> [radioshack.com]<br><a href="http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032231" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032231</a> [radioshack.com]<br><a href="http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032227" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032227</a> [radioshack.com]</p><p>What other store can you walk into and find HALF of this stuff? Obviously nothing will compare to the endless warehouse space of online stores, but even Radio Shacks located in mall still have four sets of parts drawers and at least a wall's worth of tools, connectors, enclosures, and parts.  They're certainly supporting the "tinkering" community more than any other national retail chain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radio Shack has give up on tinkerers and hackers ?
It may no longer be the store it once was , but : http : //www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp ? productId = 2117994 [ radioshack.com ] http : //www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp ? categoryId = 2032230 [ radioshack.com ] http : //www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp ? categoryId = 2032236 [ radioshack.com ] http : //www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp ? categoryId = 2032231 [ radioshack.com ] http : //www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp ? categoryId = 2032227 [ radioshack.com ] What other store can you walk into and find HALF of this stuff ?
Obviously nothing will compare to the endless warehouse space of online stores , but even Radio Shacks located in mall still have four sets of parts drawers and at least a wall 's worth of tools , connectors , enclosures , and parts .
They 're certainly supporting the " tinkering " community more than any other national retail chain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radio Shack has give up on tinkerers and hackers?
It may no longer be the store it once was, but:http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2117994 [radioshack.com]http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032230 [radioshack.com]http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032236 [radioshack.com]http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032231 [radioshack.com]http://www.radioshack.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2032227 [radioshack.com]What other store can you walk into and find HALF of this stuff?
Obviously nothing will compare to the endless warehouse space of online stores, but even Radio Shacks located in mall still have four sets of parts drawers and at least a wall's worth of tools, connectors, enclosures, and parts.
They're certainly supporting the "tinkering" community more than any other national retail chain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973266</id>
	<title>Confusing consumer device with creator tool</title>
	<author>supercrisp</author>
	<datestamp>1264930260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tire of the &ldquo;won&rsquo;t someone think of the children&rdquo; rhetoric. This article is complaining about &ldquo;lock-down&rdquo; on media devices, not on PCs. If I wanted to, it&rsquo;s even easier to tinker with a Mac today than it was 20 years ago. I&rsquo;ve got Terminal, AppleScript, Automator, and the Developer Tools. If I want to look at the sort of thing I used to need Resedit for, I just control click an application to show package contents. Sure, I don&rsquo;t have much access to specific registers of memory, but I don&rsquo;t really need that to do very exciting things because of the level of horsepower I have at hand on a modern machine. Getting upset over the &ldquo;closedness&rdquo; of the iPad or iPod is like getting cranky because you can&rsquo;t write software for your TV. It&rsquo;s a device for people who want to passively consume. They don&rsquo;t even have the most basic input devices of keyboard and mouse. That right there shows you that they&rsquo;re for consumers, not creators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tire of the    won    t someone think of the children    rhetoric .
This article is complaining about    lock-down    on media devices , not on PCs .
If I wanted to , it    s even easier to tinker with a Mac today than it was 20 years ago .
I    ve got Terminal , AppleScript , Automator , and the Developer Tools .
If I want to look at the sort of thing I used to need Resedit for , I just control click an application to show package contents .
Sure , I don    t have much access to specific registers of memory , but I don    t really need that to do very exciting things because of the level of horsepower I have at hand on a modern machine .
Getting upset over the    closedness    of the iPad or iPod is like getting cranky because you can    t write software for your TV .
It    s a device for people who want to passively consume .
They don    t even have the most basic input devices of keyboard and mouse .
That right there shows you that they    re for consumers , not creators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tire of the “won’t someone think of the children” rhetoric.
This article is complaining about “lock-down” on media devices, not on PCs.
If I wanted to, it’s even easier to tinker with a Mac today than it was 20 years ago.
I’ve got Terminal, AppleScript, Automator, and the Developer Tools.
If I want to look at the sort of thing I used to need Resedit for, I just control click an application to show package contents.
Sure, I don’t have much access to specific registers of memory, but I don’t really need that to do very exciting things because of the level of horsepower I have at hand on a modern machine.
Getting upset over the “closedness” of the iPad or iPod is like getting cranky because you can’t write software for your TV.
It’s a device for people who want to passively consume.
They don’t even have the most basic input devices of keyboard and mouse.
That right there shows you that they’re for consumers, not creators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974972</id>
	<title>Darwin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps if Apple was to release a FOSS version of their OS for hobbyists to tinker with?<br>Would that help?<br>Of course, they'd have to hold back on some of the stuff that cost a lot to make, or gave them a special advantage.<br>Still, I think it would be a good thing, especially if it was available on both PPC and X86 architectures.</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if Apple was to release a FOSS version of their OS for hobbyists to tinker with ? Would that help ? Of course , they 'd have to hold back on some of the stuff that cost a lot to make , or gave them a special advantage.Still , I think it would be a good thing , especially if it was available on both PPC and X86 architectures.Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if Apple was to release a FOSS version of their OS for hobbyists to tinker with?Would that help?Of course, they'd have to hold back on some of the stuff that cost a lot to make, or gave them a special advantage.Still, I think it would be a good thing, especially if it was available on both PPC and X86 architectures.Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973026</id>
	<title>The more I think of it...</title>
	<author>mikefocke</author>
	<datestamp>1264928580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the more it was a generational thing.  Generations in terms of electronics and generations in terms of users/buyers.</p><p>In the 60s, we built our own stereos (Heathkit) and in the 80s the OS of the "home" computer was really more of a loader and the secrets were the functions of the peek/poke locations. The home computers were not much more than a circuit board. The processors and their instruction sets simple. The audience were more the hobbyists who came from the electronics world who were used to schematics and modifications.</p><p>Today's computers speak to a different audience. They bought their music players prepackaged. They wouldn't have any interest in a schematic and the appliances they use don't contain resistors and capacitors but ICs. My kids first computer was an Atari 800 and they never ever went to school without a word processor available.  Me, I typed my term papers on an electric typewriter if I was lucky.</p><p>I used to work with OS writers and their backgrounds and intelligence were far different from the average. Boy were they different and I could relate to them only because I came from a low level background even if I didn't code in their language. But the rest of the people in the corporation didn't relate and the rest of the folks constitute a different and far larger audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the more it was a generational thing .
Generations in terms of electronics and generations in terms of users/buyers.In the 60s , we built our own stereos ( Heathkit ) and in the 80s the OS of the " home " computer was really more of a loader and the secrets were the functions of the peek/poke locations .
The home computers were not much more than a circuit board .
The processors and their instruction sets simple .
The audience were more the hobbyists who came from the electronics world who were used to schematics and modifications.Today 's computers speak to a different audience .
They bought their music players prepackaged .
They would n't have any interest in a schematic and the appliances they use do n't contain resistors and capacitors but ICs .
My kids first computer was an Atari 800 and they never ever went to school without a word processor available .
Me , I typed my term papers on an electric typewriter if I was lucky.I used to work with OS writers and their backgrounds and intelligence were far different from the average .
Boy were they different and I could relate to them only because I came from a low level background even if I did n't code in their language .
But the rest of the people in the corporation did n't relate and the rest of the folks constitute a different and far larger audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the more it was a generational thing.
Generations in terms of electronics and generations in terms of users/buyers.In the 60s, we built our own stereos (Heathkit) and in the 80s the OS of the "home" computer was really more of a loader and the secrets were the functions of the peek/poke locations.
The home computers were not much more than a circuit board.
The processors and their instruction sets simple.
The audience were more the hobbyists who came from the electronics world who were used to schematics and modifications.Today's computers speak to a different audience.
They bought their music players prepackaged.
They wouldn't have any interest in a schematic and the appliances they use don't contain resistors and capacitors but ICs.
My kids first computer was an Atari 800 and they never ever went to school without a word processor available.
Me, I typed my term papers on an electric typewriter if I was lucky.I used to work with OS writers and their backgrounds and intelligence were far different from the average.
Boy were they different and I could relate to them only because I came from a low level background even if I didn't code in their language.
But the rest of the people in the corporation didn't relate and the rest of the folks constitute a different and far larger audience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977996</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have mentioned, Radio Shack still sells electronic kits - however, they are a specialty item, and your local bricks-and-mortar Shack may not have them in stock.</p><p>Others have mentioned Python vs. Tcl, and I'll agree. Check out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido\_van\_Robot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Guido van Robot</a> [wikipedia.org], which I know is available in the Ubuntu repositories.  I'll also point you to Alice (<a href="http://www.alice.org/" title="alice.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.alice.org/</a> [alice.org]), which I've never used, but of which I have heard good things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned , Radio Shack still sells electronic kits - however , they are a specialty item , and your local bricks-and-mortar Shack may not have them in stock.Others have mentioned Python vs. Tcl , and I 'll agree .
Check out Guido van Robot [ wikipedia.org ] , which I know is available in the Ubuntu repositories .
I 'll also point you to Alice ( http : //www.alice.org/ [ alice.org ] ) , which I 've never used , but of which I have heard good things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned, Radio Shack still sells electronic kits - however, they are a specialty item, and your local bricks-and-mortar Shack may not have them in stock.Others have mentioned Python vs. Tcl, and I'll agree.
Check out Guido van Robot [wikipedia.org], which I know is available in the Ubuntu repositories.
I'll also point you to Alice (http://www.alice.org/ [alice.org]), which I've never used, but of which I have heard good things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972046</id>
	<title>Tinkering isnt their market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least as far as ipods and iphones go, tinkering isnt really anything they any interest in, and for good reason.  While tinkering and unrestricted access is great for the geek community, it tends to create a bloated confusing mess for the average user and also makes it more likely for the device to be exploited by those wishing to do harm.  Geeks tend to forget that they arent the majority...they are a tiny fraction of a minority most end users just want their stuff to work and be easy to use and thats who Apple is marketing towards at the moment and is pretty successful with it.</p><p>This is reminding me of the arguments hardcore gamers make about the Wii and how it sucks because most of the games are geared towards the casual and family gamer, its in first place by a mile and they are happy there, there are other products that fit the bill but instead of just using those they would rather whine about what they cant do on a product that isnt aimed at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least as far as ipods and iphones go , tinkering isnt really anything they any interest in , and for good reason .
While tinkering and unrestricted access is great for the geek community , it tends to create a bloated confusing mess for the average user and also makes it more likely for the device to be exploited by those wishing to do harm .
Geeks tend to forget that they arent the majority...they are a tiny fraction of a minority most end users just want their stuff to work and be easy to use and thats who Apple is marketing towards at the moment and is pretty successful with it.This is reminding me of the arguments hardcore gamers make about the Wii and how it sucks because most of the games are geared towards the casual and family gamer , its in first place by a mile and they are happy there , there are other products that fit the bill but instead of just using those they would rather whine about what they cant do on a product that isnt aimed at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least as far as ipods and iphones go, tinkering isnt really anything they any interest in, and for good reason.
While tinkering and unrestricted access is great for the geek community, it tends to create a bloated confusing mess for the average user and also makes it more likely for the device to be exploited by those wishing to do harm.
Geeks tend to forget that they arent the majority...they are a tiny fraction of a minority most end users just want their stuff to work and be easy to use and thats who Apple is marketing towards at the moment and is pretty successful with it.This is reminding me of the arguments hardcore gamers make about the Wii and how it sucks because most of the games are geared towards the casual and family gamer, its in first place by a mile and they are happy there, there are other products that fit the bill but instead of just using those they would rather whine about what they cant do on a product that isnt aimed at them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977984</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, hackers \_could\_ learn that from apple. For better or worse, though, they'd mostly rather make things hackable than "usable" (i.e. usable without hacking), so they don't want to learn how to make them "usable".</p><p>And you'll have a hard time persuading us that we \_should\_ care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , hackers \ _could \ _ learn that from apple .
For better or worse , though , they 'd mostly rather make things hackable than " usable " ( i.e .
usable without hacking ) , so they do n't want to learn how to make them " usable " .And you 'll have a hard time persuading us that we \ _should \ _ care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, hackers \_could\_ learn that from apple.
For better or worse, though, they'd mostly rather make things hackable than "usable" (i.e.
usable without hacking), so they don't want to learn how to make them "usable".And you'll have a hard time persuading us that we \_should\_ care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850</id>
	<title>Buy something else</title>
	<author>Ed Peepers</author>
	<datestamp>1264965660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was nice to be able to tinker with early Apples because there were few alternatives.  But as much as I enjoy a good rant against Apple, I fail to see the problem.  Buy your kids something else.  Either he thinks the latest Apple SHINY is more important than his child's opportunity to get under the hood or he doesn't, and there are (or soon will be) numerous alternatives that are not as tightly locked.  Life is about decisions and trade-offs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was nice to be able to tinker with early Apples because there were few alternatives .
But as much as I enjoy a good rant against Apple , I fail to see the problem .
Buy your kids something else .
Either he thinks the latest Apple SHINY is more important than his child 's opportunity to get under the hood or he does n't , and there are ( or soon will be ) numerous alternatives that are not as tightly locked .
Life is about decisions and trade-offs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was nice to be able to tinker with early Apples because there were few alternatives.
But as much as I enjoy a good rant against Apple, I fail to see the problem.
Buy your kids something else.
Either he thinks the latest Apple SHINY is more important than his child's opportunity to get under the hood or he doesn't, and there are (or soon will be) numerous alternatives that are not as tightly locked.
Life is about decisions and trade-offs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973524</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1264931460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are so many options for would be tinkerers.  The OP's premise starts from the assumption that one has to buy Apple products.</p><p>Want your kids to learn tinkering?  Build a PC with them first, then when they are older start them messing around with simple coding then move on to move advanced things.  If they have the interest and aptitude for it there are tons of options for tinkerers.  Hell, get them into FPGA prototyping.   Maybe the next great CPU will be prototyped by some teenager thinking out of the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many options for would be tinkerers .
The OP 's premise starts from the assumption that one has to buy Apple products.Want your kids to learn tinkering ?
Build a PC with them first , then when they are older start them messing around with simple coding then move on to move advanced things .
If they have the interest and aptitude for it there are tons of options for tinkerers .
Hell , get them into FPGA prototyping .
Maybe the next great CPU will be prototyped by some teenager thinking out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many options for would be tinkerers.
The OP's premise starts from the assumption that one has to buy Apple products.Want your kids to learn tinkering?
Build a PC with them first, then when they are older start them messing around with simple coding then move on to move advanced things.
If they have the interest and aptitude for it there are tons of options for tinkerers.
Hell, get them into FPGA prototyping.
Maybe the next great CPU will be prototyped by some teenager thinking out of the box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</id>
	<title>Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>dskoll</author>
	<datestamp>1264965840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My kids use Linux.  But sadly, even under Linux, there's no dead-easy kid-friendly way for them to learn programming the way I learned BASIC on my TRS-80 CoCo.  I've introduced my one daughter to Tcl, but even that has advanced concepts compared to 1980s-era BASIC.

</p><p>I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine.  Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them... they've given up on tinkerers and hackers too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My kids use Linux .
But sadly , even under Linux , there 's no dead-easy kid-friendly way for them to learn programming the way I learned BASIC on my TRS-80 CoCo .
I 've introduced my one daughter to Tcl , but even that has advanced concepts compared to 1980s-era BASIC .
I 've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine .
Alas , Radio Shack no longer sells them... they 've given up on tinkerers and hackers too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My kids use Linux.
But sadly, even under Linux, there's no dead-easy kid-friendly way for them to learn programming the way I learned BASIC on my TRS-80 CoCo.
I've introduced my one daughter to Tcl, but even that has advanced concepts compared to 1980s-era BASIC.
I've also ordered a 130-in-one electronics kit for my daughter because I remember how much fun I had with mine.
Alas, Radio Shack no longer sells them... they've given up on tinkerers and hackers too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972562</id>
	<title>If it can't be tinkered with don't buy it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I make a point of favouring for example Linksys products as they even *encourage* tinkering with some of their products!</p><p>I'm on the look out for a(n audio) media player at some point but it wont be an ipod, why ? its the principle! it's MY hardware and<br>if enough people follow suit, companies will be forced to stop their misguided *attempts* to stop people doing what they want to<br>with their own property. Like DRM which is dying (slowly and painfully but still dying) sooner or later these companies WILL learn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I make a point of favouring for example Linksys products as they even * encourage * tinkering with some of their products ! I 'm on the look out for a ( n audio ) media player at some point but it wont be an ipod , why ?
its the principle !
it 's MY hardware andif enough people follow suit , companies will be forced to stop their misguided * attempts * to stop people doing what they want towith their own property .
Like DRM which is dying ( slowly and painfully but still dying ) sooner or later these companies WILL learn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make a point of favouring for example Linksys products as they even *encourage* tinkering with some of their products!I'm on the look out for a(n audio) media player at some point but it wont be an ipod, why ?
its the principle!
it's MY hardware andif enough people follow suit, companies will be forced to stop their misguided *attempts* to stop people doing what they want towith their own property.
Like DRM which is dying (slowly and painfully but still dying) sooner or later these companies WILL learn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972918</id>
	<title>Don't paint it so Doom and Gloom...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1264971240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author here waxes poetic about times gone by with Apple models that basically came with no pre-installed OS, and therefore it was very easy to "tinker" when starting from damn near ground ZERO.  Sure, I do remember the days of screwing with vendors in the mall with Apple products(POKE 214, 255 would disable Cntrl-C and interpret ANY command as RUN), but damn, it's not like we don't have tinkering going on today.  Wii homebrew, XBox/PS3 hacking, and yes the fairly new term "jailbreak" would infer that we're still able to "tinker" with newer hardware.</p><p>And yes, it makes sense that vendors are starting to get a bit more strict with it.  Can you blame them?  They're not exactly handing you hardware that powers on to a command prompt these days.  It's called "Support".  Regardless, people are still finding ways to tinker, and yes, I'm sure that it will only be a matter of time before the almighty iPad is broken too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author here waxes poetic about times gone by with Apple models that basically came with no pre-installed OS , and therefore it was very easy to " tinker " when starting from damn near ground ZERO .
Sure , I do remember the days of screwing with vendors in the mall with Apple products ( POKE 214 , 255 would disable Cntrl-C and interpret ANY command as RUN ) , but damn , it 's not like we do n't have tinkering going on today .
Wii homebrew , XBox/PS3 hacking , and yes the fairly new term " jailbreak " would infer that we 're still able to " tinker " with newer hardware.And yes , it makes sense that vendors are starting to get a bit more strict with it .
Can you blame them ?
They 're not exactly handing you hardware that powers on to a command prompt these days .
It 's called " Support " .
Regardless , people are still finding ways to tinker , and yes , I 'm sure that it will only be a matter of time before the almighty iPad is broken too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author here waxes poetic about times gone by with Apple models that basically came with no pre-installed OS, and therefore it was very easy to "tinker" when starting from damn near ground ZERO.
Sure, I do remember the days of screwing with vendors in the mall with Apple products(POKE 214, 255 would disable Cntrl-C and interpret ANY command as RUN), but damn, it's not like we don't have tinkering going on today.
Wii homebrew, XBox/PS3 hacking, and yes the fairly new term "jailbreak" would infer that we're still able to "tinker" with newer hardware.And yes, it makes sense that vendors are starting to get a bit more strict with it.
Can you blame them?
They're not exactly handing you hardware that powers on to a command prompt these days.
It's called "Support".
Regardless, people are still finding ways to tinker, and yes, I'm sure that it will only be a matter of time before the almighty iPad is broken too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972550</id>
	<title>Re:Very much for tinkerers</title>
	<author>That's Unpossible!</author>
	<datestamp>1264969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Apple ][ was most definitely a tinkerer's machine.</i></p><p>No shit.</p><p>This entire article is lame. Did anyone consider that the market for computers back then was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a bunch of geeks that liked tinkering?</p><p>Computers are now ubiquitous. If you don't want to tinker, buy a Mac. If you want to tinker, buy something else.</p><p>End of story...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apple ] [ was most definitely a tinkerer 's machine.No shit.This entire article is lame .
Did anyone consider that the market for computers back then was ... a bunch of geeks that liked tinkering ? Computers are now ubiquitous .
If you do n't want to tinker , buy a Mac .
If you want to tinker , buy something else.End of story.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apple ][ was most definitely a tinkerer's machine.No shit.This entire article is lame.
Did anyone consider that the market for computers back then was ... a bunch of geeks that liked tinkering?Computers are now ubiquitous.
If you don't want to tinker, buy a Mac.
If you want to tinker, buy something else.End of story...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973548</id>
	<title>Applications: Utilities: Terminal.app</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1264931580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tinker away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tinker away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tinker away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300</id>
	<title>Very much for tinkerers</title>
	<author>Tony</author>
	<datestamp>1264967700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Apple ][ came with manuals that had the ROM listings. The ][+ (at least) had a mini-assembler built right in (Sweet-16, baby!). It had full schematics right there in the box. The default "shell" was a BASIC interpreter, fer cryin' out loud!</p><p>The Apple ][ was most definitely a tinkerer's machine.</p><p>There's a huge difference between the Apple ][ and pretty much any mainstream computer available today. The Apple ][ (and to a certain extent, the Commodore 64) was <em>simple</em>. Almost everything you did was related to the hardware. If you wanted to do anything but launch programs, you pretty much had to learn something about the computer, and how computers operate in general. Anyone nostalgic for those days is nuts.</p><p>Don't get me wrong. I really loved the Apple ][. (This was before the ][+ or ][e, you puppies.) I believe I am a much stronger computer geek because of it. I'd wager those who learned computing on the Apple ][ make up a good percentage of the alpha geeks today.</p><p>Computers today are far cooler than they were back then. Part of the reason is, they no longer resemble "computers" so much as they are now communications devices, or information handling devices. The downside is that kids starting out these days aren't learning about the true fundamentals of how computers work. Also, they're shielded from even the <em>ability</em> to tinker with them.</p><p>That's not as much of a loss as you might suppose. It's not like it'd be the old Apple ][ experience anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apple ] [ came with manuals that had the ROM listings .
The ] [ + ( at least ) had a mini-assembler built right in ( Sweet-16 , baby ! ) .
It had full schematics right there in the box .
The default " shell " was a BASIC interpreter , fer cryin ' out loud ! The Apple ] [ was most definitely a tinkerer 's machine.There 's a huge difference between the Apple ] [ and pretty much any mainstream computer available today .
The Apple ] [ ( and to a certain extent , the Commodore 64 ) was simple .
Almost everything you did was related to the hardware .
If you wanted to do anything but launch programs , you pretty much had to learn something about the computer , and how computers operate in general .
Anyone nostalgic for those days is nuts.Do n't get me wrong .
I really loved the Apple ] [ .
( This was before the ] [ + or ] [ e , you puppies .
) I believe I am a much stronger computer geek because of it .
I 'd wager those who learned computing on the Apple ] [ make up a good percentage of the alpha geeks today.Computers today are far cooler than they were back then .
Part of the reason is , they no longer resemble " computers " so much as they are now communications devices , or information handling devices .
The downside is that kids starting out these days are n't learning about the true fundamentals of how computers work .
Also , they 're shielded from even the ability to tinker with them.That 's not as much of a loss as you might suppose .
It 's not like it 'd be the old Apple ] [ experience anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apple ][ came with manuals that had the ROM listings.
The ][+ (at least) had a mini-assembler built right in (Sweet-16, baby!).
It had full schematics right there in the box.
The default "shell" was a BASIC interpreter, fer cryin' out loud!The Apple ][ was most definitely a tinkerer's machine.There's a huge difference between the Apple ][ and pretty much any mainstream computer available today.
The Apple ][ (and to a certain extent, the Commodore 64) was simple.
Almost everything you did was related to the hardware.
If you wanted to do anything but launch programs, you pretty much had to learn something about the computer, and how computers operate in general.
Anyone nostalgic for those days is nuts.Don't get me wrong.
I really loved the Apple ][.
(This was before the ][+ or ][e, you puppies.
) I believe I am a much stronger computer geek because of it.
I'd wager those who learned computing on the Apple ][ make up a good percentage of the alpha geeks today.Computers today are far cooler than they were back then.
Part of the reason is, they no longer resemble "computers" so much as they are now communications devices, or information handling devices.
The downside is that kids starting out these days aren't learning about the true fundamentals of how computers work.
Also, they're shielded from even the ability to tinker with them.That's not as much of a loss as you might suppose.
It's not like it'd be the old Apple ][ experience anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972984</id>
	<title>Re:Free Software may help...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264928400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get them started on something like Scratch http://scratch.mit.edu/ and then when they need something more powerful they'll be ready for whatever you throw at them.</p><p>Side note, I think a lot of people are nostalgic for easy hardware hacking that's not as readily applicable nowadays.  But it's harder for a low budget hacker to do something interesting (compared to current tech) nowadays than it was 30 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get them started on something like Scratch http : //scratch.mit.edu/ and then when they need something more powerful they 'll be ready for whatever you throw at them.Side note , I think a lot of people are nostalgic for easy hardware hacking that 's not as readily applicable nowadays .
But it 's harder for a low budget hacker to do something interesting ( compared to current tech ) nowadays than it was 30 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get them started on something like Scratch http://scratch.mit.edu/ and then when they need something more powerful they'll be ready for whatever you throw at them.Side note, I think a lot of people are nostalgic for easy hardware hacking that's not as readily applicable nowadays.
But it's harder for a low budget hacker to do something interesting (compared to current tech) nowadays than it was 30 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974604</id>
	<title>Re:Article is incorrect</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1264937460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, without paying Apple $99 a year, you won't be able to install your own applications on your iPad. This is the issue. That Apple rigidly enforce code signing, such that without going through the App store (or using up a limited number of Ad Hoc distribution slots), you cannot make available your application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , without paying Apple $ 99 a year , you wo n't be able to install your own applications on your iPad .
This is the issue .
That Apple rigidly enforce code signing , such that without going through the App store ( or using up a limited number of Ad Hoc distribution slots ) , you can not make available your application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, without paying Apple $99 a year, you won't be able to install your own applications on your iPad.
This is the issue.
That Apple rigidly enforce code signing, such that without going through the App store (or using up a limited number of Ad Hoc distribution slots), you cannot make available your application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30984260</id>
	<title>Re:True for the iPod, yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't think a giant touchscreen display device is good to develop for and tinker with?  That sounds like the best possible tinkering device to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think a giant touchscreen display device is good to develop for and tinker with ?
That sounds like the best possible tinkering device to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think a giant touchscreen display device is good to develop for and tinker with?
That sounds like the best possible tinkering device to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974686</id>
	<title>Every generation has a mythology</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1264938060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And the sons of Marketing fashioned themselves Suits to wear, the better to lure their customers, and wrote grave and perilous Licenses, the better to bind the Systems."</p><p><a href="http://www.gis.net/~cht/gospel.html" title="gis.net">Gospel of Tux</a> [gis.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And the sons of Marketing fashioned themselves Suits to wear , the better to lure their customers , and wrote grave and perilous Licenses , the better to bind the Systems .
" Gospel of Tux [ gis.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And the sons of Marketing fashioned themselves Suits to wear, the better to lure their customers, and wrote grave and perilous Licenses, the better to bind the Systems.
"Gospel of Tux [gis.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972400</id>
	<title>Re:Another One</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1264968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, there are still a ton of general purpose computers that allow you to do pretty much anything you want. Vastly more than there were in the Apple heyday of the summary's recollection, in fact.  There are so many choices now, at such a low cost, that the opportunity for people to indulge curiosity about computing is vastly larger than it ever was before.</p><p>In other words, this is the opposite of a sad time.  Unless you feel like you are entitled to everything being exactly as you want it, but if that's the case, there will never be anything but sad times for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , there are still a ton of general purpose computers that allow you to do pretty much anything you want .
Vastly more than there were in the Apple heyday of the summary 's recollection , in fact .
There are so many choices now , at such a low cost , that the opportunity for people to indulge curiosity about computing is vastly larger than it ever was before.In other words , this is the opposite of a sad time .
Unless you feel like you are entitled to everything being exactly as you want it , but if that 's the case , there will never be anything but sad times for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, there are still a ton of general purpose computers that allow you to do pretty much anything you want.
Vastly more than there were in the Apple heyday of the summary's recollection, in fact.
There are so many choices now, at such a low cost, that the opportunity for people to indulge curiosity about computing is vastly larger than it ever was before.In other words, this is the opposite of a sad time.
Unless you feel like you are entitled to everything being exactly as you want it, but if that's the case, there will never be anything but sad times for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972130</id>
	<title>Bring back basic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the spirit of this conversation. Apple would be doing the next generation a great service to allows us to amateurs to develop in a scripting language right on the iPad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the spirit of this conversation .
Apple would be doing the next generation a great service to allows us to amateurs to develop in a scripting language right on the iPad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the spirit of this conversation.
Apple would be doing the next generation a great service to allows us to amateurs to develop in a scripting language right on the iPad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974430</id>
	<title>Re:One era ends, annother limps into being ...</title>
	<author>timholman</author>
	<datestamp>1264936260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And as they say; If you can't open it, you don't own it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I can't reprogram the computer built into my new car - by your logic, I don't own my car, and Toyota hates tinkerers.</p><p>And I can't reprogram the computer in my flat-screen TV - clearly, by your logic, I don't own my TV, and Vizio hates tinkerers.</p><p>Same with my Roku box, and my digital thermostats in my home, and the appliances in my kitchen, and everything else I own with an embedded microprocessor.  I don't own <i>any</i> of them, by your logic, and all those manufacturers hate tinkerers.</p><p>The Apple iPad isn't being marketed as a general-purpose computer by Apple.  They sell Macbooks, Macbook Pros, iMacs, Mac Minis, etc., for that.  The iPad is being marketed as an information appliance that just happens to contain a computer - just like my car, and my TV, and almost everything else I own.  And if you don't like it, you'll perfectly free not to buy it.</p><p>You can buy a general-purpose computer for less money than the cheapest iPad - how is the world any poorer for Apple selling something that is targeted to a completely different market than tinkerers and programmers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as they say ; If you ca n't open it , you do n't own it.Hmm ... I ca n't reprogram the computer built into my new car - by your logic , I do n't own my car , and Toyota hates tinkerers.And I ca n't reprogram the computer in my flat-screen TV - clearly , by your logic , I do n't own my TV , and Vizio hates tinkerers.Same with my Roku box , and my digital thermostats in my home , and the appliances in my kitchen , and everything else I own with an embedded microprocessor .
I do n't own any of them , by your logic , and all those manufacturers hate tinkerers.The Apple iPad is n't being marketed as a general-purpose computer by Apple .
They sell Macbooks , Macbook Pros , iMacs , Mac Minis , etc. , for that .
The iPad is being marketed as an information appliance that just happens to contain a computer - just like my car , and my TV , and almost everything else I own .
And if you do n't like it , you 'll perfectly free not to buy it.You can buy a general-purpose computer for less money than the cheapest iPad - how is the world any poorer for Apple selling something that is targeted to a completely different market than tinkerers and programmers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as they say; If you can't open it, you don't own it.Hmm ... I can't reprogram the computer built into my new car - by your logic, I don't own my car, and Toyota hates tinkerers.And I can't reprogram the computer in my flat-screen TV - clearly, by your logic, I don't own my TV, and Vizio hates tinkerers.Same with my Roku box, and my digital thermostats in my home, and the appliances in my kitchen, and everything else I own with an embedded microprocessor.
I don't own any of them, by your logic, and all those manufacturers hate tinkerers.The Apple iPad isn't being marketed as a general-purpose computer by Apple.
They sell Macbooks, Macbook Pros, iMacs, Mac Minis, etc., for that.
The iPad is being marketed as an information appliance that just happens to contain a computer - just like my car, and my TV, and almost everything else I own.
And if you don't like it, you'll perfectly free not to buy it.You can buy a general-purpose computer for less money than the cheapest iPad - how is the world any poorer for Apple selling something that is targeted to a completely different market than tinkerers and programmers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977868</id>
	<title>What do you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple users aren't geeks! Any Apple user claiming they are a geek should get punched square in the face. No real geek would ever buy a product with that kind of lock-in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple users are n't geeks !
Any Apple user claiming they are a geek should get punched square in the face .
No real geek would ever buy a product with that kind of lock-in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple users aren't geeks!
Any Apple user claiming they are a geek should get punched square in the face.
No real geek would ever buy a product with that kind of lock-in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972154</id>
	<title>Good &amp; Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's not the best computer to learn on, as you don't seem to learn very much when everything is supposed to be so intuitive and so task focused, but as a tool to get certain types of work done, it's great, because you don't have to worry about anything but the job you want accomplished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's not the best computer to learn on , as you do n't seem to learn very much when everything is supposed to be so intuitive and so task focused , but as a tool to get certain types of work done , it 's great , because you do n't have to worry about anything but the job you want accomplished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's not the best computer to learn on, as you don't seem to learn very much when everything is supposed to be so intuitive and so task focused, but as a tool to get certain types of work done, it's great, because you don't have to worry about anything but the job you want accomplished.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973120</id>
	<title>Re:Oh they support tinkering</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1264929300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Semantics, whether you are paying for the SDK, or the right to use programs you make, my point stands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Semantics , whether you are paying for the SDK , or the right to use programs you make , my point stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Semantics, whether you are paying for the SDK, or the right to use programs you make, my point stands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972616</id>
	<title>Re:Parallel with hobby electronics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The simple fact is that 98\% of people out there just want their computer to work. They don't care about getting under the hood. If it plays their youtube videos, netflix streaming content, and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy, they're happy. That's all that's needed. So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business."</p><p>While in a sense what you say is true, in reality it reflects on the anti-intellectual nature and stupidity of most of the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The simple fact is that 98 \ % of people out there just want their computer to work .
They do n't care about getting under the hood .
If it plays their youtube videos , netflix streaming content , and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy , they 're happy .
That 's all that 's needed .
So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business .
" While in a sense what you say is true , in reality it reflects on the anti-intellectual nature and stupidity of most of the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The simple fact is that 98\% of people out there just want their computer to work.
They don't care about getting under the hood.
If it plays their youtube videos, netflix streaming content, and lets them send some emails and play the latest game they bought from Steam or Best Buy, they're happy.
That's all that's needed.
So a company catering to that market instead of the 1 or 2 percent who want to tinker under the hood is just good business.
"While in a sense what you say is true, in reality it reflects on the anti-intellectual nature and stupidity of most of the population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972434</id>
	<title>Change in Culture</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1264968540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now it seems more focus is on disabling DRM, finding vulnerabilities, and exploits.
It used to be about extending functionality or modifying devices.

Get with the times Apple is just presenting a bigger challange.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it seems more focus is on disabling DRM , finding vulnerabilities , and exploits .
It used to be about extending functionality or modifying devices .
Get with the times Apple is just presenting a bigger challange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it seems more focus is on disabling DRM, finding vulnerabilities, and exploits.
It used to be about extending functionality or modifying devices.
Get with the times Apple is just presenting a bigger challange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972096</id>
	<title>This is Dumb</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1264966680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pay $100 for a developer's license and you can do whatever you want to you iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad.</p><p>XCode and Applescript come with every "real" Mac for no additional charge.</p><p>What is the problem here? That you can't program the iPad on the iPad? Sorry, but that is hardy worth the energy of his rant.</p><p>Yes, I read the article. Well, I tried. It's a poorly written, confusing rant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pay $ 100 for a developer 's license and you can do whatever you want to you iPhone , iPod Touch , or iPad.XCode and Applescript come with every " real " Mac for no additional charge.What is the problem here ?
That you ca n't program the iPad on the iPad ?
Sorry , but that is hardy worth the energy of his rant.Yes , I read the article .
Well , I tried .
It 's a poorly written , confusing rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pay $100 for a developer's license and you can do whatever you want to you iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad.XCode and Applescript come with every "real" Mac for no additional charge.What is the problem here?
That you can't program the iPad on the iPad?
Sorry, but that is hardy worth the energy of his rant.Yes, I read the article.
Well, I tried.
It's a poorly written, confusing rant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978226</id>
	<title>Mobile Safari, anyone?</title>
	<author>machinder</author>
	<datestamp>1265056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, did I miss the part where Steve announced they were removing the web browser? How on earth is a device that prominently features a web browser a closed system? Yes, it's less open than a PC or a Mac (which I would argue is more open than Windows as it ships with a development environment.) But it's very silly to claim that it's closed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , did I miss the part where Steve announced they were removing the web browser ?
How on earth is a device that prominently features a web browser a closed system ?
Yes , it 's less open than a PC or a Mac ( which I would argue is more open than Windows as it ships with a development environment .
) But it 's very silly to claim that it 's closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, did I miss the part where Steve announced they were removing the web browser?
How on earth is a device that prominently features a web browser a closed system?
Yes, it's less open than a PC or a Mac (which I would argue is more open than Windows as it ships with a development environment.
) But it's very silly to claim that it's closed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972716</id>
	<title>So then...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264970220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...don&rsquo;t buy an Apple product anymore.<br>That should be a obvious given for real tinkerers anyway.</p><p>Get yourself a computer. Not an appliance.<br>Appliance: Something with a static / rigid programming, that you just use.<br>Computer: Something that you program, to automate your work and make your like more efficient / empower you.</p><p>MacOS X and Windows are appliance OSes.<br>KDE and Gnome are mostly appliance desktop environments.<br>Most software calculators are appliance simulations.</p><p>Linux, bash scripts, Firefox with extensions and Greasemonkey, Qalculate!, programming languages, Maya (yes!), NI Reaktor, self-built/combined hardware systems... Those are computer things!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...don    t buy an Apple product anymore.That should be a obvious given for real tinkerers anyway.Get yourself a computer .
Not an appliance.Appliance : Something with a static / rigid programming , that you just use.Computer : Something that you program , to automate your work and make your like more efficient / empower you.MacOS X and Windows are appliance OSes.KDE and Gnome are mostly appliance desktop environments.Most software calculators are appliance simulations.Linux , bash scripts , Firefox with extensions and Greasemonkey , Qalculate ! , programming languages , Maya ( yes !
) , NI Reaktor , self-built/combined hardware systems... Those are computer things !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...don’t buy an Apple product anymore.That should be a obvious given for real tinkerers anyway.Get yourself a computer.
Not an appliance.Appliance: Something with a static / rigid programming, that you just use.Computer: Something that you program, to automate your work and make your like more efficient / empower you.MacOS X and Windows are appliance OSes.KDE and Gnome are mostly appliance desktop environments.Most software calculators are appliance simulations.Linux, bash scripts, Firefox with extensions and Greasemonkey, Qalculate!, programming languages, Maya (yes!
), NI Reaktor, self-built/combined hardware systems... Those are computer things!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976122</id>
	<title>in rebuttal to nothing</title>
	<author>rinoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264947240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Mark Pilgrim takes it one too far but he is also correct.
<br> <br>
Apple no more kills tinkering than do they sacrifice small children upon every product launch to insure success.
<br> <br>
Yet, although I will use an iPad in the near future, I would rather have seen a middle road whereby there is a seamless experience like the iPhone/iPod but is a bit more open.
<br> <br>
Then again, OS X is a great choice to learn ins and outs of an OS. Or at least you can do a helluva lot of tinkering since it ships with a decent LAMP stack, python, ruby, perl, etc...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Mark Pilgrim takes it one too far but he is also correct .
Apple no more kills tinkering than do they sacrifice small children upon every product launch to insure success .
Yet , although I will use an iPad in the near future , I would rather have seen a middle road whereby there is a seamless experience like the iPhone/iPod but is a bit more open .
Then again , OS X is a great choice to learn ins and outs of an OS .
Or at least you can do a helluva lot of tinkering since it ships with a decent LAMP stack , python , ruby , perl , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Mark Pilgrim takes it one too far but he is also correct.
Apple no more kills tinkering than do they sacrifice small children upon every product launch to insure success.
Yet, although I will use an iPad in the near future, I would rather have seen a middle road whereby there is a seamless experience like the iPhone/iPod but is a bit more open.
Then again, OS X is a great choice to learn ins and outs of an OS.
Or at least you can do a helluva lot of tinkering since it ships with a decent LAMP stack, python, ruby, perl, etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30981754</id>
	<title>Middle way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps Apple should offer the following:</p><p>- The current approach for the ipod/ipad; closed, Appstore route only if you're not a developer etc.  Has it's benefits, e.g. a stable/controlled system<br>- An 'expert mode' switch (or something similar) in the device configuration which opens up the devices a lot more.. allows you to hack it's internals , etc. etc.</p><p>That way, both the ' just offer something that simply works mass' and the 'group of tinkerers' can be satisfied.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Apple should offer the following : - The current approach for the ipod/ipad ; closed , Appstore route only if you 're not a developer etc .
Has it 's benefits , e.g .
a stable/controlled system- An 'expert mode ' switch ( or something similar ) in the device configuration which opens up the devices a lot more.. allows you to hack it 's internals , etc .
etc.That way , both the ' just offer something that simply works mass ' and the 'group of tinkerers ' can be satisfied .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Apple should offer the following:- The current approach for the ipod/ipad; closed, Appstore route only if you're not a developer etc.
Has it's benefits, e.g.
a stable/controlled system- An 'expert mode' switch (or something similar) in the device configuration which opens up the devices a lot more.. allows you to hack it's internals , etc.
etc.That way, both the ' just offer something that simply works mass' and the 'group of tinkerers' can be satisfied.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836</id>
	<title>Another One</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1264965480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines. Hell, there were even magazines with "tricks-n-tips" for useful locations and what values would create what effects. Nowadays I suspect they'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>Yes, a sad time indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines .
Hell , there were even magazines with " tricks-n-tips " for useful locations and what values would create what effects .
Nowadays I suspect they 'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering : - ( Yes , a sad time indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines.
Hell, there were even magazines with "tricks-n-tips" for useful locations and what values would create what effects.
Nowadays I suspect they'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering :-(Yes, a sad time indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30990858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30983748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30979276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.31002834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30981948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30984260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1657233_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30984260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30981948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30996422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30979276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30986110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30983748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.31002834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30977996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30990858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30973476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30975570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30971940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30976228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1657233.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30972786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30974618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1657233.30978100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
