<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_01_2250207</id>
	<title>IE 8 Is Top Browser, Google Chrome Is Rising Fast</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265029080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader points out that the latest Net Applications numbers show that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/01/ie8-top-browser">MSIE 8 has become the world's most-used browser</a>, taking over from IE6, which has been hit by the decline in the use of Windows XP. PCMag.com emphasizes another angle on the numbers, which is that <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358637,00.asp">Chrome is the fastest-growing browser</a>. Firefox's market share has stalled just below 25\%. Chrome is now in third place, ahead of Safari. The Guardian's article reminds: <i>"There's no guarantee that NetApps' numbers are accurate, and they are very unlikely to be correct to two decimal places. However, they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader points out that the latest Net Applications numbers show that MSIE 8 has become the world 's most-used browser , taking over from IE6 , which has been hit by the decline in the use of Windows XP .
PCMag.com emphasizes another angle on the numbers , which is that Chrome is the fastest-growing browser .
Firefox 's market share has stalled just below 25 \ % .
Chrome is now in third place , ahead of Safari .
The Guardian 's article reminds : " There 's no guarantee that NetApps ' numbers are accurate , and they are very unlikely to be correct to two decimal places .
However , they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader points out that the latest Net Applications numbers show that MSIE 8 has become the world's most-used browser, taking over from IE6, which has been hit by the decline in the use of Windows XP.
PCMag.com emphasizes another angle on the numbers, which is that Chrome is the fastest-growing browser.
Firefox's market share has stalled just below 25\%.
Chrome is now in third place, ahead of Safari.
The Guardian's article reminds: "There's no guarantee that NetApps' numbers are accurate, and they are very unlikely to be correct to two decimal places.
However, they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991874</id>
	<title>Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Chrome's usage will literally shoot through the roof.</p></div><p>Holy crap.  You heard it here first, everyone.  STAY AWAY FROM CHROME!!!!  It will <i>literally</i> shoot through your roof!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome 's usage will literally shoot through the roof.Holy crap .
You heard it here first , everyone .
STAY AWAY FROM CHROME ! ! ! !
It will literally shoot through your roof !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome's usage will literally shoot through the roof.Holy crap.
You heard it here first, everyone.
STAY AWAY FROM CHROME!!!!
It will literally shoot through your roof!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30995362</id>
	<title>Re:skinning the goat</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265126700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got one "Browsers trend" and one "Browser version trend". The former has one "IE" and one "Firefox" column and is not so very interesting. In the versions page it's whatever they feel gives something useful, nobody bothers that all Mac users are on version 10 and Linux users on version 2, they go to the detail level that matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got one " Browsers trend " and one " Browser version trend " .
The former has one " IE " and one " Firefox " column and is not so very interesting .
In the versions page it 's whatever they feel gives something useful , nobody bothers that all Mac users are on version 10 and Linux users on version 2 , they go to the detail level that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got one "Browsers trend" and one "Browser version trend".
The former has one "IE" and one "Firefox" column and is not so very interesting.
In the versions page it's whatever they feel gives something useful, nobody bothers that all Mac users are on version 10 and Linux users on version 2, they go to the detail level that matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156</id>
	<title>Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS HTML control 62\%<br>Gecko 24.5\%<br>Webkit 9.7\%\%<br>Opera 3.0\%<br>Miscellania 0.7\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS HTML control 62 \ % Gecko 24.5 \ % Webkit 9.7 \ % \ % Opera 3.0 \ % Miscellania 0.7 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS HTML control 62\%Gecko 24.5\%Webkit 9.7\%\%Opera 3.0\%Miscellania 0.7\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30999462</id>
	<title>statistics smatishichs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Browser Statistics</p><p>Web Statistics and Trends</p><p>Statistics are important information. From the statistics below, you can see that Internet Explorer and Firefox are the most common browsers.<br>Browser Statistics Month by Month<br>2009     IE8     IE7     IE6     Firefox     Chrome     Safari     Opera<br>December     13.5\%     12.8\%     10.9\%     46.4\%     9.8\%     3.6\%     2.3\%<br>November     13.3\%     13.3\%     11.1\%     47.0\%     8.5\%     3.8\%     2.3\%<br>October     12.8\%     14.1\%     10.6\%     47.5\%     8.0\%     3.8\%     2.3\%<br>September     12.2\%     15.3\%     12.1\%     46.6\%     7.1\%     3.6\%     2.2\%<br>August     10.6\%     15.1\%     13.6\%     47.4\%     7.0\%     3.3\%     2.1\%<br>July     9.1\%     15.9\%     14.4\%     47.9\%     6.5\%     3.3\%     2.1\%<br>June     7.1\%     18.7\%     14.9\%     47.3\%     6.0\%     3.1\%     2.1\%<br>May     5.2\%     21.3\%     14.5\%     47.7\%     5.5\%     3.0\%     2.2\%<br>April     3.5\%     23.2\%     15.4\%     47.1\%     4.9\%     3.0\%     2.2\%<br>March     1.4\%     24.9\%     17.0\%     46.5\%     4.2\%     3.1\%     2.3\%<br>February     0.8\%     25.4\%     17.4\%     46.4\%     4.0\%     3.0\%     2.2\%<br>January     0.6\%     25.7\%     18.5\%     45.5\%     3.9\%     3.0\%     2.3\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Browser StatisticsWeb Statistics and TrendsStatistics are important information .
From the statistics below , you can see that Internet Explorer and Firefox are the most common browsers.Browser Statistics Month by Month2009 IE8 IE7 IE6 Firefox Chrome Safari OperaDecember 13.5 \ % 12.8 \ % 10.9 \ % 46.4 \ % 9.8 \ % 3.6 \ % 2.3 \ % November 13.3 \ % 13.3 \ % 11.1 \ % 47.0 \ % 8.5 \ % 3.8 \ % 2.3 \ % October 12.8 \ % 14.1 \ % 10.6 \ % 47.5 \ % 8.0 \ % 3.8 \ % 2.3 \ % September 12.2 \ % 15.3 \ % 12.1 \ % 46.6 \ % 7.1 \ % 3.6 \ % 2.2 \ % August 10.6 \ % 15.1 \ % 13.6 \ % 47.4 \ % 7.0 \ % 3.3 \ % 2.1 \ % July 9.1 \ % 15.9 \ % 14.4 \ % 47.9 \ % 6.5 \ % 3.3 \ % 2.1 \ % June 7.1 \ % 18.7 \ % 14.9 \ % 47.3 \ % 6.0 \ % 3.1 \ % 2.1 \ % May 5.2 \ % 21.3 \ % 14.5 \ % 47.7 \ % 5.5 \ % 3.0 \ % 2.2 \ % April 3.5 \ % 23.2 \ % 15.4 \ % 47.1 \ % 4.9 \ % 3.0 \ % 2.2 \ % March 1.4 \ % 24.9 \ % 17.0 \ % 46.5 \ % 4.2 \ % 3.1 \ % 2.3 \ % February 0.8 \ % 25.4 \ % 17.4 \ % 46.4 \ % 4.0 \ % 3.0 \ % 2.2 \ % January 0.6 \ % 25.7 \ % 18.5 \ % 45.5 \ % 3.9 \ % 3.0 \ % 2.3 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Browser StatisticsWeb Statistics and TrendsStatistics are important information.
From the statistics below, you can see that Internet Explorer and Firefox are the most common browsers.Browser Statistics Month by Month2009     IE8     IE7     IE6     Firefox     Chrome     Safari     OperaDecember     13.5\%     12.8\%     10.9\%     46.4\%     9.8\%     3.6\%     2.3\%November     13.3\%     13.3\%     11.1\%     47.0\%     8.5\%     3.8\%     2.3\%October     12.8\%     14.1\%     10.6\%     47.5\%     8.0\%     3.8\%     2.3\%September     12.2\%     15.3\%     12.1\%     46.6\%     7.1\%     3.6\%     2.2\%August     10.6\%     15.1\%     13.6\%     47.4\%     7.0\%     3.3\%     2.1\%July     9.1\%     15.9\%     14.4\%     47.9\%     6.5\%     3.3\%     2.1\%June     7.1\%     18.7\%     14.9\%     47.3\%     6.0\%     3.1\%     2.1\%May     5.2\%     21.3\%     14.5\%     47.7\%     5.5\%     3.0\%     2.2\%April     3.5\%     23.2\%     15.4\%     47.1\%     4.9\%     3.0\%     2.2\%March     1.4\%     24.9\%     17.0\%     46.5\%     4.2\%     3.1\%     2.3\%February     0.8\%     25.4\%     17.4\%     46.4\%     4.0\%     3.0\%     2.2\%January     0.6\%     25.7\%     18.5\%     45.5\%     3.9\%     3.0\%     2.3\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992736</id>
	<title>Re:At some level this is may be a good thing</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265105160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No worries, the current malware trendes are flash and pdf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>they are unified enough</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No worries , the current malware trendes are flash and pdf : - ) they are unified enough</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No worries, the current malware trendes are flash and pdf :-)they are unified enough</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991208</id>
	<title>Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"There's no guarantee that NetApps' numbers are accurate, and they are very unlikely to be correct to two decimal places. However, they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends."</p></div><p>Of course they are not accurate, the stats are under representing the people who do not have Internet access.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's no guarantee that NetApps ' numbers are accurate , and they are very unlikely to be correct to two decimal places .
However , they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends .
" Of course they are not accurate , the stats are under representing the people who do not have Internet access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's no guarantee that NetApps' numbers are accurate, and they are very unlikely to be correct to two decimal places.
However, they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends.
"Of course they are not accurate, the stats are under representing the people who do not have Internet access.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990640</id>
	<title>Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been. Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.</i></p><p>Do a validation test on this page. I just got: <b> <i>104 Errors, 2 warning(s)</i> </b></p><p>*whew*</p><p>I'd get fucking FIRED if I put out that kind of crap at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strangely , now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox , Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been .
Apparently , one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.Do a validation test on this page .
I just got : 104 Errors , 2 warning ( s ) * whew * I 'd get fucking FIRED if I put out that kind of crap at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been.
Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.Do a validation test on this page.
I just got:  104 Errors, 2 warning(s) *whew*I'd get fucking FIRED if I put out that kind of crap at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990506</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1265035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>With Firefox's latest improvements, I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7</i></p><p>You're going to have a long wait for 3.7, since it's been cancelled.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I'm looking for their 'out of process plugin' update to 3.6; that should take care of most of the Flash problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Firefox 's latest improvements , I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7You 're going to have a long wait for 3.7 , since it 's been cancelled .
: ) I 'm looking for their 'out of process plugin ' update to 3.6 ; that should take care of most of the Flash problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Firefox's latest improvements, I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7You're going to have a long wait for 3.7, since it's been cancelled.
:)I'm looking for their 'out of process plugin' update to 3.6; that should take care of most of the Flash problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993226</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series (<strong>very little "geek bias"</strong>)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Are you joking?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series ( very little " geek bias " ) Are you joking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series (very little "geek bias")

Are you joking?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30996056</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox is the dominant browser in Central Europe because of piracy.<br>There was a time when new version of IE would install only on genuine systems - almost nobody used it.<br>Microsoft finally realized that's a stupid thing to do and ditched the protection. However, people are still frightened that, by installing anything from ms, they will let ms know that they are using pirated windows copy, and ms will send the police or something.<br>That's THE reason for firefox's dominance in Central Europe.</p><p>(I live there, obviously)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is the dominant browser in Central Europe because of piracy.There was a time when new version of IE would install only on genuine systems - almost nobody used it.Microsoft finally realized that 's a stupid thing to do and ditched the protection .
However , people are still frightened that , by installing anything from ms , they will let ms know that they are using pirated windows copy , and ms will send the police or something.That 's THE reason for firefox 's dominance in Central Europe .
( I live there , obviously )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is the dominant browser in Central Europe because of piracy.There was a time when new version of IE would install only on genuine systems - almost nobody used it.Microsoft finally realized that's a stupid thing to do and ditched the protection.
However, people are still frightened that, by installing anything from ms, they will let ms know that they are using pirated windows copy, and ms will send the police or something.That's THE reason for firefox's dominance in Central Europe.
(I live there, obviously)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30996834</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265131620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't OSX do this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't OSX do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't OSX do this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994300</id>
	<title>Yeah, my numbers look different.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1265121720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My numbers look different.  I'm seeing IE6, IE7, Firefox, IE8, Chrome, and Safari in that order.  All the other browsers (e.g., Opera, Konqueror) come in with lower numbers than Googlebot.<br><br>IE8 market share *is* increasing, and IE6 decreasing, but I haven't seen them switch places yet.<br><br>Though, it wouldn't surprise me very much if my users were behind the times.  I also haven't yet seen the numbers for Vista and Seven (even if combined) rise above the level of Mac OS X, somewhere in the sub-1\% range.  I'm seeing 85\% Windows XP, and most of the rest is Windows 98, and most of the rest after that is search indexers.<br><br>I think I have *one* regular user with an iPhone, a couple of Nokia phone users (exactly two different models), a small handful of Mac users, and a couple of Linux users.  There's also at least one user with Windows Me, one with FreeBSD, and at least one Blackberry.  (I happen to know who the Blackberry user is.  Used to be a coworker.)<br><br>And no, I can't be absolutely certain of my user counts.  But between the number of hits and some other stats that we keep, it's pretty obvious that most of the ones I've guessed at "one user" probably really are just one user.  And it's entirely possible that one person is responsible for more than one of these categories (e.g., maybe the FreeBSD guy as a Nokia phone, who knows).</htmltext>
<tokenext>My numbers look different .
I 'm seeing IE6 , IE7 , Firefox , IE8 , Chrome , and Safari in that order .
All the other browsers ( e.g. , Opera , Konqueror ) come in with lower numbers than Googlebot.IE8 market share * is * increasing , and IE6 decreasing , but I have n't seen them switch places yet.Though , it would n't surprise me very much if my users were behind the times .
I also have n't yet seen the numbers for Vista and Seven ( even if combined ) rise above the level of Mac OS X , somewhere in the sub-1 \ % range .
I 'm seeing 85 \ % Windows XP , and most of the rest is Windows 98 , and most of the rest after that is search indexers.I think I have * one * regular user with an iPhone , a couple of Nokia phone users ( exactly two different models ) , a small handful of Mac users , and a couple of Linux users .
There 's also at least one user with Windows Me , one with FreeBSD , and at least one Blackberry .
( I happen to know who the Blackberry user is .
Used to be a coworker .
) And no , I ca n't be absolutely certain of my user counts .
But between the number of hits and some other stats that we keep , it 's pretty obvious that most of the ones I 've guessed at " one user " probably really are just one user .
And it 's entirely possible that one person is responsible for more than one of these categories ( e.g. , maybe the FreeBSD guy as a Nokia phone , who knows ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My numbers look different.
I'm seeing IE6, IE7, Firefox, IE8, Chrome, and Safari in that order.
All the other browsers (e.g., Opera, Konqueror) come in with lower numbers than Googlebot.IE8 market share *is* increasing, and IE6 decreasing, but I haven't seen them switch places yet.Though, it wouldn't surprise me very much if my users were behind the times.
I also haven't yet seen the numbers for Vista and Seven (even if combined) rise above the level of Mac OS X, somewhere in the sub-1\% range.
I'm seeing 85\% Windows XP, and most of the rest is Windows 98, and most of the rest after that is search indexers.I think I have *one* regular user with an iPhone, a couple of Nokia phone users (exactly two different models), a small handful of Mac users, and a couple of Linux users.
There's also at least one user with Windows Me, one with FreeBSD, and at least one Blackberry.
(I happen to know who the Blackberry user is.
Used to be a coworker.
)And no, I can't be absolutely certain of my user counts.
But between the number of hits and some other stats that we keep, it's pretty obvious that most of the ones I've guessed at "one user" probably really are just one user.
And it's entirely possible that one person is responsible for more than one of these categories (e.g., maybe the FreeBSD guy as a Nokia phone, who knows).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991496</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a 10K plus unique user a day site targeted in the continental USA. Today's stats are: </p><p>IE 60.26\%</p><p>Firefox 19.70\%</p><p>Safari 14.52\%</p><p>Chrome 3.79\%</p><p>And then everything else, whatever that adds up to</p><p>I have seen a big drop in IE in the past 6 months, and Safari has gone from almost nothing to almost 15\% in the past 2 months alone. People certainly seem to be buying OSX boxes. GA reports OSX at 13\%. Pretty cool, I think. <br>
&nbsp; <br>PS posted in Chrome on my Snow Leopard box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a 10K plus unique user a day site targeted in the continental USA .
Today 's stats are : IE 60.26 \ % Firefox 19.70 \ % Safari 14.52 \ % Chrome 3.79 \ % And then everything else , whatever that adds up toI have seen a big drop in IE in the past 6 months , and Safari has gone from almost nothing to almost 15 \ % in the past 2 months alone .
People certainly seem to be buying OSX boxes .
GA reports OSX at 13 \ % .
Pretty cool , I think .
  PS posted in Chrome on my Snow Leopard box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a 10K plus unique user a day site targeted in the continental USA.
Today's stats are: IE 60.26\%Firefox 19.70\%Safari 14.52\%Chrome 3.79\%And then everything else, whatever that adds up toI have seen a big drop in IE in the past 6 months, and Safari has gone from almost nothing to almost 15\% in the past 2 months alone.
People certainly seem to be buying OSX boxes.
GA reports OSX at 13\%.
Pretty cool, I think.
  PS posted in Chrome on my Snow Leopard box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992378</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>aloc acoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265142780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many people on the forum wish that IE becomes a minor browser used by few people.

Let&rsquo;s just say for moment that IE&rsquo;s market share drops to like 5 - 10\%. Does that really change anything when it comes to web design?

In those 10+ years I have been working with creating Internet portals there has always been a customer demand for supporting all major browsers. Hell, we had to support Firefox when it had less than 5\%. Chrome even when it had less than 1\%. Guess the same demand will be there is IE marked share drop.

So please explain why a web developer&rsquo;s life will become easier if IE&rsquo;s marked share drop to single digits. You have to design for the same browsers as today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people on the forum wish that IE becomes a minor browser used by few people .
Let    s just say for moment that IE    s market share drops to like 5 - 10 \ % .
Does that really change anything when it comes to web design ?
In those 10 + years I have been working with creating Internet portals there has always been a customer demand for supporting all major browsers .
Hell , we had to support Firefox when it had less than 5 \ % .
Chrome even when it had less than 1 \ % .
Guess the same demand will be there is IE marked share drop .
So please explain why a web developer    s life will become easier if IE    s marked share drop to single digits .
You have to design for the same browsers as today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people on the forum wish that IE becomes a minor browser used by few people.
Let’s just say for moment that IE’s market share drops to like 5 - 10\%.
Does that really change anything when it comes to web design?
In those 10+ years I have been working with creating Internet portals there has always been a customer demand for supporting all major browsers.
Hell, we had to support Firefox when it had less than 5\%.
Chrome even when it had less than 1\%.
Guess the same demand will be there is IE marked share drop.
So please explain why a web developer’s life will become easier if IE’s marked share drop to single digits.
You have to design for the same browsers as today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602</id>
	<title>This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>It appears that the most effective strategy for those who want to be rid of IE6 would be to encourage Windows XP users to upgrade to Windows 7.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
IE8 works just fine on Windows XP. There's no need to upgrade to Windows 7, which requires you to buy new hardware as well. It's all a big scam to boost sales.
</p><p>
This just confirms what I wrote in an earlier post:
<br>
-----
<br>
It's not up to Microsoft how Windows is installed on a computer delivered to an end-user. It's companies like Dell, HP and computer shops who actually install Windows.
</p><p>
They (Dell, HP and computer shops) need to learn to install Windows properly: ntfs, no automatic login to admin user, least-privileged account, install latest version of a web browser (whether it be IE8, or something else), etc, etc, etc.
</p><p>
And power-users don't use pre-installed OSes anyway, correct? So the main problem is with users who use computers with a pre-installed OS.
<br>
-----
</p><p>
I am so sick and tired of it that end-users are tricked into believing they need to buy a new computer with a new OS, just so they get a more secure internet experience.
</p><p>
Wake Up, people! Your current OS, if properly setup, maintained and used, will work just fine.
</p><p>
And here's some more food for thought: we should all be logged with a least-privileged account when using our computers. But the automatic update feature of most software requires you to be logged in as admin. If you're logged with a least-privileged account, the automatic update feature does not work and is disabled. Example: Firefox.
<br>
Which brings me to the conclusion that the automatic update feature is contradicting basic security recommendations and therefor sorta useless and that it's really up to the user to properly maintain and use their computer.
</p><p>
Well - I could just go on and on about this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... y'all get the point, I hope.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : It appears that the most effective strategy for those who want to be rid of IE6 would be to encourage Windows XP users to upgrade to Windows 7 .
IE8 works just fine on Windows XP .
There 's no need to upgrade to Windows 7 , which requires you to buy new hardware as well .
It 's all a big scam to boost sales .
This just confirms what I wrote in an earlier post : ----- It 's not up to Microsoft how Windows is installed on a computer delivered to an end-user .
It 's companies like Dell , HP and computer shops who actually install Windows .
They ( Dell , HP and computer shops ) need to learn to install Windows properly : ntfs , no automatic login to admin user , least-privileged account , install latest version of a web browser ( whether it be IE8 , or something else ) , etc , etc , etc .
And power-users do n't use pre-installed OSes anyway , correct ?
So the main problem is with users who use computers with a pre-installed OS .
----- I am so sick and tired of it that end-users are tricked into believing they need to buy a new computer with a new OS , just so they get a more secure internet experience .
Wake Up , people !
Your current OS , if properly setup , maintained and used , will work just fine .
And here 's some more food for thought : we should all be logged with a least-privileged account when using our computers .
But the automatic update feature of most software requires you to be logged in as admin .
If you 're logged with a least-privileged account , the automatic update feature does not work and is disabled .
Example : Firefox .
Which brings me to the conclusion that the automatic update feature is contradicting basic security recommendations and therefor sorta useless and that it 's really up to the user to properly maintain and use their computer .
Well - I could just go on and on about this ... y'all get the point , I hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From TFA:It appears that the most effective strategy for those who want to be rid of IE6 would be to encourage Windows XP users to upgrade to Windows 7.
IE8 works just fine on Windows XP.
There's no need to upgrade to Windows 7, which requires you to buy new hardware as well.
It's all a big scam to boost sales.
This just confirms what I wrote in an earlier post:

-----

It's not up to Microsoft how Windows is installed on a computer delivered to an end-user.
It's companies like Dell, HP and computer shops who actually install Windows.
They (Dell, HP and computer shops) need to learn to install Windows properly: ntfs, no automatic login to admin user, least-privileged account, install latest version of a web browser (whether it be IE8, or something else), etc, etc, etc.
And power-users don't use pre-installed OSes anyway, correct?
So the main problem is with users who use computers with a pre-installed OS.
-----

I am so sick and tired of it that end-users are tricked into believing they need to buy a new computer with a new OS, just so they get a more secure internet experience.
Wake Up, people!
Your current OS, if properly setup, maintained and used, will work just fine.
And here's some more food for thought: we should all be logged with a least-privileged account when using our computers.
But the automatic update feature of most software requires you to be logged in as admin.
If you're logged with a least-privileged account, the automatic update feature does not work and is disabled.
Example: Firefox.
Which brings me to the conclusion that the automatic update feature is contradicting basic security recommendations and therefor sorta useless and that it's really up to the user to properly maintain and use their computer.
Well - I could just go on and on about this ... y'all get the point, I hope.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993858</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>ByteSlicer</author>
	<datestamp>1265118420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like others have suggested: the IE Tab addon works great for this case. You can whitelist the sites you want to view in IE, so once added they'll open automatically with the IE renderer. One drawback: it doesn't work anymore with FF 3.6 (hacking the version in about:config might work, didnt try). Although they will probably update it, it will also probably break again when FF 3.7 arrives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like others have suggested : the IE Tab addon works great for this case .
You can whitelist the sites you want to view in IE , so once added they 'll open automatically with the IE renderer .
One drawback : it does n't work anymore with FF 3.6 ( hacking the version in about : config might work , didnt try ) .
Although they will probably update it , it will also probably break again when FF 3.7 arrives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like others have suggested: the IE Tab addon works great for this case.
You can whitelist the sites you want to view in IE, so once added they'll open automatically with the IE renderer.
One drawback: it doesn't work anymore with FF 3.6 (hacking the version in about:config might work, didnt try).
Although they will probably update it, it will also probably break again when FF 3.7 arrives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990750</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I got my girlfriend a Mac she had a hard time switching because she thought I was "taking her Internet away"... yes, she's hot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I got my girlfriend a Mac she had a hard time switching because she thought I was " taking her Internet away " ... yes , she 's hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I got my girlfriend a Mac she had a hard time switching because she thought I was "taking her Internet away"... yes, she's hot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993754</id>
	<title>Re:Most of that Miscellania will be Webkit</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The vast vast majority of mobile browsers are Opera.<br>
<br>
iPhones, Androids, and Palms are trendy.. but they are still a minority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast vast majority of mobile browsers are Opera .
iPhones , Androids , and Palms are trendy.. but they are still a minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast vast majority of mobile browsers are Opera.
iPhones, Androids, and Palms are trendy.. but they are still a minority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992672</id>
	<title>Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1265104020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>only running Chrome(so no IE only web sites), are not great.</p><p>ChromeOS is pretty much the most insane thing I've ever heard of, the iPad is less locked down, has more functionality, and is probably going to be cheaper, and even that's probably a toy.</p></div><p>Besides on internal network apps at work, I haven't seen an IE only site in years.  And for those few sites left that do, the ipad won't work either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>only running Chrome ( so no IE only web sites ) , are not great.ChromeOS is pretty much the most insane thing I 've ever heard of , the iPad is less locked down , has more functionality , and is probably going to be cheaper , and even that 's probably a toy.Besides on internal network apps at work , I have n't seen an IE only site in years .
And for those few sites left that do , the ipad wo n't work either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only running Chrome(so no IE only web sites), are not great.ChromeOS is pretty much the most insane thing I've ever heard of, the iPad is less locked down, has more functionality, and is probably going to be cheaper, and even that's probably a toy.Besides on internal network apps at work, I haven't seen an IE only site in years.
And for those few sites left that do, the ipad won't work either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994018</id>
	<title>Re:Most of that Miscellania will be Webkit</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1265119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget a good portion of Macs.  Safari on OS X is pretty damn neat.  Its good on Windows too, but does leak memory a bit and can do with a re-start every couple of days.  Chrome is also webkit...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget a good portion of Macs .
Safari on OS X is pretty damn neat .
Its good on Windows too , but does leak memory a bit and can do with a re-start every couple of days .
Chrome is also webkit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget a good portion of Macs.
Safari on OS X is pretty damn neat.
Its good on Windows too, but does leak memory a bit and can do with a re-start every couple of days.
Chrome is also webkit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31000348</id>
	<title>Not by installed base</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1265101560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of the major smartphones use Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the major smartphones use Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of the major smartphones use Opera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992110</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried installing a FF add-on called Coral IE Tabs on her work computer?  My work still have a few applications that only work in IE, however I am able to get around this problem using the mentioned add-on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried installing a FF add-on called Coral IE Tabs on her work computer ?
My work still have a few applications that only work in IE , however I am able to get around this problem using the mentioned add-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried installing a FF add-on called Coral IE Tabs on her work computer?
My work still have a few applications that only work in IE, however I am able to get around this problem using the mentioned add-on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993002</id>
	<title>Chrome is rising fast...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265110140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like a twelve year-old's dick</p><p>- Sergeant Dignam, "The Departed"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like a twelve year-old 's dick- Sergeant Dignam , " The Departed "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like a twelve year-old's dick- Sergeant Dignam, "The Departed"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452</id>
	<title>I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I have a bunch of random observations.  Nothing so coherent that I'd call it a review, but still relevant here.</p><p>So far, I've been really pleased.  It's very fast compared to Firefox.</p><p>Unfortunately, almost all of my Firefox plugins are geared towards privacy and security.  I can't run any of them on Chrome, so I am only willing to use Chrome to browse a small subset of the websites I'm willing to browse with Firefox.  Slashdot happens to be among those.</p><p>Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been.  Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.</p><p>I routinely keep at least 30 or 40 tabs of state in Firefox.</p><p>Incognito in Chrome also looks like a much more convenient (and in some ways better) privacy feature than anything I currently use on Firefox.  Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.</p><p>Chrome does have some features that are almost as nice as Firebug built into it.</p><p>I really wish Firefox would just go multi-threaded, get a much better Javascript rendering engine and lose the horrible memory leaks.  Last time I had to shut down Firefox it had a VSS of nearly 4G!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I have a bunch of random observations .
Nothing so coherent that I 'd call it a review , but still relevant here.So far , I 've been really pleased .
It 's very fast compared to Firefox.Unfortunately , almost all of my Firefox plugins are geared towards privacy and security .
I ca n't run any of them on Chrome , so I am only willing to use Chrome to browse a small subset of the websites I 'm willing to browse with Firefox .
Slashdot happens to be among those.Strangely , now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox , Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been .
Apparently , one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.I routinely keep at least 30 or 40 tabs of state in Firefox.Incognito in Chrome also looks like a much more convenient ( and in some ways better ) privacy feature than anything I currently use on Firefox .
Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.Chrome does have some features that are almost as nice as Firebug built into it.I really wish Firefox would just go multi-threaded , get a much better Javascript rendering engine and lose the horrible memory leaks .
Last time I had to shut down Firefox it had a VSS of nearly 4G !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I have a bunch of random observations.
Nothing so coherent that I'd call it a review, but still relevant here.So far, I've been really pleased.
It's very fast compared to Firefox.Unfortunately, almost all of my Firefox plugins are geared towards privacy and security.
I can't run any of them on Chrome, so I am only willing to use Chrome to browse a small subset of the websites I'm willing to browse with Firefox.
Slashdot happens to be among those.Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been.
Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.I routinely keep at least 30 or 40 tabs of state in Firefox.Incognito in Chrome also looks like a much more convenient (and in some ways better) privacy feature than anything I currently use on Firefox.
Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.Chrome does have some features that are almost as nice as Firebug built into it.I really wish Firefox would just go multi-threaded, get a much better Javascript rendering engine and lose the horrible memory leaks.
Last time I had to shut down Firefox it had a VSS of nearly 4G!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991168</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i work at a small biotech company - 13 people ceo to janitor.<br>I introduced people to FF, and virtually the entire company switched - it was the usual, oh, thats what a browser should be flash of light.<br>Then we got "document control software" (master control, a real POS but, I am told, the least S***iest of the breed)<br>Master control doesn't work in FF - you have to use IE (no jokes bout how it doesn't work in ie either)</p><p>but FF is not evolving, just getting bloated and slower (I've also noticed the superslow page load with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i work at a small biotech company - 13 people ceo to janitor.I introduced people to FF , and virtually the entire company switched - it was the usual , oh , thats what a browser should be flash of light.Then we got " document control software " ( master control , a real POS but , I am told , the least S * * * iest of the breed ) Master control does n't work in FF - you have to use IE ( no jokes bout how it does n't work in ie either ) but FF is not evolving , just getting bloated and slower ( I 've also noticed the superslow page load with / .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i work at a small biotech company - 13 people ceo to janitor.I introduced people to FF, and virtually the entire company switched - it was the usual, oh, thats what a browser should be flash of light.Then we got "document control software" (master control, a real POS but, I am told, the least S***iest of the breed)Master control doesn't work in FF - you have to use IE (no jokes bout how it doesn't work in ie either)but FF is not evolving, just getting bloated and slower (I've also noticed the superslow page load with /.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30998064</id>
	<title>Re:Most of that Miscellania will be Webkit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Installed - yes. Used? No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installed - yes .
Used ? No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installed - yes.
Used? No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991672</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1265046780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ultimately, it would be nice to have an OS independant repository.  It would have to work like DNS where one connects to a core server, gets pointed to the application vendor's repository (or an OS repository), then the app vendor points to the URL.  This way, the damage done by a damaged root repository "pointer" would be minimized, especially if vendors used signing keys and all requests were done via SSL.</p><p>This way, a user-mode program could automatically check what is installed, grab a list of where to get URLs of updates, download them, and tell the user to log on as an admin and install these.  Or it can be run with Administrator or root authority, and do it automatically.</p><p>Companies and organizations can set the root server to be pointing to an internal machine, so patches could be approved in a test environment before propagating to production servers (similar to WSUS.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimately , it would be nice to have an OS independant repository .
It would have to work like DNS where one connects to a core server , gets pointed to the application vendor 's repository ( or an OS repository ) , then the app vendor points to the URL .
This way , the damage done by a damaged root repository " pointer " would be minimized , especially if vendors used signing keys and all requests were done via SSL.This way , a user-mode program could automatically check what is installed , grab a list of where to get URLs of updates , download them , and tell the user to log on as an admin and install these .
Or it can be run with Administrator or root authority , and do it automatically.Companies and organizations can set the root server to be pointing to an internal machine , so patches could be approved in a test environment before propagating to production servers ( similar to WSUS .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimately, it would be nice to have an OS independant repository.
It would have to work like DNS where one connects to a core server, gets pointed to the application vendor's repository (or an OS repository), then the app vendor points to the URL.
This way, the damage done by a damaged root repository "pointer" would be minimized, especially if vendors used signing keys and all requests were done via SSL.This way, a user-mode program could automatically check what is installed, grab a list of where to get URLs of updates, download them, and tell the user to log on as an admin and install these.
Or it can be run with Administrator or root authority, and do it automatically.Companies and organizations can set the root server to be pointing to an internal machine, so patches could be approved in a test environment before propagating to production servers (similar to WSUS.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990884</id>
	<title>Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why is this modded funny? Unrealistic maybe but funny?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why is this modded funny ?
Unrealistic maybe but funny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why is this modded funny?
Unrealistic maybe but funny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993520</id>
	<title>insert free advert for Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265115480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have to link to the 'Microsoft Jack' blog. A site dedicated to posting at least one anti-Apple-Google post per day, and ever sing the praises of everything Microsoft. Do these 'market share figures' factor in people who use more than one browser or use the user-agent-switcher, to spoof sites running IIS, that's still (2010) hard-wired to not work with any other browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have to link to the 'Microsoft Jack ' blog .
A site dedicated to posting at least one anti-Apple-Google post per day , and ever sing the praises of everything Microsoft .
Do these 'market share figures ' factor in people who use more than one browser or use the user-agent-switcher , to spoof sites running IIS , that 's still ( 2010 ) hard-wired to not work with any other browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have to link to the 'Microsoft Jack' blog.
A site dedicated to posting at least one anti-Apple-Google post per day, and ever sing the praises of everything Microsoft.
Do these 'market share figures' factor in people who use more than one browser or use the user-agent-switcher, to spoof sites running IIS, that's still (2010) hard-wired to not work with any other browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991448</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, YOU are basically forcing your 'customers' to accept YOUR idea of a browser. Sounds almost Microsoftish or better yet, Applish. Speaking of which,: which O/S  has the greatest range of compatability with products out there (except for overpriced Apple apps)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , YOU are basically forcing your 'customers ' to accept YOUR idea of a browser .
Sounds almost Microsoftish or better yet , Applish .
Speaking of which , : which O/S has the greatest range of compatability with products out there ( except for overpriced Apple apps ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, YOU are basically forcing your 'customers' to accept YOUR idea of a browser.
Sounds almost Microsoftish or better yet, Applish.
Speaking of which,: which O/S  has the greatest range of compatability with products out there (except for overpriced Apple apps)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990994</id>
	<title>Re:At some level this is may be a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The results show that we've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers.</p><p>Bugger diversity.  I want one browser to stomp all the others into the ground so that I only have to develop for one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The results show that we 've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers.Bugger diversity .
I want one browser to stomp all the others into the ground so that I only have to develop for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The results show that we've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers.Bugger diversity.
I want one browser to stomp all the others into the ground so that I only have to develop for one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992152</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He gave you all the clues in his post.  I am guessing it is http://www.tawerna.biz/.  This is the third site listed on google.pl when doing a localised search for heroes (after a wikipedia disambiguation page and a site on that damn tv show!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He gave you all the clues in his post .
I am guessing it is http : //www.tawerna.biz/ .
This is the third site listed on google.pl when doing a localised search for heroes ( after a wikipedia disambiguation page and a site on that damn tv show !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He gave you all the clues in his post.
I am guessing it is http://www.tawerna.biz/.
This is the third site listed on google.pl when doing a localised search for heroes (after a wikipedia disambiguation page and a site on that damn tv show!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1265038860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think auto-update needs to go die in a fire. I don't want a program dialing home, downloading a file, and then bitching at me to install it (or even going ahead an installing it on its own). FFS, even Windows Update doesn't do that if you tell it not to.</p><p>However, what *does* need to happen is someone should make a small program that can check what version of a program you're running, and what the latest version is, and let you know if you can update. Ideally, the program would allow you to list and delist programs on your own initiative (in case you don't want something updated, say for compatibility reasons). I've heard that one massive problem with security on computers is running out-of-date software, so making something like this for Windows would be a massive boon. Especially if it could also track things like Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think auto-update needs to go die in a fire .
I do n't want a program dialing home , downloading a file , and then bitching at me to install it ( or even going ahead an installing it on its own ) .
FFS , even Windows Update does n't do that if you tell it not to.However , what * does * need to happen is someone should make a small program that can check what version of a program you 're running , and what the latest version is , and let you know if you can update .
Ideally , the program would allow you to list and delist programs on your own initiative ( in case you do n't want something updated , say for compatibility reasons ) .
I 've heard that one massive problem with security on computers is running out-of-date software , so making something like this for Windows would be a massive boon .
Especially if it could also track things like Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think auto-update needs to go die in a fire.
I don't want a program dialing home, downloading a file, and then bitching at me to install it (or even going ahead an installing it on its own).
FFS, even Windows Update doesn't do that if you tell it not to.However, what *does* need to happen is someone should make a small program that can check what version of a program you're running, and what the latest version is, and let you know if you can update.
Ideally, the program would allow you to list and delist programs on your own initiative (in case you don't want something updated, say for compatibility reasons).
I've heard that one massive problem with security on computers is running out-of-date software, so making something like this for Windows would be a massive boon.
Especially if it could also track things like Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990494</id>
	<title>Is it possible?</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1265035860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To spoof this information? Could you have a bank of servers trolling the net giving unique browser identification information on each unique page hit, there by giving the impression that a browser is more popular than it really is.</p><p>I could see Microsoft doing exactly that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To spoof this information ?
Could you have a bank of servers trolling the net giving unique browser identification information on each unique page hit , there by giving the impression that a browser is more popular than it really is.I could see Microsoft doing exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To spoof this information?
Could you have a bank of servers trolling the net giving unique browser identification information on each unique page hit, there by giving the impression that a browser is more popular than it really is.I could see Microsoft doing exactly that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990608</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE8 sucks.  It particularly sucks on XP, but in general, in a slow, bloated pile of garbage.  I've given up any hope that Microsoft has any capacity to build a browser that isn't pure unadulterated shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 sucks .
It particularly sucks on XP , but in general , in a slow , bloated pile of garbage .
I 've given up any hope that Microsoft has any capacity to build a browser that is n't pure unadulterated shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 sucks.
It particularly sucks on XP, but in general, in a slow, bloated pile of garbage.
I've given up any hope that Microsoft has any capacity to build a browser that isn't pure unadulterated shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992176</id>
	<title>Firefox and others</title>
	<author>Exter-C</author>
	<datestamp>1265053080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find that the latest round of 'browser wars' are an interesting choice. At the end of the day the consumer will end up forcing the market into moving with the times. There are several key points to raise specifically about firefox. While I do use firefox as my primary browser in windows, I also have chrome installed and I use konqueror on KDE when I use Linux. I have been using Firefox since I gave up netscape (i've never liked IE), It started off as a great browser that was fast and efficient. I have to agree with many users that it just does not have the pace that it once had, they really need to sit back and focus some real effort on closing off the bugs in existing featuers and focus on stability before they start to work on '4.0' or whatever the next major release is. I know its not going to be the most interesting work for developers to do but the reality is, happy customers use the browser to earn more money through google etc.. Unhappy customers use IE, Chrome, Opera etc.. I really feel that Mozilla/Firefox have lost sight of what made them so popular in the begining.. yes they have great market share now, but how many of those users are actually loyal to the brand? I doubt that the number is very high. Please don't make the same mistakes that netscape made..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that the latest round of 'browser wars ' are an interesting choice .
At the end of the day the consumer will end up forcing the market into moving with the times .
There are several key points to raise specifically about firefox .
While I do use firefox as my primary browser in windows , I also have chrome installed and I use konqueror on KDE when I use Linux .
I have been using Firefox since I gave up netscape ( i 've never liked IE ) , It started off as a great browser that was fast and efficient .
I have to agree with many users that it just does not have the pace that it once had , they really need to sit back and focus some real effort on closing off the bugs in existing featuers and focus on stability before they start to work on '4.0 ' or whatever the next major release is .
I know its not going to be the most interesting work for developers to do but the reality is , happy customers use the browser to earn more money through google etc.. Unhappy customers use IE , Chrome , Opera etc.. I really feel that Mozilla/Firefox have lost sight of what made them so popular in the begining.. yes they have great market share now , but how many of those users are actually loyal to the brand ?
I doubt that the number is very high .
Please do n't make the same mistakes that netscape made. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that the latest round of 'browser wars' are an interesting choice.
At the end of the day the consumer will end up forcing the market into moving with the times.
There are several key points to raise specifically about firefox.
While I do use firefox as my primary browser in windows, I also have chrome installed and I use konqueror on KDE when I use Linux.
I have been using Firefox since I gave up netscape (i've never liked IE), It started off as a great browser that was fast and efficient.
I have to agree with many users that it just does not have the pace that it once had, they really need to sit back and focus some real effort on closing off the bugs in existing featuers and focus on stability before they start to work on '4.0' or whatever the next major release is.
I know its not going to be the most interesting work for developers to do but the reality is, happy customers use the browser to earn more money through google etc.. Unhappy customers use IE, Chrome, Opera etc.. I really feel that Mozilla/Firefox have lost sight of what made them so popular in the begining.. yes they have great market share now, but how many of those users are actually loyal to the brand?
I doubt that the number is very high.
Please don't make the same mistakes that netscape made..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990934</id>
	<title>Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I predict that we will see the Year of Linux on the Desktop within the next two years as well.  Just wait and see...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I predict that we will see the Year of Linux on the Desktop within the next two years as well .
Just wait and see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I predict that we will see the Year of Linux on the Desktop within the next two years as well.
Just wait and see...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990832</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the people who are running pirated copies of XP and aren't computer savvy that are likely ruining your statistics. Not to mention the many who just don't bother running any updates on their machines.

It would be interesting to see stats based on country of origin, given the widespread use of pirated software throughout Asia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the people who are running pirated copies of XP and are n't computer savvy that are likely ruining your statistics .
Not to mention the many who just do n't bother running any updates on their machines .
It would be interesting to see stats based on country of origin , given the widespread use of pirated software throughout Asia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the people who are running pirated copies of XP and aren't computer savvy that are likely ruining your statistics.
Not to mention the many who just don't bother running any updates on their machines.
It would be interesting to see stats based on country of origin, given the widespread use of pirated software throughout Asia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993734</id>
	<title>Re:That O browser...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser?</i></p><p>Because he's 15?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser ? Because he 's 15 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser?Because he's 15?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31007856</id>
	<title>Firefox stalled</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1264937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla shot themselves in the foot by having Firefox start using the Internet Explorer security settings. If you want to download anything executable with Firefox, you have to give IE the same permissions. There's a config setting to turn this off but it doesn't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla shot themselves in the foot by having Firefox start using the Internet Explorer security settings .
If you want to download anything executable with Firefox , you have to give IE the same permissions .
There 's a config setting to turn this off but it does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla shot themselves in the foot by having Firefox start using the Internet Explorer security settings.
If you want to download anything executable with Firefox, you have to give IE the same permissions.
There's a config setting to turn this off but it doesn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31004266</id>
	<title>Re:That O browser...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1265123100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;But why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser?
<br> <br>
Why? To get posts like yours in response!</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser ?
Why ? To get posts like yours in response !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;But why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser?
Why? To get posts like yours in response!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31000074</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1265143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>yes, she's hot</p></div></blockquote><p>Either stop overclocking her or invest in decent cooling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , she 's hotEither stop overclocking her or invest in decent cooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, she's hotEither stop overclocking her or invest in decent cooling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991640</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>cryptoluddite</author>
	<datestamp>1265046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But why, as you say, can't they have a half intelligent search history, like Firefox? Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Because it's Google.  They do whatever they want, whether users like it or not, and there's really nothing you can do about it.</p><p>Chromium?  It's not going to have more than 1-2\% market share when people see "Try Google Chrome NOW!" links on <i>every</i> Google property.  Chromium is the treadmill just like Microsoft used -- keeping the competitors (developers in this case) busy so they aren't competing with you.  How are you going to be able to replace ChromeOS with ChromiumOS when the device only boots ChromeOS and refreshes itself even if you manage to hack the filesystem?  Good luck with that.  And even if Google lets you run your own code without an App Store, that's only by their whim.</p><p>The fact is that Firefox is the <i>only</i> browser that is really in the spirit of open source, and keeping things open.  And yes it's slower, but it also renders more actual pages better than WebKit and it has a much more interesting JavaScript compiler.  Chrome is just something shiny to distract you with so you won't look to the long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But why , as you say , ca n't they have a half intelligent search history , like Firefox ?
Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net ?
...Because it 's Google .
They do whatever they want , whether users like it or not , and there 's really nothing you can do about it.Chromium ?
It 's not going to have more than 1-2 \ % market share when people see " Try Google Chrome NOW !
" links on every Google property .
Chromium is the treadmill just like Microsoft used -- keeping the competitors ( developers in this case ) busy so they are n't competing with you .
How are you going to be able to replace ChromeOS with ChromiumOS when the device only boots ChromeOS and refreshes itself even if you manage to hack the filesystem ?
Good luck with that .
And even if Google lets you run your own code without an App Store , that 's only by their whim.The fact is that Firefox is the only browser that is really in the spirit of open source , and keeping things open .
And yes it 's slower , but it also renders more actual pages better than WebKit and it has a much more interesting JavaScript compiler .
Chrome is just something shiny to distract you with so you wo n't look to the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why, as you say, can't they have a half intelligent search history, like Firefox?
Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net?
...Because it's Google.
They do whatever they want, whether users like it or not, and there's really nothing you can do about it.Chromium?
It's not going to have more than 1-2\% market share when people see "Try Google Chrome NOW!
" links on every Google property.
Chromium is the treadmill just like Microsoft used -- keeping the competitors (developers in this case) busy so they aren't competing with you.
How are you going to be able to replace ChromeOS with ChromiumOS when the device only boots ChromeOS and refreshes itself even if you manage to hack the filesystem?
Good luck with that.
And even if Google lets you run your own code without an App Store, that's only by their whim.The fact is that Firefox is the only browser that is really in the spirit of open source, and keeping things open.
And yes it's slower, but it also renders more actual pages better than WebKit and it has a much more interesting JavaScript compiler.
Chrome is just something shiny to distract you with so you won't look to the long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990708</id>
	<title>Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, Chromium is way, way faster than Firefox on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., and Opera is significantly slower than Firefox on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/..</p><p>The ads/popups/etc on some sites make me want to shut down Chromium, whereas trying to browse Slashdot makes me want to shut down Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , Chromium is way , way faster than Firefox on /. , and Opera is significantly slower than Firefox on /..The ads/popups/etc on some sites make me want to shut down Chromium , whereas trying to browse Slashdot makes me want to shut down Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, Chromium is way, way faster than Firefox on /., and Opera is significantly slower than Firefox on /..The ads/popups/etc on some sites make me want to shut down Chromium, whereas trying to browse Slashdot makes me want to shut down Opera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994914</id>
	<title>Re:skinning the goat</title>
	<author>Daltorak</author>
	<datestamp>1265124900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Version numbering is affecting the statistics here, MS doesn't use the same philosophy as Firefox when it comes to versioning.<br>MS never had internet explorer 6.5...but it had internet explorer sp1 and sp2...which are as different from each other as firefox 3 and firefox 3.5. Yet internet explorer 6.0 is displayed as one browser.</p></div><p>Uhhhh, no....</p><p>Firefox 3.5 has significantly updated rendering and Javascript engines.  HTML5 tags are supported, native Theora and Vorbis decoding is included, ICC profiles, SVG transformations, CSS media support, etc.etc.  It's worthy of the version number bump.</p><p>Meanwhile, IE 6 SP1 and SP2 were primarily security improvements and UI changes... there are no rendering engine changes.</p><p>You can think of IE6 service packs as being similar to Firefox 3.0.x and 3.5.x point releases, where they'll do various bits of work to make the browser more stable and more secure, but not really fundamentally mess with how it interprets pages.</p><p>NetApplications tracks browser versions so we can see what rendering engines are available to us as developers.  That's why they count FF 3.0 and 3.5 separately, and they why count all releases of IE6 as the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Version numbering is affecting the statistics here , MS does n't use the same philosophy as Firefox when it comes to versioning.MS never had internet explorer 6.5...but it had internet explorer sp1 and sp2...which are as different from each other as firefox 3 and firefox 3.5 .
Yet internet explorer 6.0 is displayed as one browser.Uhhhh , no....Firefox 3.5 has significantly updated rendering and Javascript engines .
HTML5 tags are supported , native Theora and Vorbis decoding is included , ICC profiles , SVG transformations , CSS media support , etc.etc .
It 's worthy of the version number bump.Meanwhile , IE 6 SP1 and SP2 were primarily security improvements and UI changes... there are no rendering engine changes.You can think of IE6 service packs as being similar to Firefox 3.0.x and 3.5.x point releases , where they 'll do various bits of work to make the browser more stable and more secure , but not really fundamentally mess with how it interprets pages.NetApplications tracks browser versions so we can see what rendering engines are available to us as developers .
That 's why they count FF 3.0 and 3.5 separately , and they why count all releases of IE6 as the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Version numbering is affecting the statistics here, MS doesn't use the same philosophy as Firefox when it comes to versioning.MS never had internet explorer 6.5...but it had internet explorer sp1 and sp2...which are as different from each other as firefox 3 and firefox 3.5.
Yet internet explorer 6.0 is displayed as one browser.Uhhhh, no....Firefox 3.5 has significantly updated rendering and Javascript engines.
HTML5 tags are supported, native Theora and Vorbis decoding is included, ICC profiles, SVG transformations, CSS media support, etc.etc.
It's worthy of the version number bump.Meanwhile, IE 6 SP1 and SP2 were primarily security improvements and UI changes... there are no rendering engine changes.You can think of IE6 service packs as being similar to Firefox 3.0.x and 3.5.x point releases, where they'll do various bits of work to make the browser more stable and more secure, but not really fundamentally mess with how it interprets pages.NetApplications tracks browser versions so we can see what rendering engines are available to us as developers.
That's why they count FF 3.0 and 3.5 separately, and they why count all releases of IE6 as the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1265034180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be pedantic since you're talking about Gecko and Webkit, the layout engine for Internet Explorer is called trident, and Opera's is Presto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be pedantic since you 're talking about Gecko and Webkit , the layout engine for Internet Explorer is called trident , and Opera 's is Presto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be pedantic since you're talking about Gecko and Webkit, the layout engine for Internet Explorer is called trident, and Opera's is Presto.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991052</id>
	<title>Time till IE6's death</title>
	<author>ALeader71</author>
	<datestamp>1265040060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 2010 is "The Year of IE6's Demise," will 2012 be "The Year of IE6's Death?"</p><p>From what I'm reading, users aren't upgrading browsers till they upgrade machines (or Operating Systems).  With Vista on the outs and Win 7 on the rise, will IE8 come to dominate the average and corporate user base?</p><p>BTW, I swtiched Mom to Firefox two years ago.  Now I have far fewer problems with her Vista laptop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 2010 is " The Year of IE6 's Demise , " will 2012 be " The Year of IE6 's Death ?
" From what I 'm reading , users are n't upgrading browsers till they upgrade machines ( or Operating Systems ) .
With Vista on the outs and Win 7 on the rise , will IE8 come to dominate the average and corporate user base ? BTW , I swtiched Mom to Firefox two years ago .
Now I have far fewer problems with her Vista laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 2010 is "The Year of IE6's Demise," will 2012 be "The Year of IE6's Death?
"From what I'm reading, users aren't upgrading browsers till they upgrade machines (or Operating Systems).
With Vista on the outs and Win 7 on the rise, will IE8 come to dominate the average and corporate user base?BTW, I swtiched Mom to Firefox two years ago.
Now I have far fewer problems with her Vista laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990612</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt; I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series</i></p><p>Okay...</p><p><i>&gt; (very little "geek bias")</i></p><p>Ah. I think a "nerd bias" still impacts browser usage, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game seriesOkay... &gt; ( very little " geek bias " ) Ah .
I think a " nerd bias " still impacts browser usage , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game seriesOkay...&gt; (very little "geek bias")Ah.
I think a "nerd bias" still impacts browser usage, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993152</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[rb@Aiur ~]$ whois 1e100.net</p><p>Whois Server Version 2.0</p><p>Domain names in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net domains can now be registered<br>with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net<br>for detailed information.</p><p>
   Domain Name: 1E100.NET<br>
   Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com<br>
   Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM<br>
   Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM<br>
   Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM<br>
   Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM<br>
   Status: clientDeleteProhibited<br>
   Status: clientRenewProhibited<br>
   Status: clientTransferProhibited<br>
   Status: clientUpdateProhibited<br>
   Status: serverDeleteProhibited<br>
   Status: serverRenewProhibited<br>
   Status: serverTransferProhibited<br>
   Status: serverUpdateProhibited<br>
   Updated Date: 13-oct-2009<br>
   Creation Date: 25-sep-2009<br>
   Expiration Date: 25-sep-2019</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; Last update of whois database: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:57:48 UTC </p><p>NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the<br>registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is<br>currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration<br>date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring<br>registrar.  Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to<br>view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.</p><p>TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois<br>database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and<br>automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or<br>modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry<br>Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for<br>information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information<br>about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not<br>guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide<br>by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only<br>for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data<br>to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass<br>unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,<br>or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes<br>that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,<br>repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly<br>prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to<br>use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or<br>query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register<br>domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right<br>to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure<br>operational stability.  VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the<br>Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign<br>reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.</p><p>The Registry database contains ONLY<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.COM,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EDU domains and<br>Registrars.</p><p>MarkMonitor is the Global Leader in Enterprise Brand Protection.</p><p>Domain Management<br>MarkMonitor Brand Protection<br>AntiFraud Solutions<br>Corporate Consulting Services</p><p>Visit MarkMonitor at www.markmonitor.com<br>Contact us at 1 800 745 9229<br>In Europe, at +44 (0) 20 7840 1300</p><p>The Data in MarkMonitor.com's WHOIS database is provided by MarkMonitor.com<br>for in</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ rb @ Aiur ~ ] $ whois 1e100.netWhois Server Version 2.0Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registeredwith many different competing registrars .
Go to http : //www.internic.netfor detailed information .
Domain Name : 1E100.NET Registrar : MARKMONITOR INC . Whois Server : whois.markmonitor.com Referral URL : http : //www.markmonitor.com Name Server : NS1.GOOGLE.COM Name Server : NS2.GOOGLE.COM Name Server : NS3.GOOGLE.COM Name Server : NS4.GOOGLE.COM Status : clientDeleteProhibited Status : clientRenewProhibited Status : clientTransferProhibited Status : clientUpdateProhibited Status : serverDeleteProhibited Status : serverRenewProhibited Status : serverTransferProhibited Status : serverUpdateProhibited Updated Date : 13-oct-2009 Creation Date : 25-sep-2009 Expiration Date : 25-sep-2019 &gt; &gt; &gt; Last update of whois database : Tue , 02 Feb 2010 10 : 57 : 48 UTC NOTICE : The expiration date displayed in this record is the date theregistrar 's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry iscurrently set to expire .
This date does not necessarily reflect the expirationdate of the domain name registrant 's agreement with the sponsoringregistrar .
Users may consult the sponsoring registrar 's Whois database toview the registrar 's reported date of expiration for this registration.TERMS OF USE : You are not authorized to access or query our Whoisdatabase through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume andautomated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names ormodify existing registrations ; the Data in VeriSign Global RegistryServices ' ( " VeriSign " ) Whois database is provided by VeriSign forinformation purposes only , and to assist persons in obtaining informationabout or related to a domain name registration record .
VeriSign does notguarantee its accuracy .
By submitting a Whois query , you agree to abideby the following terms of use : You agree that you may use this Data onlyfor lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Datato : ( 1 ) allow , enable , or otherwise support the transmission of massunsolicited , commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail , telephone,or facsimile ; or ( 2 ) enable high volume , automated , electronic processesthat apply to VeriSign ( or its computer systems ) .
The compilation,repackaging , dissemination or other use of this Data is expresslyprohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign .
You agree not touse electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access orquery the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to registerdomain names or modify existing registrations .
VeriSign reserves the rightto restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensureoperational stability .
VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to theWhois database for failure to abide by these terms of use .
VeriSignreserves the right to modify these terms at any time.The Registry database contains ONLY .COM , .NET , .EDU domains andRegistrars.MarkMonitor is the Global Leader in Enterprise Brand Protection.Domain ManagementMarkMonitor Brand ProtectionAntiFraud SolutionsCorporate Consulting ServicesVisit MarkMonitor at www.markmonitor.comContact us at 1 800 745 9229In Europe , at + 44 ( 0 ) 20 7840 1300The Data in MarkMonitor.com 's WHOIS database is provided by MarkMonitor.comfor in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[rb@Aiur ~]$ whois 1e100.netWhois Server Version 2.0Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registeredwith many different competing registrars.
Go to http://www.internic.netfor detailed information.
Domain Name: 1E100.NET
   Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
   Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
   Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com
   Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
   Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
   Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
   Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
   Status: clientDeleteProhibited
   Status: clientRenewProhibited
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Status: clientUpdateProhibited
   Status: serverDeleteProhibited
   Status: serverRenewProhibited
   Status: serverTransferProhibited
   Status: serverUpdateProhibited
   Updated Date: 13-oct-2009
   Creation Date: 25-sep-2009
   Expiration Date: 25-sep-2019&gt;&gt;&gt; Last update of whois database: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:57:48 UTC NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date theregistrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry iscurrently set to expire.
This date does not necessarily reflect the expirationdate of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoringregistrar.
Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database toview the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whoisdatabase through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume andautomated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names ormodify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global RegistryServices' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign forinformation purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining informationabout or related to a domain name registration record.
VeriSign does notguarantee its accuracy.
By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abideby the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data onlyfor lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Datato: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of massunsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processesthat apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems).
The compilation,repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expresslyprohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign.
You agree not touse electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access orquery the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to registerdomain names or modify existing registrations.
VeriSign reserves the rightto restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensureoperational stability.
VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to theWhois database for failure to abide by these terms of use.
VeriSignreserves the right to modify these terms at any time.The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains andRegistrars.MarkMonitor is the Global Leader in Enterprise Brand Protection.Domain ManagementMarkMonitor Brand ProtectionAntiFraud SolutionsCorporate Consulting ServicesVisit MarkMonitor at www.markmonitor.comContact us at 1 800 745 9229In Europe, at +44 (0) 20 7840 1300The Data in MarkMonitor.com's WHOIS database is provided by MarkMonitor.comfor in</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</id>
	<title>It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>Enleth</author>
	<datestamp>1265035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember posting about this about a year ago or so on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., and now I see the trend continue.</p><p>I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series (very little "geek bias"), in Poland and for Polish-speaking audience. It's relatively popular,  about 1500 unique visitors a day, first hit for "Heroes of Might and Magic" in a localized Google search, thrid for "heroes" only after a Wikipedia disambiguation page for the term and the page on that goddamned TV series. The statistics are so completely different that it looks almost as if it were a parallel universe or something:</p><p>January 2008:<br>53.58\% - Firefox<br>31.19\% - IE<br>13.83\% - Opera</p><p>January 2009:<br>60.99\% - Firefox<br>23.99\% - IE<br>12.32\% - Opera<br>2.10\% - Chrome</p><p>January 2010:<br>60.33\% - Firefox<br>16.12\% - Opera<br>15.29\% - IE<br>6.24\% - Chrome</p><p>Data gathered by Google Analytics, active on just about every non-static page on the server. It gets even more interesting in a month-by-month comparison on a graph, some of the fluctuations clearly correlate with new releases of FF, Opera, Chrome, *and* IE, but I'm afraid that I don't have the time right now to prepare something you could see and decide yourself.</p><p>Any other admins out there with similar statistics to share?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember posting about this about a year ago or so on /. , and now I see the trend continue.I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series ( very little " geek bias " ) , in Poland and for Polish-speaking audience .
It 's relatively popular , about 1500 unique visitors a day , first hit for " Heroes of Might and Magic " in a localized Google search , thrid for " heroes " only after a Wikipedia disambiguation page for the term and the page on that goddamned TV series .
The statistics are so completely different that it looks almost as if it were a parallel universe or something : January 2008 : 53.58 \ % - Firefox31.19 \ % - IE13.83 \ % - OperaJanuary 2009 : 60.99 \ % - Firefox23.99 \ % - IE12.32 \ % - Opera2.10 \ % - ChromeJanuary 2010 : 60.33 \ % - Firefox16.12 \ % - Opera15.29 \ % - IE6.24 \ % - ChromeData gathered by Google Analytics , active on just about every non-static page on the server .
It gets even more interesting in a month-by-month comparison on a graph , some of the fluctuations clearly correlate with new releases of FF , Opera , Chrome , * and * IE , but I 'm afraid that I do n't have the time right now to prepare something you could see and decide yourself.Any other admins out there with similar statistics to share ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember posting about this about a year ago or so on /., and now I see the trend continue.I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series (very little "geek bias"), in Poland and for Polish-speaking audience.
It's relatively popular,  about 1500 unique visitors a day, first hit for "Heroes of Might and Magic" in a localized Google search, thrid for "heroes" only after a Wikipedia disambiguation page for the term and the page on that goddamned TV series.
The statistics are so completely different that it looks almost as if it were a parallel universe or something:January 2008:53.58\% - Firefox31.19\% - IE13.83\% - OperaJanuary 2009:60.99\% - Firefox23.99\% - IE12.32\% - Opera2.10\% - ChromeJanuary 2010:60.33\% - Firefox16.12\% - Opera15.29\% - IE6.24\% - ChromeData gathered by Google Analytics, active on just about every non-static page on the server.
It gets even more interesting in a month-by-month comparison on a graph, some of the fluctuations clearly correlate with new releases of FF, Opera, Chrome, *and* IE, but I'm afraid that I don't have the time right now to prepare something you could see and decide yourself.Any other admins out there with similar statistics to share?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991154</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1265041020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using it on my netbook, desktop and work. The main problem I have with it is the lack of proper bookmark management. I only have two or three bookmarks I need to access, but I don't want to waste the screen space of a full bookmarks bar to use them. Thoughts/Ideas? Leaving the bookmark manager open seems like a bit of a kludge. I wish it would open bookmarks in a new tab when clicked on from the bookmark manager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using it on my netbook , desktop and work .
The main problem I have with it is the lack of proper bookmark management .
I only have two or three bookmarks I need to access , but I do n't want to waste the screen space of a full bookmarks bar to use them .
Thoughts/Ideas ? Leaving the bookmark manager open seems like a bit of a kludge .
I wish it would open bookmarks in a new tab when clicked on from the bookmark manager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using it on my netbook, desktop and work.
The main problem I have with it is the lack of proper bookmark management.
I only have two or three bookmarks I need to access, but I don't want to waste the screen space of a full bookmarks bar to use them.
Thoughts/Ideas? Leaving the bookmark manager open seems like a bit of a kludge.
I wish it would open bookmarks in a new tab when clicked on from the bookmark manager.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991140</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>keeboo</author>
	<datestamp>1265040840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm using Chrome under Linux x86-64.<br>
While I like Firefox (well, &quot;Iceweasel&quot;), Chrome runs way faster and it's not performance-held by a single core like Firefox is.<br>
<br>
About stability, Chrome crashed (and by &quot;crashed&quot; I mean the whole browser) only once in ~45 days, and my machine runs 24h with the browser always running with lots of tabs active.<br>
Sometimes the Adobe Flash plugin crashes (and when it does, all tabs are affected), but in all cases a page reload solved that.<br>
<br>
There are some issues which could improve though:<br>
<br>
- Chrome consumes lots of memory. I suspect there's may some memory leakage problems even after closing almost all tabs (weird, considering that each page is an independent process).<br>
- Buggy print function: the resulting printout lacks some characters.<br>
- Text selection renders selected text almost unreadable.<br>
- There's no (AFAIR) option to restore the opened pages when the browser crashes.<br>
- Chrome, by default, does not use the window manager and the title bar is taken by the tabs. Interesting idea in theory, but annoying in practice.<br>
- The &quot;Favourites&quot; works like Firefox, I think it would be better if it just dumped the links as a HTML page, like it does when you display the visited pages (Firefox could do that aswell).<br>
<br>
Overall Chrome is a great browser, but I don't think it's mature enough for tasks of the &quot;it shall not crash at this moment&quot; kind (like internet banking, for example).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using Chrome under Linux x86-64 .
While I like Firefox ( well , " Iceweasel " ) , Chrome runs way faster and it 's not performance-held by a single core like Firefox is .
About stability , Chrome crashed ( and by " crashed " I mean the whole browser ) only once in ~ 45 days , and my machine runs 24h with the browser always running with lots of tabs active .
Sometimes the Adobe Flash plugin crashes ( and when it does , all tabs are affected ) , but in all cases a page reload solved that .
There are some issues which could improve though : - Chrome consumes lots of memory .
I suspect there 's may some memory leakage problems even after closing almost all tabs ( weird , considering that each page is an independent process ) .
- Buggy print function : the resulting printout lacks some characters .
- Text selection renders selected text almost unreadable .
- There 's no ( AFAIR ) option to restore the opened pages when the browser crashes .
- Chrome , by default , does not use the window manager and the title bar is taken by the tabs .
Interesting idea in theory , but annoying in practice .
- The " Favourites " works like Firefox , I think it would be better if it just dumped the links as a HTML page , like it does when you display the visited pages ( Firefox could do that aswell ) .
Overall Chrome is a great browser , but I do n't think it 's mature enough for tasks of the " it shall not crash at this moment " kind ( like internet banking , for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using Chrome under Linux x86-64.
While I like Firefox (well, "Iceweasel"), Chrome runs way faster and it's not performance-held by a single core like Firefox is.
About stability, Chrome crashed (and by "crashed" I mean the whole browser) only once in ~45 days, and my machine runs 24h with the browser always running with lots of tabs active.
Sometimes the Adobe Flash plugin crashes (and when it does, all tabs are affected), but in all cases a page reload solved that.
There are some issues which could improve though:

- Chrome consumes lots of memory.
I suspect there's may some memory leakage problems even after closing almost all tabs (weird, considering that each page is an independent process).
- Buggy print function: the resulting printout lacks some characters.
- Text selection renders selected text almost unreadable.
- There's no (AFAIR) option to restore the opened pages when the browser crashes.
- Chrome, by default, does not use the window manager and the title bar is taken by the tabs.
Interesting idea in theory, but annoying in practice.
- The "Favourites" works like Firefox, I think it would be better if it just dumped the links as a HTML page, like it does when you display the visited pages (Firefox could do that aswell).
Overall Chrome is a great browser, but I don't think it's mature enough for tasks of the "it shall not crash at this moment" kind (like internet banking, for example).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992784</id>
	<title>Inaccurate but good</title>
	<author>Bromskloss</author>
	<datestamp>1265106180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's no guarantee that NetApps' numbers are accurate</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>However, they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends.</p></div></blockquote><p>Aren't those opposites?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no guarantee that NetApps ' numbers are accurateHowever , they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends.Are n't those opposites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no guarantee that NetApps' numbers are accurateHowever, they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends.Aren't those opposites?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991244</id>
	<title>Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265041860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you likely have an issue with extensions or "whatever else"<br>i'm on slashdot, on firefox, theres absolutely zero delay. theres none in chrome either, for sure, but theres none in firefox.<br>then i can open all the crap i want, firefox memory usages stays very low.. not so much for chrome. chrome uses a bunch of memory.</p><p>and that's what most people experience, actually, not just me. So i'm quit surprised every time someone blame firefox on memory usage or unexpected extreme slowdowns nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you likely have an issue with extensions or " whatever else " i 'm on slashdot , on firefox , theres absolutely zero delay .
theres none in chrome either , for sure , but theres none in firefox.then i can open all the crap i want , firefox memory usages stays very low.. not so much for chrome .
chrome uses a bunch of memory.and that 's what most people experience , actually , not just me .
So i 'm quit surprised every time someone blame firefox on memory usage or unexpected extreme slowdowns nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you likely have an issue with extensions or "whatever else"i'm on slashdot, on firefox, theres absolutely zero delay.
theres none in chrome either, for sure, but theres none in firefox.then i can open all the crap i want, firefox memory usages stays very low.. not so much for chrome.
chrome uses a bunch of memory.and that's what most people experience, actually, not just me.
So i'm quit surprised every time someone blame firefox on memory usage or unexpected extreme slowdowns nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990556</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how many people use wget -O - ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how many people use wget -O - ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many people use wget -O - ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991320</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you heard of <a href="href" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">AppUpdater</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you heard of AppUpdater [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you heard of AppUpdater [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990256</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1265034000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no real difference with respect to security. A porn addict could easily still get a Win 7 PC loaded up with crapware, even with Avast and Ad-Aware running. <br> <br>

Who's laughing now, Alfonso? Want me to put Ubuntu back on? All because you wanted to run the latest version of Nero, crybaby.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no real difference with respect to security .
A porn addict could easily still get a Win 7 PC loaded up with crapware , even with Avast and Ad-Aware running .
Who 's laughing now , Alfonso ?
Want me to put Ubuntu back on ?
All because you wanted to run the latest version of Nero , crybaby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no real difference with respect to security.
A porn addict could easily still get a Win 7 PC loaded up with crapware, even with Avast and Ad-Aware running.
Who's laughing now, Alfonso?
Want me to put Ubuntu back on?
All because you wanted to run the latest version of Nero, crybaby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991298</id>
	<title>Re:Is it possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To spoof this information? Could you have a bank of servers trolling the net giving unique browser identification information on each unique page hit, there by giving the impression that a browser is more popular than it really is.
<br> <br>
I could see Google doing exactly that.
<br> <br>
See, I can make accusations that accomplish nothing either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To spoof this information ?
Could you have a bank of servers trolling the net giving unique browser identification information on each unique page hit , there by giving the impression that a browser is more popular than it really is .
I could see Google doing exactly that .
See , I can make accusations that accomplish nothing either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To spoof this information?
Could you have a bank of servers trolling the net giving unique browser identification information on each unique page hit, there by giving the impression that a browser is more popular than it really is.
I could see Google doing exactly that.
See, I can make accusations that accomplish nothing either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991102</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to be *even more* pedantic, my poo is sometimes green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to be * even more * pedantic , my poo is sometimes green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to be *even more* pedantic, my poo is sometimes green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992820</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1265107080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe, but the fact still remains that Windows + IE fully patched to the latest version gets hacked in seconds every year at any mayor hacking event.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel like using a system that can get infected in seconds by just visiting the wrong site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , but the fact still remains that Windows + IE fully patched to the latest version gets hacked in seconds every year at any mayor hacking event .
I do n't know about you , but I do n't feel like using a system that can get infected in seconds by just visiting the wrong site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, but the fact still remains that Windows + IE fully patched to the latest version gets hacked in seconds every year at any mayor hacking event.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like using a system that can get infected in seconds by just visiting the wrong site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992518</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Old people, non-geeks, spouses of slashdotters maybe. Seriously, a lot of people still use IE. There are reason though. I was able to "convert" my wife from IE to FF a few months ago, however, her company's payroll system only works on IE. Once she switches it on, she continues using it.</i> </p><p>Have you suggested <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">IE Tab</a> [mozilla.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old people , non-geeks , spouses of slashdotters maybe .
Seriously , a lot of people still use IE .
There are reason though .
I was able to " convert " my wife from IE to FF a few months ago , however , her company 's payroll system only works on IE .
Once she switches it on , she continues using it .
Have you suggested IE Tab [ mozilla.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old people, non-geeks, spouses of slashdotters maybe.
Seriously, a lot of people still use IE.
There are reason though.
I was able to "convert" my wife from IE to FF a few months ago, however, her company's payroll system only works on IE.
Once she switches it on, she continues using it.
Have you suggested IE Tab [mozilla.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991058</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>fandingo</author>
	<datestamp>1265040060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I notice a lot of people will have Firefox installed, but sometimes still use IE. I admit it to it (in the few times that I'm using Win); if I'm just searching something simple, and IE is close, then I use it. Yeah, it sucks, but sometimes it's not a BFD. That being said, I doubt usage like that counts for much in these stats.</p><p>Linux is my primary platform, and I've given up completely on FF*. It takes way too long to open, and while Chrome and FF are both GTK+ apps, FF looks particularly like shit in KDE. I think that the blue title bar and text highlighting colors are fantastic; I feel like a bug being drawn towards the light.</p><p>* For legacy reasons, there are certain instances when I *have* to use FF. BMC Remedy can be fussy with Chrome some times, and there's a few other situations that I've noticed. How crazy is that, I have to use FF as a *legacy* browser?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice a lot of people will have Firefox installed , but sometimes still use IE .
I admit it to it ( in the few times that I 'm using Win ) ; if I 'm just searching something simple , and IE is close , then I use it .
Yeah , it sucks , but sometimes it 's not a BFD .
That being said , I doubt usage like that counts for much in these stats.Linux is my primary platform , and I 've given up completely on FF * .
It takes way too long to open , and while Chrome and FF are both GTK + apps , FF looks particularly like shit in KDE .
I think that the blue title bar and text highlighting colors are fantastic ; I feel like a bug being drawn towards the light .
* For legacy reasons , there are certain instances when I * have * to use FF .
BMC Remedy can be fussy with Chrome some times , and there 's a few other situations that I 've noticed .
How crazy is that , I have to use FF as a * legacy * browser ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice a lot of people will have Firefox installed, but sometimes still use IE.
I admit it to it (in the few times that I'm using Win); if I'm just searching something simple, and IE is close, then I use it.
Yeah, it sucks, but sometimes it's not a BFD.
That being said, I doubt usage like that counts for much in these stats.Linux is my primary platform, and I've given up completely on FF*.
It takes way too long to open, and while Chrome and FF are both GTK+ apps, FF looks particularly like shit in KDE.
I think that the blue title bar and text highlighting colors are fantastic; I feel like a bug being drawn towards the light.
* For legacy reasons, there are certain instances when I *have* to use FF.
BMC Remedy can be fussy with Chrome some times, and there's a few other situations that I've noticed.
How crazy is that, I have to use FF as a *legacy* browser?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991030</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(very little "geek bias")</i> <br> <br>My ass. Every wanna-be geek I've ever seen thinks he's kick ass because he runs something other than IE. I'm sure FF will fall victim to it too now that grandma runs it. That can be the only reason for the high Opera percentage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( very little " geek bias " ) My ass .
Every wan na-be geek I 've ever seen thinks he 's kick ass because he runs something other than IE .
I 'm sure FF will fall victim to it too now that grandma runs it .
That can be the only reason for the high Opera percentage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(very little "geek bias")  My ass.
Every wanna-be geek I've ever seen thinks he's kick ass because he runs something other than IE.
I'm sure FF will fall victim to it too now that grandma runs it.
That can be the only reason for the high Opera percentage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991494</id>
	<title>The numbers just don't match up</title>
	<author>Zephiris</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A decline in usage of IE6 doesn't mean XP is used any less, given that IE8 is available for XP as well.</p><p>Even according to the CLAIMED numbers, IE8 rose by 1.5\%, Chrome rose 1\%, and others mostly remained unchanged.</p><p>That would make IE8 the fastest growing browser, not Chrome. And a small increase on a web browser that nominally has 5\%, tends to be within the realm of statistical noise, especially when all of the major browsers/OSes besides IE/Windows have seen fairly random multi-percent gains and drops over the last few years, with occasional hiccups in samples that seemed to mean something, but never panned out as a long term trend. And before somebody chimes in, it's a fixed "pot" of 100\%. A growth of 1\% on that scale is absolute, regardless of how much percentage you already have. 1.5\% always means faster growth, even if you already have a high percentage.</p><p>This is a single snapshot, and one that's being mixed in with grease to turn the wheels. The numbers and claims are basically meaningless, and are the sort of "OMG!" story that turn up on reddit at least once a month.</p><p>There are even a few flubs, like saying that Firefox 3.6 was released mid-December, and they don't appear to include "IE8 compatibility mode" as part of IE8's numbers, despite it being the same browser, despite hitslink, what they're basing all of the data on, considering them different versions.</p><p>Chrome 4.0 and Firefox 3.6, released nearly the same time, both have very similar market share. 1.16\% and 1.07\%, respectively, which is impressive for new versions not even a week old.</p><p>On the non-version-specific list, IE has 62\%, FF 24\%, Chrome 5\%, Safari 4\%. As far as FF "declining", there just isn't that much room to grow if you can't wrestle it away from people who use Internet Explorer. Hitslinks' own TREND charts point out that FF has grown from 23\% from March 2009 to 24\% now. Hardly the loss these PC Magazine goons are pointing at now. Only IE suffered a meaningful loss, 68\% to 62\%, which is where all of the gains of EVERY other browser are coming out of.</p><p>Somehow, I think the real loser here is the integrity of tech journalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A decline in usage of IE6 does n't mean XP is used any less , given that IE8 is available for XP as well.Even according to the CLAIMED numbers , IE8 rose by 1.5 \ % , Chrome rose 1 \ % , and others mostly remained unchanged.That would make IE8 the fastest growing browser , not Chrome .
And a small increase on a web browser that nominally has 5 \ % , tends to be within the realm of statistical noise , especially when all of the major browsers/OSes besides IE/Windows have seen fairly random multi-percent gains and drops over the last few years , with occasional hiccups in samples that seemed to mean something , but never panned out as a long term trend .
And before somebody chimes in , it 's a fixed " pot " of 100 \ % .
A growth of 1 \ % on that scale is absolute , regardless of how much percentage you already have .
1.5 \ % always means faster growth , even if you already have a high percentage.This is a single snapshot , and one that 's being mixed in with grease to turn the wheels .
The numbers and claims are basically meaningless , and are the sort of " OMG !
" story that turn up on reddit at least once a month.There are even a few flubs , like saying that Firefox 3.6 was released mid-December , and they do n't appear to include " IE8 compatibility mode " as part of IE8 's numbers , despite it being the same browser , despite hitslink , what they 're basing all of the data on , considering them different versions.Chrome 4.0 and Firefox 3.6 , released nearly the same time , both have very similar market share .
1.16 \ % and 1.07 \ % , respectively , which is impressive for new versions not even a week old.On the non-version-specific list , IE has 62 \ % , FF 24 \ % , Chrome 5 \ % , Safari 4 \ % .
As far as FF " declining " , there just is n't that much room to grow if you ca n't wrestle it away from people who use Internet Explorer .
Hitslinks ' own TREND charts point out that FF has grown from 23 \ % from March 2009 to 24 \ % now .
Hardly the loss these PC Magazine goons are pointing at now .
Only IE suffered a meaningful loss , 68 \ % to 62 \ % , which is where all of the gains of EVERY other browser are coming out of.Somehow , I think the real loser here is the integrity of tech journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A decline in usage of IE6 doesn't mean XP is used any less, given that IE8 is available for XP as well.Even according to the CLAIMED numbers, IE8 rose by 1.5\%, Chrome rose 1\%, and others mostly remained unchanged.That would make IE8 the fastest growing browser, not Chrome.
And a small increase on a web browser that nominally has 5\%, tends to be within the realm of statistical noise, especially when all of the major browsers/OSes besides IE/Windows have seen fairly random multi-percent gains and drops over the last few years, with occasional hiccups in samples that seemed to mean something, but never panned out as a long term trend.
And before somebody chimes in, it's a fixed "pot" of 100\%.
A growth of 1\% on that scale is absolute, regardless of how much percentage you already have.
1.5\% always means faster growth, even if you already have a high percentage.This is a single snapshot, and one that's being mixed in with grease to turn the wheels.
The numbers and claims are basically meaningless, and are the sort of "OMG!
" story that turn up on reddit at least once a month.There are even a few flubs, like saying that Firefox 3.6 was released mid-December, and they don't appear to include "IE8 compatibility mode" as part of IE8's numbers, despite it being the same browser, despite hitslink, what they're basing all of the data on, considering them different versions.Chrome 4.0 and Firefox 3.6, released nearly the same time, both have very similar market share.
1.16\% and 1.07\%, respectively, which is impressive for new versions not even a week old.On the non-version-specific list, IE has 62\%, FF 24\%, Chrome 5\%, Safari 4\%.
As far as FF "declining", there just isn't that much room to grow if you can't wrestle it away from people who use Internet Explorer.
Hitslinks' own TREND charts point out that FF has grown from 23\% from March 2009 to 24\% now.
Hardly the loss these PC Magazine goons are pointing at now.
Only IE suffered a meaningful loss, 68\% to 62\%, which is where all of the gains of EVERY other browser are coming out of.Somehow, I think the real loser here is the integrity of tech journalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992766</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1e100.net is for checking for phishing/malware sites. You can turn off that feature if you desire.</p><p>http://superuser.com/questions/75841/what-is-1e100-net-and-why-do-i-have-tcp-ports-open-to-it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1e100.net is for checking for phishing/malware sites .
You can turn off that feature if you desire.http : //superuser.com/questions/75841/what-is-1e100-net-and-why-do-i-have-tcp-ports-open-to-it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1e100.net is for checking for phishing/malware sites.
You can turn off that feature if you desire.http://superuser.com/questions/75841/what-is-1e100-net-and-why-do-i-have-tcp-ports-open-to-it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992674</id>
	<title>It depends on your audiance</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1265104080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My audiance, clearly more technical folks (as I just blog about technical stuff) say otherwise (this is last month's unique visits to my blog):<br>1     6962     38.20\%     Firefox<br>2     6818     37.41\%     Microsoft IE<br>3     1034     5.67\%     Chrome<br>8     491     2.69\%     Safari<br>9     346     1.90\%     Opera<br>22     149     0.82\%     Wireless Transcoder Google Wireless Transcoder<br>28     119     0.65\%     Android<br>71     44     0.24\%     Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.10<br>91     37     0.20\%     Konqueror</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My audiance , clearly more technical folks ( as I just blog about technical stuff ) say otherwise ( this is last month 's unique visits to my blog ) : 1 6962 38.20 \ % Firefox2 6818 37.41 \ % Microsoft IE3 1034 5.67 \ % Chrome8 491 2.69 \ % Safari9 346 1.90 \ % Opera22 149 0.82 \ % Wireless Transcoder Google Wireless Transcoder28 119 0.65 \ % Android71 44 0.24 \ % Opera/9.80 ( Windows NT 5.1 ; U ; en ) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.1091 37 0.20 \ % Konqueror</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My audiance, clearly more technical folks (as I just blog about technical stuff) say otherwise (this is last month's unique visits to my blog):1     6962     38.20\%     Firefox2     6818     37.41\%     Microsoft IE3     1034     5.67\%     Chrome8     491     2.69\%     Safari9     346     1.90\%     Opera22     149     0.82\%     Wireless Transcoder Google Wireless Transcoder28     119     0.65\%     Android71     44     0.24\%     Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.1091     37     0.20\%     Konqueror</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991478</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1265044440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history</p><p>
I agree with you. I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons. I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension. With extensions it's a joke. (Side note: I like the userscript extension method in the Chrome Beta - which is very stable for a Beta).



But why, as you say, can't they have a half intelligent search history, like Firefox? Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net? <a href="http://i45.tinypic.com/vo08ox.jpg" title="tinypic.com">image</a> [tinypic.com] If this is a Google server, why doesn't it LOOK like a Google server? Why doesn't a Google search for "Chrome plugins" have as a result the proper Extensions page? <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions" title="google.com">https://chrome.google.com/extensions</a> [google.com]. In fact, why is that page the SECOND result for "Chrome extensions"?



Mystifying.</p></div><p>I tried to switch to Chrome version 3 for the javascript speed but I couldn't handle the slow html rendering of that version of Webkit.  One of my peeves is grabbing the scroll bar on the right side of my browser and sliding it rapidly through a long page with lots of images and text and having the refresh framerate drop to jerky levels.  Webkit did that for me (I tried Safari, too).  IE was actually faster at html rendering than either of the Webkit browsers, but still a bit slow.  Firefox is my standard, and even though it beat IE, Chrome, and Safari, the reason I was shopping for a new browser in the first place was to fix what I had seen as Firefox's slow html rendering.  As a major surprise for me, Opera was noticeably faster than Firefox and easily the overall champion.

I switched to Opera for a couple days then missed the quality of FF's adblock and noscript and went back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google won me with speed , but , as usual with everything except search and GMail , they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features ( Print Preview , the ability to remove typos from my search history I agree with you .
I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons .
I used to use Firefox , but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome , even without extension .
With extensions it 's a joke .
( Side note : I like the userscript extension method in the Chrome Beta - which is very stable for a Beta ) .
But why , as you say , ca n't they have a half intelligent search history , like Firefox ?
Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net ?
image [ tinypic.com ] If this is a Google server , why does n't it LOOK like a Google server ?
Why does n't a Google search for " Chrome plugins " have as a result the proper Extensions page ?
https : //chrome.google.com/extensions [ google.com ] .
In fact , why is that page the SECOND result for " Chrome extensions " ?
Mystifying.I tried to switch to Chrome version 3 for the javascript speed but I could n't handle the slow html rendering of that version of Webkit .
One of my peeves is grabbing the scroll bar on the right side of my browser and sliding it rapidly through a long page with lots of images and text and having the refresh framerate drop to jerky levels .
Webkit did that for me ( I tried Safari , too ) .
IE was actually faster at html rendering than either of the Webkit browsers , but still a bit slow .
Firefox is my standard , and even though it beat IE , Chrome , and Safari , the reason I was shopping for a new browser in the first place was to fix what I had seen as Firefox 's slow html rendering .
As a major surprise for me , Opera was noticeably faster than Firefox and easily the overall champion .
I switched to Opera for a couple days then missed the quality of FF 's adblock and noscript and went back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history
I agree with you.
I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons.
I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension.
With extensions it's a joke.
(Side note: I like the userscript extension method in the Chrome Beta - which is very stable for a Beta).
But why, as you say, can't they have a half intelligent search history, like Firefox?
Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net?
image [tinypic.com] If this is a Google server, why doesn't it LOOK like a Google server?
Why doesn't a Google search for "Chrome plugins" have as a result the proper Extensions page?
https://chrome.google.com/extensions [google.com].
In fact, why is that page the SECOND result for "Chrome extensions"?
Mystifying.I tried to switch to Chrome version 3 for the javascript speed but I couldn't handle the slow html rendering of that version of Webkit.
One of my peeves is grabbing the scroll bar on the right side of my browser and sliding it rapidly through a long page with lots of images and text and having the refresh framerate drop to jerky levels.
Webkit did that for me (I tried Safari, too).
IE was actually faster at html rendering than either of the Webkit browsers, but still a bit slow.
Firefox is my standard, and even though it beat IE, Chrome, and Safari, the reason I was shopping for a new browser in the first place was to fix what I had seen as Firefox's slow html rendering.
As a major surprise for me, Opera was noticeably faster than Firefox and easily the overall champion.
I switched to Opera for a couple days then missed the quality of FF's adblock and noscript and went back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182</id>
	<title>At some level this is may be a good thing</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265033460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The results show that we've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers. We now have four browsers with ranges in the 12\% to 24\% of market share (although why they made the graph with those as the numbers easy to track isn't clear to me). This means that any single exploit that is browser specific isn't going to harm more than a fraction of all users. Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species, browser diversity does the same thing. The real upshot is not the rise of IE 8 but that we have more than 2 serious browser choices that are being chosen by people who aren't just the types who read Slashdot. That also means that a lot of people are making real choices about their browser types, possibly indicating that the general public is more aware about browswer issues than they were about a decade ago. On the other hand, another way of looking at this data is that around 40\% of people are still using some form of IE. So all of those people have what is essentially their default browser. It might be interesting to compare this over longer term, but the data in the article only goes back a year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The results show that we 've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers .
We now have four browsers with ranges in the 12 \ % to 24 \ % of market share ( although why they made the graph with those as the numbers easy to track is n't clear to me ) .
This means that any single exploit that is browser specific is n't going to harm more than a fraction of all users .
Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species , browser diversity does the same thing .
The real upshot is not the rise of IE 8 but that we have more than 2 serious browser choices that are being chosen by people who are n't just the types who read Slashdot .
That also means that a lot of people are making real choices about their browser types , possibly indicating that the general public is more aware about browswer issues than they were about a decade ago .
On the other hand , another way of looking at this data is that around 40 \ % of people are still using some form of IE .
So all of those people have what is essentially their default browser .
It might be interesting to compare this over longer term , but the data in the article only goes back a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The results show that we've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers.
We now have four browsers with ranges in the 12\% to 24\% of market share (although why they made the graph with those as the numbers easy to track isn't clear to me).
This means that any single exploit that is browser specific isn't going to harm more than a fraction of all users.
Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species, browser diversity does the same thing.
The real upshot is not the rise of IE 8 but that we have more than 2 serious browser choices that are being chosen by people who aren't just the types who read Slashdot.
That also means that a lot of people are making real choices about their browser types, possibly indicating that the general public is more aware about browswer issues than they were about a decade ago.
On the other hand, another way of looking at this data is that around 40\% of people are still using some form of IE.
So all of those people have what is essentially their default browser.
It might be interesting to compare this over longer term, but the data in the article only goes back a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128</id>
	<title>the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the risk</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265033040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With so many people still using IE, whatever holes there are in firefox and chrome just won't get the same attention from the hackers. That alone makes me not want to use it. Obscurity may not be obscurity but it's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With so many people still using IE , whatever holes there are in firefox and chrome just wo n't get the same attention from the hackers .
That alone makes me not want to use it .
Obscurity may not be obscurity but it 's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With so many people still using IE, whatever holes there are in firefox and chrome just won't get the same attention from the hackers.
That alone makes me not want to use it.
Obscurity may not be obscurity but it's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993448</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265114700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting that they're losing you with bugs and lack of features.</p><p>I've been a long time Firefox user, but with every version it's got slower and slower, the last version, 3.5 was at an all time low for speed and I saw 3.6 was out. Sure enough it mentioned speed improvements and I thought hey, maybe they've finally fixed the problems. I installed it, and much to my dismay it was the same old story- Firefox had gotten even slower again. Not only that but having left it open on Friday night, I came to my PC the next day in the afternoon and found the whole system running slow. I checked task manager and, well, the reason was pretty obvious- Firefox was using 1.8gb of RAM. Yes, you read that right, talk about memory leak.</p><p>Furthmore, Firefox actually crashed last night for the first time in over a year, and whilst it's got great error handling, the fact it crashed is interesting enough. In the crash report it wanted to send to Mozilla, the tab that crashed it was a session to 192.168.0.1 - my router. That page auto-refreshes every 5 seconds or so to show the current connection status, I guess again there's some memory leak there and having been auto-refreshing overnight, it just keeled over.</p><p>I tend to put these things down to plugins, but I've already disabled/removed everything including the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/Office plugins, Shockwave/Flash and Java to try and speed the browser up. My machine is in decent condition as it wasn't long ago I installed Windows 7- back in October or so, and as such is not full of crap or anything, it's a relatively minimal setup still right now. The hardware is a 2.83ghz quad core, with 8gb of RAM, a nVidia 280 and so on so spec wise there are no issues. Perhaps most telling is that other browser perform just fine.</p><p>The fact is, Firefox over the past year or two has got progressively worse, it's become less stable, more buggy, and much slower.</p><p>So here I am, using Chrome today, for the first time, because something has happened that I thought never would, Firefox has become slower than, and buggier than even Internet Explorer.</p><p>If Chrome doesn't play out well, I have to say I'm rather tempted to make Opera my primary browser. Either way, any Firefox update is going to require massive improvements to bring it back to the realm of being worth using still. It's gone from a clear first-place browser IMO, to being perhaps the worst pick of the mainstream browsers (well, it's still ahead of Safari for Windows at least).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that they 're losing you with bugs and lack of features.I 've been a long time Firefox user , but with every version it 's got slower and slower , the last version , 3.5 was at an all time low for speed and I saw 3.6 was out .
Sure enough it mentioned speed improvements and I thought hey , maybe they 've finally fixed the problems .
I installed it , and much to my dismay it was the same old story- Firefox had gotten even slower again .
Not only that but having left it open on Friday night , I came to my PC the next day in the afternoon and found the whole system running slow .
I checked task manager and , well , the reason was pretty obvious- Firefox was using 1.8gb of RAM .
Yes , you read that right , talk about memory leak.Furthmore , Firefox actually crashed last night for the first time in over a year , and whilst it 's got great error handling , the fact it crashed is interesting enough .
In the crash report it wanted to send to Mozilla , the tab that crashed it was a session to 192.168.0.1 - my router .
That page auto-refreshes every 5 seconds or so to show the current connection status , I guess again there 's some memory leak there and having been auto-refreshing overnight , it just keeled over.I tend to put these things down to plugins , but I 've already disabled/removed everything including the .NET/Office plugins , Shockwave/Flash and Java to try and speed the browser up .
My machine is in decent condition as it was n't long ago I installed Windows 7- back in October or so , and as such is not full of crap or anything , it 's a relatively minimal setup still right now .
The hardware is a 2.83ghz quad core , with 8gb of RAM , a nVidia 280 and so on so spec wise there are no issues .
Perhaps most telling is that other browser perform just fine.The fact is , Firefox over the past year or two has got progressively worse , it 's become less stable , more buggy , and much slower.So here I am , using Chrome today , for the first time , because something has happened that I thought never would , Firefox has become slower than , and buggier than even Internet Explorer.If Chrome does n't play out well , I have to say I 'm rather tempted to make Opera my primary browser .
Either way , any Firefox update is going to require massive improvements to bring it back to the realm of being worth using still .
It 's gone from a clear first-place browser IMO , to being perhaps the worst pick of the mainstream browsers ( well , it 's still ahead of Safari for Windows at least ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that they're losing you with bugs and lack of features.I've been a long time Firefox user, but with every version it's got slower and slower, the last version, 3.5 was at an all time low for speed and I saw 3.6 was out.
Sure enough it mentioned speed improvements and I thought hey, maybe they've finally fixed the problems.
I installed it, and much to my dismay it was the same old story- Firefox had gotten even slower again.
Not only that but having left it open on Friday night, I came to my PC the next day in the afternoon and found the whole system running slow.
I checked task manager and, well, the reason was pretty obvious- Firefox was using 1.8gb of RAM.
Yes, you read that right, talk about memory leak.Furthmore, Firefox actually crashed last night for the first time in over a year, and whilst it's got great error handling, the fact it crashed is interesting enough.
In the crash report it wanted to send to Mozilla, the tab that crashed it was a session to 192.168.0.1 - my router.
That page auto-refreshes every 5 seconds or so to show the current connection status, I guess again there's some memory leak there and having been auto-refreshing overnight, it just keeled over.I tend to put these things down to plugins, but I've already disabled/removed everything including the .NET/Office plugins, Shockwave/Flash and Java to try and speed the browser up.
My machine is in decent condition as it wasn't long ago I installed Windows 7- back in October or so, and as such is not full of crap or anything, it's a relatively minimal setup still right now.
The hardware is a 2.83ghz quad core, with 8gb of RAM, a nVidia 280 and so on so spec wise there are no issues.
Perhaps most telling is that other browser perform just fine.The fact is, Firefox over the past year or two has got progressively worse, it's become less stable, more buggy, and much slower.So here I am, using Chrome today, for the first time, because something has happened that I thought never would, Firefox has become slower than, and buggier than even Internet Explorer.If Chrome doesn't play out well, I have to say I'm rather tempted to make Opera my primary browser.
Either way, any Firefox update is going to require massive improvements to bring it back to the realm of being worth using still.
It's gone from a clear first-place browser IMO, to being perhaps the worst pick of the mainstream browsers (well, it's still ahead of Safari for Windows at least).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991528</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>cryptoluddite</author>
	<datestamp>1265045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Data gathered by Google Analytics</p></div><p>Doesn't pretty much anybody with firefox use noscript and/or adblock to block google analytics?  It does nothing for users and no matter how fast google's servers it must take some amount of resources.</p><p>I wonder if Chrome's 'analytics share' will decrease once it gets real extensions (that can actually block things).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Data gathered by Google AnalyticsDoes n't pretty much anybody with firefox use noscript and/or adblock to block google analytics ?
It does nothing for users and no matter how fast google 's servers it must take some amount of resources.I wonder if Chrome 's 'analytics share ' will decrease once it gets real extensions ( that can actually block things ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data gathered by Google AnalyticsDoesn't pretty much anybody with firefox use noscript and/or adblock to block google analytics?
It does nothing for users and no matter how fast google's servers it must take some amount of resources.I wonder if Chrome's 'analytics share' will decrease once it gets real extensions (that can actually block things).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1265035260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history</p><p>
I agree with you. I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons. I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension. With extensions it's a joke. (Side note: I like the userscript extension method in the Chrome Beta - which is very stable for a Beta).<br>
<br>
But why, as you say, can't they have a half intelligent search history, like Firefox? Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net? <a href="http://i45.tinypic.com/vo08ox.jpg" title="tinypic.com">image</a> [tinypic.com] If this is a Google server, why doesn't it LOOK like a Google server? Why doesn't a Google search for "Chrome plugins" have as a result the proper Extensions page? <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions" title="google.com">https://chrome.google.com/extensions</a> [google.com]. In fact, why is that page the SECOND result for "Chrome extensions"?<br>
<br>
Mystifying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google won me with speed , but , as usual with everything except search and GMail , they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features ( Print Preview , the ability to remove typos from my search history I agree with you .
I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons .
I used to use Firefox , but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome , even without extension .
With extensions it 's a joke .
( Side note : I like the userscript extension method in the Chrome Beta - which is very stable for a Beta ) .
But why , as you say , ca n't they have a half intelligent search history , like Firefox ?
Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net ?
image [ tinypic.com ] If this is a Google server , why does n't it LOOK like a Google server ?
Why does n't a Google search for " Chrome plugins " have as a result the proper Extensions page ?
https : //chrome.google.com/extensions [ google.com ] .
In fact , why is that page the SECOND result for " Chrome extensions " ?
Mystifying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history
I agree with you.
I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons.
I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension.
With extensions it's a joke.
(Side note: I like the userscript extension method in the Chrome Beta - which is very stable for a Beta).
But why, as you say, can't they have a half intelligent search history, like Firefox?
Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net?
image [tinypic.com] If this is a Google server, why doesn't it LOOK like a Google server?
Why doesn't a Google search for "Chrome plugins" have as a result the proper Extensions page?
https://chrome.google.com/extensions [google.com].
In fact, why is that page the SECOND result for "Chrome extensions"?
Mystifying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991394</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do the same thing, usually installing an IE theme on Firefox so that they don't know the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do the same thing , usually installing an IE theme on Firefox so that they do n't know the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do the same thing, usually installing an IE theme on Firefox so that they don't know the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990786</id>
	<title>Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1265037900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.</p></div><p>
IMO there is no need for them with a good HTTP proxy like <a href="http://www.privoxy.org/" title="privoxy.org">Privoxy</a> [privoxy.org]. Add a bit of Incognito use and a good user.action file, and all is great. I made my own user.action file ages ago from the <a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt" title="mvps.org">MVPs.org hosts file</a> [mvps.org], and ever since the world has been good. It's <a href="http://rapidshare.de/files/49089986/user.action.html" title="rapidshare.de">here</a> [rapidshare.de] if you are interested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript .
IMO there is no need for them with a good HTTP proxy like Privoxy [ privoxy.org ] .
Add a bit of Incognito use and a good user.action file , and all is great .
I made my own user.action file ages ago from the MVPs.org hosts file [ mvps.org ] , and ever since the world has been good .
It 's here [ rapidshare.de ] if you are interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.
IMO there is no need for them with a good HTTP proxy like Privoxy [privoxy.org].
Add a bit of Incognito use and a good user.action file, and all is great.
I made my own user.action file ages ago from the MVPs.org hosts file [mvps.org], and ever since the world has been good.
It's here [rapidshare.de] if you are interested.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990238</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that IE has most of the business market also makes it a much more profitable target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that IE has most of the business market also makes it a much more profitable target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that IE has most of the business market also makes it a much more profitable target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991614</id>
	<title>IE8 is on top for 2 reasons....</title>
	<author>Afrosheen</author>
	<datestamp>1265046180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised nobody has caught the obvious here, that IE8 is gaining ground thanks to a two-pronged strategy. The first is Microsoft pushing IE8 out forcefully to everyone via windows/microsoft update. Even on the server side of things. They rank it as a critical download rather than optional, so if you just have important updates turned on, it will show up all by itself eventually. The second is that Windows 7 and Server 2008 are both gaining momentum as people buy new stuff and companies begin to upgrade their infrastructures. It's a new year which means a new budget and money to spend on replacing dead or dying computers and servers.</p><p>All this results in IE8 gaining marketshare. It will end up capturing as much, if not more, of IE7's share over time. There may always be some old holdouts from companies running some crazy in-house web-based app that only works on IE6, but I'm sure there are still NT4 boxen humming away in some dusty server closets somewhere too.</p><p>My only beef with IE8 is how the rendering engine destroys some pages. Buttons don't appear, images and text gets cut off, and I'll be damned if the page printing feature doesn't still chop the sides off of pages rather than reformat them to fit the page for printing. MS releases "compatibility" updates for it nearly every week or two, just to get it to render as cleanly (which is relative at this point) as IE7. At many companies I take care of, I have intentionally disabled IE8 from WSUS and unchecked it from Windows Update using the "fuck you don't come back" button due to rendering problems that end up crippling some work-related sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised nobody has caught the obvious here , that IE8 is gaining ground thanks to a two-pronged strategy .
The first is Microsoft pushing IE8 out forcefully to everyone via windows/microsoft update .
Even on the server side of things .
They rank it as a critical download rather than optional , so if you just have important updates turned on , it will show up all by itself eventually .
The second is that Windows 7 and Server 2008 are both gaining momentum as people buy new stuff and companies begin to upgrade their infrastructures .
It 's a new year which means a new budget and money to spend on replacing dead or dying computers and servers.All this results in IE8 gaining marketshare .
It will end up capturing as much , if not more , of IE7 's share over time .
There may always be some old holdouts from companies running some crazy in-house web-based app that only works on IE6 , but I 'm sure there are still NT4 boxen humming away in some dusty server closets somewhere too.My only beef with IE8 is how the rendering engine destroys some pages .
Buttons do n't appear , images and text gets cut off , and I 'll be damned if the page printing feature does n't still chop the sides off of pages rather than reformat them to fit the page for printing .
MS releases " compatibility " updates for it nearly every week or two , just to get it to render as cleanly ( which is relative at this point ) as IE7 .
At many companies I take care of , I have intentionally disabled IE8 from WSUS and unchecked it from Windows Update using the " fuck you do n't come back " button due to rendering problems that end up crippling some work-related sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised nobody has caught the obvious here, that IE8 is gaining ground thanks to a two-pronged strategy.
The first is Microsoft pushing IE8 out forcefully to everyone via windows/microsoft update.
Even on the server side of things.
They rank it as a critical download rather than optional, so if you just have important updates turned on, it will show up all by itself eventually.
The second is that Windows 7 and Server 2008 are both gaining momentum as people buy new stuff and companies begin to upgrade their infrastructures.
It's a new year which means a new budget and money to spend on replacing dead or dying computers and servers.All this results in IE8 gaining marketshare.
It will end up capturing as much, if not more, of IE7's share over time.
There may always be some old holdouts from companies running some crazy in-house web-based app that only works on IE6, but I'm sure there are still NT4 boxen humming away in some dusty server closets somewhere too.My only beef with IE8 is how the rendering engine destroys some pages.
Buttons don't appear, images and text gets cut off, and I'll be damned if the page printing feature doesn't still chop the sides off of pages rather than reformat them to fit the page for printing.
MS releases "compatibility" updates for it nearly every week or two, just to get it to render as cleanly (which is relative at this point) as IE7.
At many companies I take care of, I have intentionally disabled IE8 from WSUS and unchecked it from Windows Update using the "fuck you don't come back" button due to rendering problems that end up crippling some work-related sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990632</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a huge fan of HoMM. Could you please tell me which is your HoMM website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a huge fan of HoMM .
Could you please tell me which is your HoMM website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a huge fan of HoMM.
Could you please tell me which is your HoMM website?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990710</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1265037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To reinterpret, the proprietary, nonstandard, internet breaking MS engine may soon be a minority operator leaving developers to concentrate on the majority of browsers that do comply with the civilized standards.  This may be very bad news for MS, if, combined with HTML 5, it allows application front ends (read google docs, games, tax software) that is independent of an OS.  Google is embracing this OS independence.  Apple is embracing this OS independence(OS X for iPhone, OS X for Mac). What is MS going to do, who knows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To reinterpret , the proprietary , nonstandard , internet breaking MS engine may soon be a minority operator leaving developers to concentrate on the majority of browsers that do comply with the civilized standards .
This may be very bad news for MS , if , combined with HTML 5 , it allows application front ends ( read google docs , games , tax software ) that is independent of an OS .
Google is embracing this OS independence .
Apple is embracing this OS independence ( OS X for iPhone , OS X for Mac ) .
What is MS going to do , who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To reinterpret, the proprietary, nonstandard, internet breaking MS engine may soon be a minority operator leaving developers to concentrate on the majority of browsers that do comply with the civilized standards.
This may be very bad news for MS, if, combined with HTML 5, it allows application front ends (read google docs, games, tax software) that is independent of an OS.
Google is embracing this OS independence.
Apple is embracing this OS independence(OS X for iPhone, OS X for Mac).
What is MS going to do, who knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472</id>
	<title>Re:That O browser...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This childish shit is ridiculous.</p><p>Why would so-called adults battle each other over <em>web browsers?</em></p><p>The fanboyism involved is utterly lame.</p><p>Alright, I can <em>almost</em> understand the 'Internet Explorer versus All The Rest' wars, what with all the shilling and astroturfing so prevalent and common these days.</p><p>But <em> <b>why almighty fuck</b></em>  would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser?</p><p>"Z0MG TEH OPERAS IS TEH GAY AND R33L GEEKS USE TEH FIREFOX Z0MGLOL!!!!1111ELEVENTYONE"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This childish shit is ridiculous.Why would so-called adults battle each other over web browsers ? The fanboyism involved is utterly lame.Alright , I can almost understand the 'Internet Explorer versus All The Rest ' wars , what with all the shilling and astroturfing so prevalent and common these days.But why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser ?
" Z0MG TEH OPERAS IS TEH GAY AND R33L GEEKS USE TEH FIREFOX Z0MGLOL ! ! !
! 1111ELEVENTYONE "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This childish shit is ridiculous.Why would so-called adults battle each other over web browsers?The fanboyism involved is utterly lame.Alright, I can almost understand the 'Internet Explorer versus All The Rest' wars, what with all the shilling and astroturfing so prevalent and common these days.But  why almighty fuck  would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser?
"Z0MG TEH OPERAS IS TEH GAY AND R33L GEEKS USE TEH FIREFOX Z0MGLOL!!!
!1111ELEVENTYONE"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168</id>
	<title>That O browser...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1265033340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I forget the name, but it appears not to be on the list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I forget the name , but it appears not to be on the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forget the name, but it appears not to be on the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990734</id>
	<title>Re:That O browser...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://ndoodesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/wollsmoth1.jpg" title="ndoodesign.com" rel="nofollow">L<b>o</b>nx?</a> [ndoodesign.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lonx ?
[ ndoodesign.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lonx?
[ndoodesign.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990566</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1265036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.</p></div></blockquote><p>I do a lot of IT support for school. EVERYONE uses Internet Explorer. Students don't know any better, teachers don't know any better, admin don't know any better. I don't know if it's mandated as such, but it's what people go for straight away when they need to use the Internet. Doesn't matter that I put a Mozilla Firefox icon on the desktop of all machines either (which is nice for me and anyone else who knows what it is).</p><p>Having said that, pulling down updates via WSUS for IE makes it a lot easier to update than static versions of Firefox which are fixed until the next build of the system image. I know there's a 3rd-party created MSI for Firefox, but they're no-where near as automatic as what Microsoft punches out. Maybe if the school was running Linux I'd employ repositories to fix that (like that's ever gonna happen with the inertia Windows has).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.I do a lot of IT support for school .
EVERYONE uses Internet Explorer .
Students do n't know any better , teachers do n't know any better , admin do n't know any better .
I do n't know if it 's mandated as such , but it 's what people go for straight away when they need to use the Internet .
Does n't matter that I put a Mozilla Firefox icon on the desktop of all machines either ( which is nice for me and anyone else who knows what it is ) .Having said that , pulling down updates via WSUS for IE makes it a lot easier to update than static versions of Firefox which are fixed until the next build of the system image .
I know there 's a 3rd-party created MSI for Firefox , but they 're no-where near as automatic as what Microsoft punches out .
Maybe if the school was running Linux I 'd employ repositories to fix that ( like that 's ever gon na happen with the inertia Windows has ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.I do a lot of IT support for school.
EVERYONE uses Internet Explorer.
Students don't know any better, teachers don't know any better, admin don't know any better.
I don't know if it's mandated as such, but it's what people go for straight away when they need to use the Internet.
Doesn't matter that I put a Mozilla Firefox icon on the desktop of all machines either (which is nice for me and anyone else who knows what it is).Having said that, pulling down updates via WSUS for IE makes it a lot easier to update than static versions of Firefox which are fixed until the next build of the system image.
I know there's a 3rd-party created MSI for Firefox, but they're no-where near as automatic as what Microsoft punches out.
Maybe if the school was running Linux I'd employ repositories to fix that (like that's ever gonna happen with the inertia Windows has).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990154</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1265033220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] Obscurity may not be obscurity but it's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest.</p></div><p>;) I see what you did there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] Obscurity may not be obscurity but it 's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest .
; ) I see what you did there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] Obscurity may not be obscurity but it's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest.
;) I see what you did there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990482</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1265035740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.</p></div><p>I believe the majority of that statistic is the result of corporate computer deployments where IE is pretty much the norm, and employees are unable to install their own browsers. That's why IE6 was at the top for so very long, even through the entirety of IE7's lifetime, because corporations hadn't taken the time to install new software like that en masse.</p><p>I'm glad to see that IE8 is on top now, though(*). Shows that corporations are perhaps finally realizing how utterly bad IE6 is and they're moving forward.</p><p>(*): this is not an endorsement of IE... I honestly can't stand it... just anything is better than IE6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.I believe the majority of that statistic is the result of corporate computer deployments where IE is pretty much the norm , and employees are unable to install their own browsers .
That 's why IE6 was at the top for so very long , even through the entirety of IE7 's lifetime , because corporations had n't taken the time to install new software like that en masse.I 'm glad to see that IE8 is on top now , though ( * ) .
Shows that corporations are perhaps finally realizing how utterly bad IE6 is and they 're moving forward .
( * ) : this is not an endorsement of IE... I honestly ca n't stand it... just anything is better than IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.I believe the majority of that statistic is the result of corporate computer deployments where IE is pretty much the norm, and employees are unable to install their own browsers.
That's why IE6 was at the top for so very long, even through the entirety of IE7's lifetime, because corporations hadn't taken the time to install new software like that en masse.I'm glad to see that IE8 is on top now, though(*).
Shows that corporations are perhaps finally realizing how utterly bad IE6 is and they're moving forward.
(*): this is not an endorsement of IE... I honestly can't stand it... just anything is better than IE6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992734</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1265105100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting how there's articles about Webkit constantly but it doesn't really have much penetration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how there 's articles about Webkit constantly but it does n't really have much penetration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how there's articles about Webkit constantly but it doesn't really have much penetration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994774</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265124240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that it's the rendering engine in the two youngest "major" browsers out there, and how fast they're growing, it's got pretty damn good penetration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that it 's the rendering engine in the two youngest " major " browsers out there , and how fast they 're growing , it 's got pretty damn good penetration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that it's the rendering engine in the two youngest "major" browsers out there, and how fast they're growing, it's got pretty damn good penetration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</id>
	<title>I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use it at work, and at home on my Mac and PC.</p><p>I have used it for months, but I am quickly becoming agitated with its bugs. I have had multiple occasions where the entire browser becomes unresponsive (which was supposed to be extremely uncommon with each tab as a process).</p><p>Flash absolutely destroys the browser after a few hours of listening to last.fm, and if I leave the browser on overnight, I regularly return to a browser that I can watch as it refreshes the screen line by line (literally, I could count the lines as it repaints the screen).</p><p>With Firefox's latest improvements, I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7, and I am slowly working my way back to using their browser.</p><p>I also hate how Google "helps" by hiding a large portion of modestly large URLs when I highlight the link.</p><p>Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history (like "sl," which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot, and internal settings, like automatically signing into corporate intranets, while on the intranet--Firefox and IE support this).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use it at work , and at home on my Mac and PC.I have used it for months , but I am quickly becoming agitated with its bugs .
I have had multiple occasions where the entire browser becomes unresponsive ( which was supposed to be extremely uncommon with each tab as a process ) .Flash absolutely destroys the browser after a few hours of listening to last.fm , and if I leave the browser on overnight , I regularly return to a browser that I can watch as it refreshes the screen line by line ( literally , I could count the lines as it repaints the screen ) .With Firefox 's latest improvements , I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7 , and I am slowly working my way back to using their browser.I also hate how Google " helps " by hiding a large portion of modestly large URLs when I highlight the link.Google won me with speed , but , as usual with everything except search and GMail , they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features ( Print Preview , the ability to remove typos from my search history ( like " sl , " which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot , and internal settings , like automatically signing into corporate intranets , while on the intranet--Firefox and IE support this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use it at work, and at home on my Mac and PC.I have used it for months, but I am quickly becoming agitated with its bugs.
I have had multiple occasions where the entire browser becomes unresponsive (which was supposed to be extremely uncommon with each tab as a process).Flash absolutely destroys the browser after a few hours of listening to last.fm, and if I leave the browser on overnight, I regularly return to a browser that I can watch as it refreshes the screen line by line (literally, I could count the lines as it repaints the screen).With Firefox's latest improvements, I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7, and I am slowly working my way back to using their browser.I also hate how Google "helps" by hiding a large portion of modestly large URLs when I highlight the link.Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history (like "sl," which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot, and internal settings, like automatically signing into corporate intranets, while on the intranet--Firefox and IE support this).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994136</id>
	<title>Doesnt Surprise Me</title>
	<author>polyp2000</author>
	<datestamp>1265120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not surprising really - Firefox seems to get more bloaty and unstable with each release. I still run Firefox but its definitely taking second place to Chrome these days.</p><p>N.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not surprising really - Firefox seems to get more bloaty and unstable with each release .
I still run Firefox but its definitely taking second place to Chrome these days.N .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not surprising really - Firefox seems to get more bloaty and unstable with each release.
I still run Firefox but its definitely taking second place to Chrome these days.N.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174</id>
	<title>It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is out.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think Chrome is becoming popular now, just wait until Chrome OS is finally available on netbooks. Chrome's usage will literally shoot through the roof. It will rise from its current 8\% up towards 45\% to 50\%.</p><p>Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now. They're going to go critical within the next two years, and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think Chrome is becoming popular now , just wait until Chrome OS is finally available on netbooks .
Chrome 's usage will literally shoot through the roof .
It will rise from its current 8 \ % up towards 45 \ % to 50 \ % .Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now .
They 're going to go critical within the next two years , and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think Chrome is becoming popular now, just wait until Chrome OS is finally available on netbooks.
Chrome's usage will literally shoot through the roof.
It will rise from its current 8\% up towards 45\% to 50\%.Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now.
They're going to go critical within the next two years, and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990662</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>keeboo</author>
	<datestamp>1265037000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The be <i>even more</i> pedantic, &quot;Internet Explorer&quot; not necessarily means a Trident engine, it could be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman\_(layout\_engine)" title="wikipedia.org">Tasman</a> [wikipedia.org] instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The be even more pedantic , " Internet Explorer " not necessarily means a Trident engine , it could be Tasman [ wikipedia.org ] instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The be even more pedantic, "Internet Explorer" not necessarily means a Trident engine, it could be Tasman [wikipedia.org] instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991362</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1265042940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Old people, non-geeks, <b>spouses of slashdotters</b> maybe.</p></div></blockquote><p>As well as the honest politicians and the easter bunny?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old people , non-geeks , spouses of slashdotters maybe.As well as the honest politicians and the easter bunny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old people, non-geeks, spouses of slashdotters maybe.As well as the honest politicians and the easter bunny?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991308</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are programs; http://www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php?sumo, http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/, and more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are programs ; http : //www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php ? sumo , http : //www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ , and more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are programs; http://www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php?sumo, http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/, and more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992830</id>
	<title>Re:That O browser...</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1265107260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in fairness, it doesn't take much imagination to see why some would rail against Google Chrome, given that Google in fact seem to do the opposite of their mantra (after all, their main business is advertising). It's bad enough them having your search history, but installing software from them for the purposes of all your web browsing? Really that doesn't seem very sensible. In fact I would suggest that at this stage, it would be perfectly logical for a lot of people to consider jumping ship from anti-Microsoft (an aging dinosaur that increasingly poses less threat despite their behaviour) to anti-Google.</p><p>Now I agree to some extent as regards other non-IE browsers, but although not an expert myself, I presume there are sufficient differences for people to argue which one is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in fairness , it does n't take much imagination to see why some would rail against Google Chrome , given that Google in fact seem to do the opposite of their mantra ( after all , their main business is advertising ) .
It 's bad enough them having your search history , but installing software from them for the purposes of all your web browsing ?
Really that does n't seem very sensible .
In fact I would suggest that at this stage , it would be perfectly logical for a lot of people to consider jumping ship from anti-Microsoft ( an aging dinosaur that increasingly poses less threat despite their behaviour ) to anti-Google.Now I agree to some extent as regards other non-IE browsers , but although not an expert myself , I presume there are sufficient differences for people to argue which one is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in fairness, it doesn't take much imagination to see why some would rail against Google Chrome, given that Google in fact seem to do the opposite of their mantra (after all, their main business is advertising).
It's bad enough them having your search history, but installing software from them for the purposes of all your web browsing?
Really that doesn't seem very sensible.
In fact I would suggest that at this stage, it would be perfectly logical for a lot of people to consider jumping ship from anti-Microsoft (an aging dinosaur that increasingly poses less threat despite their behaviour) to anti-Google.Now I agree to some extent as regards other non-IE browsers, but although not an expert myself, I presume there are sufficient differences for people to argue which one is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991192</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not to mention how you're not seeing where links point to on small screens.. while on firefox, and even IE its fine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not to mention how you 're not seeing where links point to on small screens.. while on firefox , and even IE its fine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to mention how you're not seeing where links point to on small screens.. while on firefox, and even IE its fine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991440</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree with you. I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons. I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension. With extensions it's a joke.</p></div><p>The middle ground between those two is called Opera. It's not for everyone, since some people get addicted to some very specific Firefox extensions that don't have any analog in Opera. But if it satisfies your needs feature-wise, you will generally find that it feels faster than Firefox, and definitely much less memory-hungry.</p><p>The only caveat is that you'll need to tweak the UI to be sane, since the one out of the box still isn't quite that (though it's still way better than what it used to be in older times).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons .
I used to use Firefox , but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome , even without extension .
With extensions it 's a joke.The middle ground between those two is called Opera .
It 's not for everyone , since some people get addicted to some very specific Firefox extensions that do n't have any analog in Opera .
But if it satisfies your needs feature-wise , you will generally find that it feels faster than Firefox , and definitely much less memory-hungry.The only caveat is that you 'll need to tweak the UI to be sane , since the one out of the box still is n't quite that ( though it 's still way better than what it used to be in older times ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons.
I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension.
With extensions it's a joke.The middle ground between those two is called Opera.
It's not for everyone, since some people get addicted to some very specific Firefox extensions that don't have any analog in Opera.
But if it satisfies your needs feature-wise, you will generally find that it feels faster than Firefox, and definitely much less memory-hungry.The only caveat is that you'll need to tweak the UI to be sane, since the one out of the box still isn't quite that (though it's still way better than what it used to be in older times).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990686</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>VulpesFoxnik</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but trident whiten your teeth while you chew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but trident whiten your teeth while you chew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but trident whiten your teeth while you chew?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994712</id>
	<title>Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>alder</author>
	<datestamp>1265123880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If you have NoScript in your Firefox, and it looks like you do, block slashdot.org from running its scripts. This will disable dynamic index - if you ever cared about that functionality), - but the speed of site rendering will  return to the more or less expected level.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one .
If you have NoScript in your Firefox , and it looks like you do , block slashdot.org from running its scripts .
This will disable dynamic index - if you ever cared about that functionality ) , - but the speed of site rendering will return to the more or less expected level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.
If you have NoScript in your Firefox, and it looks like you do, block slashdot.org from running its scripts.
This will disable dynamic index - if you ever cared about that functionality), - but the speed of site rendering will  return to the more or less expected level.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30998354</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Flyers2391</author>
	<datestamp>1265136600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... I was able to "convert" my wife from IE to FF a few months ago, however, her company's payroll system only works on IE. Once she switches it on, she continues using it. That to me is a big problem with FF.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I know it's not a solution, more of a work around, but install IE tab and specify the site so she doesn't have to leave firefox.  That is what I do on family members' computers that need to visit certain "made for IE" web sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I was able to " convert " my wife from IE to FF a few months ago , however , her company 's payroll system only works on IE .
Once she switches it on , she continues using it .
That to me is a big problem with FF .
...I know it 's not a solution , more of a work around , but install IE tab and specify the site so she does n't have to leave firefox .
That is what I do on family members ' computers that need to visit certain " made for IE " web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... I was able to "convert" my wife from IE to FF a few months ago, however, her company's payroll system only works on IE.
Once she switches it on, she continues using it.
That to me is a big problem with FF.
...I know it's not a solution, more of a work around, but install IE tab and specify the site so she doesn't have to leave firefox.
That is what I do on family members' computers that need to visit certain "made for IE" web sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31002116</id>
	<title>Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1265110200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now</p><p>I can't tell if you're serious<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I totally disagree.  Netbooks, sadly, just can't seem to hit the price point they need to really hit the big time.   They need to get down to about half or less what they are now (say $120) and perform about double.  They need to meet some specific targets:</p><p>*  I can afford to buy one for each of my kids<br>*  I can afford to lose it when it gets dropped / stolen / stepped on<br>*  I can easily play full screen video at reasonable quality<br>*  I can easily look at the ridiculous 11 megapixel photos spewed out by my camera.</p><p>The current generation just doesn't do it.  Not to say they won't / aren't selling - but they won't "go critical" until these conditions are met.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right nowI ca n't tell if you 're serious ... but I totally disagree .
Netbooks , sadly , just ca n't seem to hit the price point they need to really hit the big time .
They need to get down to about half or less what they are now ( say $ 120 ) and perform about double .
They need to meet some specific targets : * I can afford to buy one for each of my kids * I can afford to lose it when it gets dropped / stolen / stepped on * I can easily play full screen video at reasonable quality * I can easily look at the ridiculous 11 megapixel photos spewed out by my camera.The current generation just does n't do it .
Not to say they wo n't / are n't selling - but they wo n't " go critical " until these conditions are met .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right nowI can't tell if you're serious ... but I totally disagree.
Netbooks, sadly, just can't seem to hit the price point they need to really hit the big time.
They need to get down to about half or less what they are now (say $120) and perform about double.
They need to meet some specific targets:*  I can afford to buy one for each of my kids*  I can afford to lose it when it gets dropped / stolen / stepped on*  I can easily play full screen video at reasonable quality*  I can easily look at the ridiculous 11 megapixel photos spewed out by my camera.The current generation just doesn't do it.
Not to say they won't / aren't selling - but they won't "go critical" until these conditions are met.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990378</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same. We have JIRA on our intranet. When I type 'jira' into the search bar in Chrome, the first thing that pops up is my bookmark to the internal JIRA, which is also my home page. Great! Then about half a second later before I have time to down+enter, it pops in four fucking search results above it, leaving JIRA fifth. No I don't want to Google it, I have NEVER fucking googled Jira, IT'S MY HOME PAGE AND IT'S IN MY FAVORITES FOR FUCK'S SAKE I DONT WANT TO GODDAMN FUCKING SEARCH</p><p>captcha: chairing. *shudder*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same .
We have JIRA on our intranet .
When I type 'jira ' into the search bar in Chrome , the first thing that pops up is my bookmark to the internal JIRA , which is also my home page .
Great ! Then about half a second later before I have time to down + enter , it pops in four fucking search results above it , leaving JIRA fifth .
No I do n't want to Google it , I have NEVER fucking googled Jira , IT 'S MY HOME PAGE AND IT 'S IN MY FAVORITES FOR FUCK 'S SAKE I DONT WANT TO GODDAMN FUCKING SEARCHcaptcha : chairing .
* shudder *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same.
We have JIRA on our intranet.
When I type 'jira' into the search bar in Chrome, the first thing that pops up is my bookmark to the internal JIRA, which is also my home page.
Great! Then about half a second later before I have time to down+enter, it pops in four fucking search results above it, leaving JIRA fifth.
No I don't want to Google it, I have NEVER fucking googled Jira, IT'S MY HOME PAGE AND IT'S IN MY FAVORITES FOR FUCK'S SAKE I DONT WANT TO GODDAMN FUCKING SEARCHcaptcha: chairing.
*shudder*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990510</id>
	<title>Most of that Miscellania will be Webkit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it will largely be mobile browsers from iPhones, Android, and Palm, which are all Webkit based.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it will largely be mobile browsers from iPhones , Android , and Palm , which are all Webkit based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it will largely be mobile browsers from iPhones, Android, and Palm, which are all Webkit based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990580</id>
	<title>Re:It's very different in some parts of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"very little geek bias"??? you have got to be kidding, who the hell do you think your audience for a game like heroes of might and magic is if it isn't geeks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" very little geek bias " ? ? ?
you have got to be kidding , who the hell do you think your audience for a game like heroes of might and magic is if it is n't geeks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"very little geek bias"???
you have got to be kidding, who the hell do you think your audience for a game like heroes of might and magic is if it isn't geeks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991156</id>
	<title>Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Netbooks are great, if you need that sort of thing.</p><p>Netbooks with expensive hardware requirements(SSDs still aren't cheap) and no non google native code, only running Chrome(so no IE only web sites), are not great.</p><p>ChromeOS is pretty much the most insane thing I've ever heard of, the iPad is less locked down, has more functionality, and is probably going to be cheaper, and even that's probably a toy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Netbooks are great , if you need that sort of thing.Netbooks with expensive hardware requirements ( SSDs still are n't cheap ) and no non google native code , only running Chrome ( so no IE only web sites ) , are not great.ChromeOS is pretty much the most insane thing I 've ever heard of , the iPad is less locked down , has more functionality , and is probably going to be cheaper , and even that 's probably a toy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netbooks are great, if you need that sort of thing.Netbooks with expensive hardware requirements(SSDs still aren't cheap) and no non google native code, only running Chrome(so no IE only web sites), are not great.ChromeOS is pretty much the most insane thing I've ever heard of, the iPad is less locked down, has more functionality, and is probably going to be cheaper, and even that's probably a toy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990548</id>
	<title>Wrong.</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1265036220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You couldn't be more wrong.
<br> <br>From W3Schools, Dec 09:<br>

IE8: 13.5\%, IE7: 12.8\%, IE6:10.9\%, Firefox: 46.4\%, Chrome: 9.8\%
<br> <br>As you can see, Firefox is far higher. And this has been confirmed by multiple sources.
<br> <br>So the title should be: Firefox Is Top Browser And Has Been For A Long Time, Chrome Overtakes Safari</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could n't be more wrong .
From W3Schools , Dec 09 : IE8 : 13.5 \ % , IE7 : 12.8 \ % , IE6 : 10.9 \ % , Firefox : 46.4 \ % , Chrome : 9.8 \ % As you can see , Firefox is far higher .
And this has been confirmed by multiple sources .
So the title should be : Firefox Is Top Browser And Has Been For A Long Time , Chrome Overtakes Safari</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You couldn't be more wrong.
From W3Schools, Dec 09:

IE8: 13.5\%, IE7: 12.8\%, IE6:10.9\%, Firefox: 46.4\%, Chrome: 9.8\%
 As you can see, Firefox is far higher.
And this has been confirmed by multiple sources.
So the title should be: Firefox Is Top Browser And Has Been For A Long Time, Chrome Overtakes Safari</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990124</id>
	<title>i would have beern first but i'm using crappy crom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265032980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This first post is not likely to be accurate to two decimal places, but Don't Be Evil Matra is Bullsh*t!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This first post is not likely to be accurate to two decimal places , but Do n't Be Evil Matra is Bullsh * t !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This first post is not likely to be accurate to two decimal places, but Don't Be Evil Matra is Bullsh*t!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31008510</id>
	<title>Re:At some level this is may be a good thing</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1264945680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>a lot of people are making real choices about their browser types</i></p><p>Or their friend or relative has told them to use Firefox as it's "safer/better than IE" and they've gone with the flow.</p><p><i>another way of looking at this data is that around 40\% of people are still using some form of IE. So all of those people have what is essentially their default browser</i></p><p>Or they have used other browsers and prefer IE.</p><p>I'm not defending IE (I hate it actually), but those figures don't support any conclusions other than that X\% of people surveyed use a particular browser; it says nothing about *why* they use that browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a lot of people are making real choices about their browser typesOr their friend or relative has told them to use Firefox as it 's " safer/better than IE " and they 've gone with the flow.another way of looking at this data is that around 40 \ % of people are still using some form of IE .
So all of those people have what is essentially their default browserOr they have used other browsers and prefer IE.I 'm not defending IE ( I hate it actually ) , but those figures do n't support any conclusions other than that X \ % of people surveyed use a particular browser ; it says nothing about * why * they use that browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a lot of people are making real choices about their browser typesOr their friend or relative has told them to use Firefox as it's "safer/better than IE" and they've gone with the flow.another way of looking at this data is that around 40\% of people are still using some form of IE.
So all of those people have what is essentially their default browserOr they have used other browsers and prefer IE.I'm not defending IE (I hate it actually), but those figures don't support any conclusions other than that X\% of people surveyed use a particular browser; it says nothing about *why* they use that browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31007872</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1264937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problems with Chrome are that there's no way to stop it spawning multiple threads, the System box is missing on Windows and it installs a whole raft of crapware that phones home every 10 seconds. The cheeky thing even tried to install a scheduled task the last time I tested it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems with Chrome are that there 's no way to stop it spawning multiple threads , the System box is missing on Windows and it installs a whole raft of crapware that phones home every 10 seconds .
The cheeky thing even tried to install a scheduled task the last time I tested it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems with Chrome are that there's no way to stop it spawning multiple threads, the System box is missing on Windows and it installs a whole raft of crapware that phones home every 10 seconds.
The cheeky thing even tried to install a scheduled task the last time I tested it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994506</id>
	<title>Most internet users don't know what a browser is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest factor that decides what browser a person uses is which one was already installed when they bought the computer.  Most people who use the internet are not computer literate, they just click the button that takes them to google and get on with it.  They don't notice that there may be a different logo in the top left corner of their screen.<br>Mozilla have done a creditable job getting firefox used by so many but I reckon Chrome on Google OS netbooks will start overhauling FF in a couple of years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest factor that decides what browser a person uses is which one was already installed when they bought the computer .
Most people who use the internet are not computer literate , they just click the button that takes them to google and get on with it .
They do n't notice that there may be a different logo in the top left corner of their screen.Mozilla have done a creditable job getting firefox used by so many but I reckon Chrome on Google OS netbooks will start overhauling FF in a couple of years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest factor that decides what browser a person uses is which one was already installed when they bought the computer.
Most people who use the internet are not computer literate, they just click the button that takes them to google and get on with it.
They don't notice that there may be a different logo in the top left corner of their screen.Mozilla have done a creditable job getting firefox used by so many but I reckon Chrome on Google OS netbooks will start overhauling FF in a couple of years</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991878</id>
	<title>Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1265049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If so many people are complaining about 'bizarre usage cases' then perhaps those cases aren't so bizarre.</p><p>I have good reasons for keeping all those tabs open that are not strongly supported by an extension like "Read It Later".</p><p>For example, a general case that applies is that I have several different conversations in the same forum that I'm following all at once.  I've tried to use different management tools to handle that use-case, but none of them has been as effective or useful to me as lots of tabs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If so many people are complaining about 'bizarre usage cases ' then perhaps those cases are n't so bizarre.I have good reasons for keeping all those tabs open that are not strongly supported by an extension like " Read It Later " .For example , a general case that applies is that I have several different conversations in the same forum that I 'm following all at once .
I 've tried to use different management tools to handle that use-case , but none of them has been as effective or useful to me as lots of tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so many people are complaining about 'bizarre usage cases' then perhaps those cases aren't so bizarre.I have good reasons for keeping all those tabs open that are not strongly supported by an extension like "Read It Later".For example, a general case that applies is that I have several different conversations in the same forum that I'm following all at once.
I've tried to use different management tools to handle that use-case, but none of them has been as effective or useful to me as lots of tabs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992796</id>
	<title>skinning the goat</title>
	<author>Martian\_Kyo</author>
	<datestamp>1265106720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So as always  with statistics it can be skinned anyway you want it.</p><p>For example why are firefox 3 and firefox 3.5 being treated as two different browsers. They are both Firefox version 3<br>If we were to add those to statistics Firefox 3 would have roughly the same share as internet explorer 8.0 that is 22.30\%</p><p>Version numbering is affecting the statistics here, MS doesn't use the same philosophy as Firefox when it comes to versioning.<br>MS never  had internet explorer 6.5...but it had internet explorer sp1 and sp2...which are as different from each other as firefox 3 and firefox 3.5. Yet internet explorer 6.0 is displayed as one browser.</p><p>Once IE 8 receives a sp or a major update should its statistics be split to ie 8 with sp and ie 8 without sp</p><p>How different <b>two versions</b> of the <b>same</b> browser have to be different to justify the splitting of their statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So as always with statistics it can be skinned anyway you want it.For example why are firefox 3 and firefox 3.5 being treated as two different browsers .
They are both Firefox version 3If we were to add those to statistics Firefox 3 would have roughly the same share as internet explorer 8.0 that is 22.30 \ % Version numbering is affecting the statistics here , MS does n't use the same philosophy as Firefox when it comes to versioning.MS never had internet explorer 6.5...but it had internet explorer sp1 and sp2...which are as different from each other as firefox 3 and firefox 3.5 .
Yet internet explorer 6.0 is displayed as one browser.Once IE 8 receives a sp or a major update should its statistics be split to ie 8 with sp and ie 8 without spHow different two versions of the same browser have to be different to justify the splitting of their statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So as always  with statistics it can be skinned anyway you want it.For example why are firefox 3 and firefox 3.5 being treated as two different browsers.
They are both Firefox version 3If we were to add those to statistics Firefox 3 would have roughly the same share as internet explorer 8.0 that is 22.30\%Version numbering is affecting the statistics here, MS doesn't use the same philosophy as Firefox when it comes to versioning.MS never  had internet explorer 6.5...but it had internet explorer sp1 and sp2...which are as different from each other as firefox 3 and firefox 3.5.
Yet internet explorer 6.0 is displayed as one browser.Once IE 8 receives a sp or a major update should its statistics be split to ie 8 with sp and ie 8 without spHow different two versions of the same browser have to be different to justify the splitting of their statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992712</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265104680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a geek. I use IE8. I like it.</p><p>When I run into something that doesn't work in IE8 (which is essentially never, outside of experimental/gizmo websites using canvas or the like), I hop over to Chrome.</p><p>I build websites for a living, I'm reasonably intelligent, and I use IE, Firefox, and Chrome every day. I prefer IE8 overall, with Chrome as a close runner-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a geek .
I use IE8 .
I like it.When I run into something that does n't work in IE8 ( which is essentially never , outside of experimental/gizmo websites using canvas or the like ) , I hop over to Chrome.I build websites for a living , I 'm reasonably intelligent , and I use IE , Firefox , and Chrome every day .
I prefer IE8 overall , with Chrome as a close runner-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a geek.
I use IE8.
I like it.When I run into something that doesn't work in IE8 (which is essentially never, outside of experimental/gizmo websites using canvas or the like), I hop over to Chrome.I build websites for a living, I'm reasonably intelligent, and I use IE, Firefox, and Chrome every day.
I prefer IE8 overall, with Chrome as a close runner-up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990658</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(like "sl," which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot).</p></div><p>That annoys me as well... It's happened enough times that I can say I remember Second Life is the first Google result from a search for "sl".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( like " sl , " which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot ) .That annoys me as well... It 's happened enough times that I can say I remember Second Life is the first Google result from a search for " sl " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(like "sl," which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot).That annoys me as well... It's happened enough times that I can say I remember Second Life is the first Google result from a search for "sl".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993464</id>
	<title>All the Chinese trying to break it</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1265114880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering just why I didn't know anyone using IE 8 and then it dawned on me.</p><p>With the way they run their metrics it is the number of web accesses and nothing churns up the pot more than pushing those browsers' buttons as fast as possible to see what fails.</p><p>Or it could be Microsoft QA doing it.  They do have QA, don't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering just why I did n't know anyone using IE 8 and then it dawned on me.With the way they run their metrics it is the number of web accesses and nothing churns up the pot more than pushing those browsers ' buttons as fast as possible to see what fails.Or it could be Microsoft QA doing it .
They do have QA , do n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering just why I didn't know anyone using IE 8 and then it dawned on me.With the way they run their metrics it is the number of web accesses and nothing churns up the pot more than pushing those browsers' buttons as fast as possible to see what fails.Or it could be Microsoft QA doing it.
They do have QA, don't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30995608</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://windows-get.sourceforge.net/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //windows-get.sourceforge.net/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://windows-get.sourceforge.net/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991082</id>
	<title>Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the parent post really interesting?  So many complaints leveraged against Firefox stem from bizarre usage cases.  Keeping 30 - 40 tabs open (with the added need for extreme paranoia) in Firefox seems akin to dismantling the newspaper into squares and reading it by walking across the living room floor.  An extension such as "Read It Later" probably makes more sense, especially from a usability standpoint.  As for virtual memory usage doesn't unused memory remain allocated until it is needed by another program?</p><p>Firefox isn't perfect but it has matured to the point that nearly all complaints seem to come from an idiosyncratic yet extremely vocal minority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the parent post really interesting ?
So many complaints leveraged against Firefox stem from bizarre usage cases .
Keeping 30 - 40 tabs open ( with the added need for extreme paranoia ) in Firefox seems akin to dismantling the newspaper into squares and reading it by walking across the living room floor .
An extension such as " Read It Later " probably makes more sense , especially from a usability standpoint .
As for virtual memory usage does n't unused memory remain allocated until it is needed by another program ? Firefox is n't perfect but it has matured to the point that nearly all complaints seem to come from an idiosyncratic yet extremely vocal minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the parent post really interesting?
So many complaints leveraged against Firefox stem from bizarre usage cases.
Keeping 30 - 40 tabs open (with the added need for extreme paranoia) in Firefox seems akin to dismantling the newspaper into squares and reading it by walking across the living room floor.
An extension such as "Read It Later" probably makes more sense, especially from a usability standpoint.
As for virtual memory usage doesn't unused memory remain allocated until it is needed by another program?Firefox isn't perfect but it has matured to the point that nearly all complaints seem to come from an idiosyncratic yet extremely vocal minority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990926</id>
	<title>Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>&quot;(...) Google Chrome Is Rising Fast&quot;</i><p><div class="quote"><p>Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now. They're going to go critical within the next two years, and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses.</p></div><p>
Wow... Nasty! The market likes it rough yeah.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ( ... ) Google Chrome Is Rising Fast " Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now .
They 're going to go critical within the next two years , and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses .
Wow... Nasty !
The market likes it rough yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"(...) Google Chrome Is Rising Fast"Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now.
They're going to go critical within the next two years, and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses.
Wow... Nasty!
The market likes it rough yeah.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991012</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer... Ok I take that back. Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces.</p></div><p>You sound like a professional, so the pool of people you know is probably a bit skewed.  I'm a biologist, literally no one I know is a creationist.  Sadly they are many out there lurking in dark places, conspiring to ban evolution from the classroom and replace it with a bible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer... Ok I take that back .
Some of my coworkers ( and myself I suppose ) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces.You sound like a professional , so the pool of people you know is probably a bit skewed .
I 'm a biologist , literally no one I know is a creationist .
Sadly they are many out there lurking in dark places , conspiring to ban evolution from the classroom and replace it with a bible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer... Ok I take that back.
Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces.You sound like a professional, so the pool of people you know is probably a bit skewed.
I'm a biologist, literally no one I know is a creationist.
Sadly they are many out there lurking in dark places, conspiring to ban evolution from the classroom and replace it with a bible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994058</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imbecile, why are you wasting everyone's bandwidth by listening to last.fm? Just download all the mp3 songs you can and play them from local media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imbecile , why are you wasting everyone 's bandwidth by listening to last.fm ?
Just download all the mp3 songs you can and play them from local media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imbecile, why are you wasting everyone's bandwidth by listening to last.fm?
Just download all the mp3 songs you can and play them from local media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992930</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>notrandomly</author>
	<datestamp>1265109060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features</p></div></blockquote><p>
Give Opera 10.5 a try, then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google won me with speed , but , as usual with everything except search and GMail , they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features Give Opera 10.5 a try , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features
Give Opera 10.5 a try, then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991566</id>
	<title>Re:At some level this is may be a good thing</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually if you add up the figures quoted in TFA (which only accounts for 86.73\% of the browsers recorded) then Microsoft IE (6/7/8) still accounts for 56.96\% of the market with Firefox (3.0/3.5) taking the next 22.3\%.</p><p>I'm curious to know what browsers make up the remaining 13.27\% - guess I'll just have to go read the NetApps survey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually if you add up the figures quoted in TFA ( which only accounts for 86.73 \ % of the browsers recorded ) then Microsoft IE ( 6/7/8 ) still accounts for 56.96 \ % of the market with Firefox ( 3.0/3.5 ) taking the next 22.3 \ % .I 'm curious to know what browsers make up the remaining 13.27 \ % - guess I 'll just have to go read the NetApps survey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually if you add up the figures quoted in TFA (which only accounts for 86.73\% of the browsers recorded) then Microsoft IE (6/7/8) still accounts for 56.96\% of the market with Firefox (3.0/3.5) taking the next 22.3\%.I'm curious to know what browsers make up the remaining 13.27\% - guess I'll just have to go read the NetApps survey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991352</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1265042880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>- There's no (AFAIR) option to restore the opened pages when the browser crashes.</p></div></blockquote><p>If it doesn't offer to do so on startup, go into options and check "Reopen the pages that were last open on startup".</p><p>Or go to the "New tab" page and look at the "recently closed tabs" area.  If you had multiple windows open, it will have X tabs, Y tabs, Z tabs, etc for each window.  I'd keep less than 6 windows open to stay within the space of that feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- There 's no ( AFAIR ) option to restore the opened pages when the browser crashes.If it does n't offer to do so on startup , go into options and check " Reopen the pages that were last open on startup " .Or go to the " New tab " page and look at the " recently closed tabs " area .
If you had multiple windows open , it will have X tabs , Y tabs , Z tabs , etc for each window .
I 'd keep less than 6 windows open to stay within the space of that feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- There's no (AFAIR) option to restore the opened pages when the browser crashes.If it doesn't offer to do so on startup, go into options and check "Reopen the pages that were last open on startup".Or go to the "New tab" page and look at the "recently closed tabs" area.
If you had multiple windows open, it will have X tabs, Y tabs, Z tabs, etc for each window.
I'd keep less than 6 windows open to stay within the space of that feature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992676</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265104080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; IE8 sucks.</p><p>Performance wise: yes, absolutely. Despite all the claims of better javascript performance etc it feels a lot slower than IE6.</p><p>However, the rendering is pretty accurate, and that is all that web designers care for. Because a badly looking website is the designer's fault, while a slow browser is the user's problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; IE8 sucks.Performance wise : yes , absolutely .
Despite all the claims of better javascript performance etc it feels a lot slower than IE6.However , the rendering is pretty accurate , and that is all that web designers care for .
Because a badly looking website is the designer 's fault , while a slow browser is the user 's problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; IE8 sucks.Performance wise: yes, absolutely.
Despite all the claims of better javascript performance etc it feels a lot slower than IE6.However, the rendering is pretty accurate, and that is all that web designers care for.
Because a badly looking website is the designer's fault, while a slow browser is the user's problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990432</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many corporations insist on IE only.  Why?  Becuase so many 3rd party applications use the IE engine, that you have to keep it patched and maintained anyway.   Allowing additional browsers, that create little-to-no value for the company, is just and added expense and bad practice. (remember, software is supposed to fullfil a NEED, not a preference)

The "IE is vulnerable" arguement holds no water, because if the IT Security team is doing their job, such exploits can usually be blocked through various security tools as soon as such and exploit is known.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many corporations insist on IE only .
Why ? Becuase so many 3rd party applications use the IE engine , that you have to keep it patched and maintained anyway .
Allowing additional browsers , that create little-to-no value for the company , is just and added expense and bad practice .
( remember , software is supposed to fullfil a NEED , not a preference ) The " IE is vulnerable " arguement holds no water , because if the IT Security team is doing their job , such exploits can usually be blocked through various security tools as soon as such and exploit is known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many corporations insist on IE only.
Why?  Becuase so many 3rd party applications use the IE engine, that you have to keep it patched and maintained anyway.
Allowing additional browsers, that create little-to-no value for the company, is just and added expense and bad practice.
(remember, software is supposed to fullfil a NEED, not a preference)

The "IE is vulnerable" arguement holds no water, because if the IT Security team is doing their job, such exploits can usually be blocked through various security tools as soon as such and exploit is known.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993608</id>
	<title>top browser???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE 8 might be the most used browser, but top it ain't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 8 might be the most used browser , but top it ai n't .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 8 might be the most used browser, but top it ain't ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31006904</id>
	<title>Re:Going by rendering engines...</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1264969860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to be even more pedantic, presto since opera 7. opera 6 had elektra<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>(which probably isn't affecting stats much by now...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to be even more pedantic , presto since opera 7. opera 6 had elektra : ) ( which probably is n't affecting stats much by now... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to be even more pedantic, presto since opera 7. opera 6 had elektra :)(which probably isn't affecting stats much by now...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993768</id>
	<title>Woohoo! Well, sort of...</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1265117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that people are still using IE at all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But as long as they're getting away from IE6 in particular, this is still good news, as it means IE holds back the Web just that much less.</p><p>Seriously; I'm looking forward to the day when my work will allow me to drop IE6 support. It was a big improvement over IE5, yes, but it needs to die as soon as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that people are still using IE at all leaves a bad taste in my mouth .
But as long as they 're getting away from IE6 in particular , this is still good news , as it means IE holds back the Web just that much less.Seriously ; I 'm looking forward to the day when my work will allow me to drop IE6 support .
It was a big improvement over IE5 , yes , but it needs to die as soon as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that people are still using IE at all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
But as long as they're getting away from IE6 in particular, this is still good news, as it means IE holds back the Web just that much less.Seriously; I'm looking forward to the day when my work will allow me to drop IE6 support.
It was a big improvement over IE5, yes, but it needs to die as soon as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990500</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1265035860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Obscurity may not be obscurity</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you sure about that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obscurity may not be obscurityAre you sure about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obscurity may not be obscurityAre you sure about that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990456</id>
	<title>Chrome</title>
	<author>PietjeJantje</author>
	<datestamp>1265035560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome the fastest growing? Looking at the numbers, it seems growth is also flattening out. Perhaps a headline: "Chrome will not make it if they continue this way" is more accurate of their situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome the fastest growing ?
Looking at the numbers , it seems growth is also flattening out .
Perhaps a headline : " Chrome will not make it if they continue this way " is more accurate of their situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome the fastest growing?
Looking at the numbers, it seems growth is also flattening out.
Perhaps a headline: "Chrome will not make it if they continue this way" is more accurate of their situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992420</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try IE tab - for those times when you just need IE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try IE tab - for those times when you just need IE ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try IE tab - for those times when you just need IE ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</id>
	<title>Who are these people?</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265034420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer. If it's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE, FF, and Ch, and months later I'm still seeing them using Firefox.</p><p>Ok I take that back. Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces. But those browsing sessions don't get registered on these kinds of reports and certainly don't add up to 40\%.</p><p>I'd like to see a list of what sites are being browsed with what browsers. I bet that would be a very telling set of statistics as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer .
If it 's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE , FF , and Ch , and months later I 'm still seeing them using Firefox.Ok I take that back .
Some of my coworkers ( and myself I suppose ) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces .
But those browsing sessions do n't get registered on these kinds of reports and certainly do n't add up to 40 \ % .I 'd like to see a list of what sites are being browsed with what browsers .
I bet that would be a very telling set of statistics as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.
If it's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE, FF, and Ch, and months later I'm still seeing them using Firefox.Ok I take that back.
Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces.
But those browsing sessions don't get registered on these kinds of reports and certainly don't add up to 40\%.I'd like to see a list of what sites are being browsed with what browsers.
I bet that would be a very telling set of statistics as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990864</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.</p></div></blockquote><p>You've <b>checked</b> the web browser of everyone you know? Is this the new version of <i>"Hey baby, what's your sign?"</i></p><p>Look, of the people I do intensive or casual support for, nobody uses IE. That's a fair number of people, but of <i>all the people I know</i>, jeepers, I have no idea what they browse with. The web isn't a novelty any more -- hardware/software is not a topic of casual conversation. To know that would be like knowing what kind of shampoo everyone uses. It'd be pretty damn weird to know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.You 've checked the web browser of everyone you know ?
Is this the new version of " Hey baby , what 's your sign ?
" Look , of the people I do intensive or casual support for , nobody uses IE .
That 's a fair number of people , but of all the people I know , jeepers , I have no idea what they browse with .
The web is n't a novelty any more -- hardware/software is not a topic of casual conversation .
To know that would be like knowing what kind of shampoo everyone uses .
It 'd be pretty damn weird to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.You've checked the web browser of everyone you know?
Is this the new version of "Hey baby, what's your sign?
"Look, of the people I do intensive or casual support for, nobody uses IE.
That's a fair number of people, but of all the people I know, jeepers, I have no idea what they browse with.
The web isn't a novelty any more -- hardware/software is not a topic of casual conversation.
To know that would be like knowing what kind of shampoo everyone uses.
It'd be pretty damn weird to know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990888</id>
	<title>Re:At some level this is may be a good thing</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265038620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species, browser diversity does the same thing.</p></div><p>The same thing being preventing extinction of species?</p><p>Whoa.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species , browser diversity does the same thing.The same thing being preventing extinction of species ? Whoa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species, browser diversity does the same thing.The same thing being preventing extinction of species?Whoa.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991994</id>
	<title>Re:I'm using Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension.</p></div><p>For me Firefox is a lot faster. Because of Adblock Plus.</p><p>Doesn't matter how "fast" the browser renders the page if other browser just downloads 20kb of text and maybe 100kb of images == 120kb~ == 0.2sec on my adsl if other browser doesn't have brains to block ads and downloads additional 3x more ad data, flash shit, etc. Not talking about how much CPU all these blinking ads eat..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to use Firefox , but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome , even without extension.For me Firefox is a lot faster .
Because of Adblock Plus.Does n't matter how " fast " the browser renders the page if other browser just downloads 20kb of text and maybe 100kb of images = = 120kb ~ = = 0.2sec on my adsl if other browser does n't have brains to block ads and downloads additional 3x more ad data , flash shit , etc .
Not talking about how much CPU all these blinking ads eat. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension.For me Firefox is a lot faster.
Because of Adblock Plus.Doesn't matter how "fast" the browser renders the page if other browser just downloads 20kb of text and maybe 100kb of images == 120kb~ == 0.2sec on my adsl if other browser doesn't have brains to block ads and downloads additional 3x more ad data, flash shit, etc.
Not talking about how much CPU all these blinking ads eat..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991570</id>
	<title>Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoa there. I've been a porn addict since the BBS days of grainy gif's of Vanna White and never had a problem. As for file sharing, i've been "sharing needles" since <i>Chuck Yeager's Air Combat</i> and a box of microfloppies... again with nary a single problem. And I've used every OS BUT mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa there .
I 've been a porn addict since the BBS days of grainy gif 's of Vanna White and never had a problem .
As for file sharing , i 've been " sharing needles " since Chuck Yeager 's Air Combat and a box of microfloppies... again with nary a single problem .
And I 've used every OS BUT mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa there.
I've been a porn addict since the BBS days of grainy gif's of Vanna White and never had a problem.
As for file sharing, i've been "sharing needles" since Chuck Yeager's Air Combat and a box of microfloppies... again with nary a single problem.
And I've used every OS BUT mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990590</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer. </p></div><p>So don't really know any one, then?  Welcome to slashdot, home of socially inept nerds and wannabes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If it's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE, FF, and Ch</p></div><p>Ah, that explains the lack of friends.  I prefer to associate with people who don't get hung up on browser preferences and just want one that works.  Shit, if you bored me to tears like that I'd avoid you too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices</p></div><p>I take it back, you can't be a real nerd.  Real nerds (like me I guess) use telnet to manage Cisco equipment.  The gui's don't let you get to most of the features.  If you're just using the web gui, then you're a poser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer .
So do n't really know any one , then ?
Welcome to slashdot , home of socially inept nerds and wannabes.If it 's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE , FF , and ChAh , that explains the lack of friends .
I prefer to associate with people who do n't get hung up on browser preferences and just want one that works .
Shit , if you bored me to tears like that I 'd avoid you too.Some of my coworkers ( and myself I suppose ) use IE for some Cisco and HP devicesI take it back , you ca n't be a real nerd .
Real nerds ( like me I guess ) use telnet to manage Cisco equipment .
The gui 's do n't let you get to most of the features .
If you 're just using the web gui , then you 're a poser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.
So don't really know any one, then?
Welcome to slashdot, home of socially inept nerds and wannabes.If it's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE, FF, and ChAh, that explains the lack of friends.
I prefer to associate with people who don't get hung up on browser preferences and just want one that works.
Shit, if you bored me to tears like that I'd avoid you too.Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devicesI take it back, you can't be a real nerd.
Real nerds (like me I guess) use telnet to manage Cisco equipment.
The gui's don't let you get to most of the features.
If you're just using the web gui, then you're a poser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990304</id>
	<title>Force-fed browser</title>
	<author>Radi-0-head</author>
	<datestamp>1265034420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the only reason Google Chrome is gaining ground is due to the fact that it's forced along with any other Google application, and in many cases sets itself to be the default browser.  Most people are too stupid/apathetic to notice or care, so it stays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only reason Google Chrome is gaining ground is due to the fact that it 's forced along with any other Google application , and in many cases sets itself to be the default browser .
Most people are too stupid/apathetic to notice or care , so it stays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only reason Google Chrome is gaining ground is due to the fact that it's forced along with any other Google application, and in many cases sets itself to be the default browser.
Most people are too stupid/apathetic to notice or care, so it stays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991594</id>
	<title>StatCounter disagrees</title>
	<author>mdwstmusik</author>
	<datestamp>1265045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the most recent StatCounter stats, Firefox 3.5 is the World's "most used" browser.</p><p><a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser\_version-ww-weekly-200827-200951" title="statcounter.com" rel="nofollow">http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser\_version-ww-weekly-200827-200951</a> [statcounter.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the most recent StatCounter stats , Firefox 3.5 is the World 's " most used " browser.http : //gs.statcounter.com/ # browser \ _version-ww-weekly-200827-200951 [ statcounter.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the most recent StatCounter stats, Firefox 3.5 is the World's "most used" browser.http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser\_version-ww-weekly-200827-200951 [statcounter.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993174</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265112300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Most work places still do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer Most work places still do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer

Most work places still do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994096</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>loxosceles</author>
	<datestamp>1265120460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://secunia.com/vulnerability\_scanning/personal/" title="secunia.com">Secunia PSI</a> [secunia.com] </p><p>(note: I do not work for Secunia; I just like that tool)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secunia PSI [ secunia.com ] ( note : I do not work for Secunia ; I just like that tool )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Secunia PSI [secunia.com] (note: I do not work for Secunia; I just like that tool)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30997146</id>
	<title>Re:This confirms what I said earlier ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't vouch for how much of a good idea it is, and I'm almost certain its library is nowhere near inclusive enough to be a definitive solution, but it is a start. www.filehippo.com has an update checker that checks things like Firefox, Thunderbird, yes Flash and yes, you can list and delist programs it checks for, or even just a certain release (like WinSCP 4.2.5 has a bug when working with IPv6 so I don't want to be nagged about updating it until a newer version is out to test against). I'd recommend trying it. So far I've installed it on my computer and couple friend's machines and was surprised at how much software they had installed that I must have forgotten to update every time I come by to do maintenance on their machines. Like I said, its a start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't vouch for how much of a good idea it is , and I 'm almost certain its library is nowhere near inclusive enough to be a definitive solution , but it is a start .
www.filehippo.com has an update checker that checks things like Firefox , Thunderbird , yes Flash and yes , you can list and delist programs it checks for , or even just a certain release ( like WinSCP 4.2.5 has a bug when working with IPv6 so I do n't want to be nagged about updating it until a newer version is out to test against ) .
I 'd recommend trying it .
So far I 've installed it on my computer and couple friend 's machines and was surprised at how much software they had installed that I must have forgotten to update every time I come by to do maintenance on their machines .
Like I said , its a start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't vouch for how much of a good idea it is, and I'm almost certain its library is nowhere near inclusive enough to be a definitive solution, but it is a start.
www.filehippo.com has an update checker that checks things like Firefox, Thunderbird, yes Flash and yes, you can list and delist programs it checks for, or even just a certain release (like WinSCP 4.2.5 has a bug when working with IPv6 so I don't want to be nagged about updating it until a newer version is out to test against).
I'd recommend trying it.
So far I've installed it on my computer and couple friend's machines and was surprised at how much software they had installed that I must have forgotten to update every time I come by to do maintenance on their machines.
Like I said, its a start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people?</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1265035560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Old people, non-geeks, spouses of slashdotters maybe. Seriously,  a lot of people still use IE. There are reason though. I was able to "convert" my wife from IE to FF a few months ago, however, her company's payroll system only works on IE. Once she switches it on, she continues using it. That to me is a big problem with FF. We as geeks just don't go to crazy ass sites as other regular people sometimes and we think FF is the best whereas, there are still a number of sites that don't work well with IE. I remember flashblock extension screwed up videos on a number of sites for me for a long time.
Also, FF has its own issues. I typically have to restart my browser every other day because it makes my system slow and I am already using Adblock and Flashblock to cut off the junk and the memory leak from flash.
The biggest advantage of Chrome is  its popularity due to Google and perceived speed. It feels like Chrome loads pages wayyy faster FF. However, in many instances, it succeeds in loading only half the page fast, there are elements of the page that load slowly and if you note down the start to end loading time, it is comparable to FF. However, since it loads a visible portion quickly, people believe it is wayy faster than FF.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old people , non-geeks , spouses of slashdotters maybe .
Seriously , a lot of people still use IE .
There are reason though .
I was able to " convert " my wife from IE to FF a few months ago , however , her company 's payroll system only works on IE .
Once she switches it on , she continues using it .
That to me is a big problem with FF .
We as geeks just do n't go to crazy ass sites as other regular people sometimes and we think FF is the best whereas , there are still a number of sites that do n't work well with IE .
I remember flashblock extension screwed up videos on a number of sites for me for a long time .
Also , FF has its own issues .
I typically have to restart my browser every other day because it makes my system slow and I am already using Adblock and Flashblock to cut off the junk and the memory leak from flash .
The biggest advantage of Chrome is its popularity due to Google and perceived speed .
It feels like Chrome loads pages wayyy faster FF .
However , in many instances , it succeeds in loading only half the page fast , there are elements of the page that load slowly and if you note down the start to end loading time , it is comparable to FF .
However , since it loads a visible portion quickly , people believe it is wayy faster than FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old people, non-geeks, spouses of slashdotters maybe.
Seriously,  a lot of people still use IE.
There are reason though.
I was able to "convert" my wife from IE to FF a few months ago, however, her company's payroll system only works on IE.
Once she switches it on, she continues using it.
That to me is a big problem with FF.
We as geeks just don't go to crazy ass sites as other regular people sometimes and we think FF is the best whereas, there are still a number of sites that don't work well with IE.
I remember flashblock extension screwed up videos on a number of sites for me for a long time.
Also, FF has its own issues.
I typically have to restart my browser every other day because it makes my system slow and I am already using Adblock and Flashblock to cut off the junk and the memory leak from flash.
The biggest advantage of Chrome is  its popularity due to Google and perceived speed.
It feels like Chrome loads pages wayyy faster FF.
However, in many instances, it succeeds in loading only half the page fast, there are elements of the page that load slowly and if you note down the start to end loading time, it is comparable to FF.
However, since it loads a visible portion quickly, people believe it is wayy faster than FF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30997146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31008510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31006904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31002116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31000348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30996834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30996056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30998354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30995608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31000074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30998064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31004266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31007872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30995362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_2250207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31004266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31008510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30996056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31002116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31007872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30995362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30995608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30996834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30997146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31000074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30998354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_2250207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30993754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30998064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31000348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.31006904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30991102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30992734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30994774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_2250207.30990710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
