<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_06_1955253</id>
	<title>Apple's Change of Heart On Flash</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265450700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Dotnaught writes <i>"In a blog post, Walter Luh, co-founder of Ansca Mobile and a former employee of both Apple and Adobe, recounts how <a href="http://blog.anscamobile.com/2010/02/flash-iphone-and-beyond/">Apple once promoted Flash on the iPhone then changed its mind</a> because Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience. 'I think that Apple came to the same conclusion I've come to &mdash; namely that Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences,' he writes. Luh's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the <a href="http://www.anscamobile.com/corona/">Corona SDK</a>, a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dotnaught writes " In a blog post , Walter Luh , co-founder of Ansca Mobile and a former employee of both Apple and Adobe , recounts how Apple once promoted Flash on the iPhone then changed its mind because Flash did n't provide the optimal mobile user experience .
'I think that Apple came to the same conclusion I 've come to    namely that Flash has its strengths , but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences, ' he writes .
Luh 's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK , a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dotnaught writes "In a blog post, Walter Luh, co-founder of Ansca Mobile and a former employee of both Apple and Adobe, recounts how Apple once promoted Flash on the iPhone then changed its mind because Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience.
'I think that Apple came to the same conclusion I've come to — namely that Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences,' he writes.
Luh's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK, a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049064</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe Flash will die</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265461800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?</i> </p><p>755 corporations have licensed H.264. <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx" title="mpegla.com">AVC/H.264 Licensees</a> [mpegla.com] It's a damned impressive list. Scrolling through it is like watching a freight train build up speed and momentum.</p><p>While Firefox is beginning to look more and more like the heroine tied to the railroad tracks around the next bend.</p><p>91\% of Mozilla's funding comes from Google. <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505\_3-10443576-16.html" title="cnet.com">Could open source abandon the Google train?</a> [cnet.com] Now would be a really, really good time to put some of that money to good use. Cut a deal.</p><p>Because I don't think Rin-Tin-Tin is coming to the rescue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens to open source browsers like FF who ca n't pay for the patents and licenses ?
755 corporations have licensed H.264 .
AVC/H.264 Licensees [ mpegla.com ] It 's a damned impressive list .
Scrolling through it is like watching a freight train build up speed and momentum.While Firefox is beginning to look more and more like the heroine tied to the railroad tracks around the next bend.91 \ % of Mozilla 's funding comes from Google .
Could open source abandon the Google train ?
[ cnet.com ] Now would be a really , really good time to put some of that money to good use .
Cut a deal.Because I do n't think Rin-Tin-Tin is coming to the rescue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?
755 corporations have licensed H.264.
AVC/H.264 Licensees [mpegla.com] It's a damned impressive list.
Scrolling through it is like watching a freight train build up speed and momentum.While Firefox is beginning to look more and more like the heroine tied to the railroad tracks around the next bend.91\% of Mozilla's funding comes from Google.
Could open source abandon the Google train?
[cnet.com] Now would be a really, really good time to put some of that money to good use.
Cut a deal.Because I don't think Rin-Tin-Tin is coming to the rescue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049890</id>
	<title>Re:Control freaks</title>
	<author>theurge14</author>
	<datestamp>1265471820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if they let people decide they would decide to run pirated copies of Windows XP on netbooks until the year 2049.  And then where would we be?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if they let people decide they would decide to run pirated copies of Windows XP on netbooks until the year 2049 .
And then where would we be ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if they let people decide they would decide to run pirated copies of Windows XP on netbooks until the year 2049.
And then where would we be?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048626</id>
	<title>Re:If Apple Really Cared...</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1265458020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So such things as security, quality control, and the like don't mean squat on a <i>consumer device</i>, in your opinion? Note that the iPhone is not a computer - it just pretends to be one on occasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So such things as security , quality control , and the like do n't mean squat on a consumer device , in your opinion ?
Note that the iPhone is not a computer - it just pretends to be one on occasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So such things as security, quality control, and the like don't mean squat on a consumer device, in your opinion?
Note that the iPhone is not a computer - it just pretends to be one on occasion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049554</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1265466720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funnily enough (though slightly off-topic), iTunes runs like a dog on my dual-core Windows XP machine at work, with the UI frequently freezing for no apparent reason. It's not so bad that I don't use it of course (but then I have to, nothing else will access my iPod), but it does make me wonder what it's doing to act like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily enough ( though slightly off-topic ) , iTunes runs like a dog on my dual-core Windows XP machine at work , with the UI frequently freezing for no apparent reason .
It 's not so bad that I do n't use it of course ( but then I have to , nothing else will access my iPod ) , but it does make me wonder what it 's doing to act like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funnily enough (though slightly off-topic), iTunes runs like a dog on my dual-core Windows XP machine at work, with the UI frequently freezing for no apparent reason.
It's not so bad that I don't use it of course (but then I have to, nothing else will access my iPod), but it does make me wonder what it's doing to act like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049098</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265462040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't just Flash video that has appalling performance on the Mac. Every applet is a massive CPU drain, you can't browse without noscript or click-to-flash because a couple of tabs worth of pages with Flash ads will literally reduce your browser to a crawl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't just Flash video that has appalling performance on the Mac .
Every applet is a massive CPU drain , you ca n't browse without noscript or click-to-flash because a couple of tabs worth of pages with Flash ads will literally reduce your browser to a crawl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't just Flash video that has appalling performance on the Mac.
Every applet is a massive CPU drain, you can't browse without noscript or click-to-flash because a couple of tabs worth of pages with Flash ads will literally reduce your browser to a crawl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048574</id>
	<title>Except flash works on other platforms, if barely</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1265457300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I somewhat understand Apple's position, but if Skyfire can do flash on shitty windows mobile devices then it can be done on the iphone. I still can't believe after the mp3 patent fiasco that we don't have widely accepted open music and video codecs. I already don't run bloated Apple software on my computer I can't wait to file Adobe in the same cabinet I put Realplayer and Quicktime in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I somewhat understand Apple 's position , but if Skyfire can do flash on shitty windows mobile devices then it can be done on the iphone .
I still ca n't believe after the mp3 patent fiasco that we do n't have widely accepted open music and video codecs .
I already do n't run bloated Apple software on my computer I ca n't wait to file Adobe in the same cabinet I put Realplayer and Quicktime in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I somewhat understand Apple's position, but if Skyfire can do flash on shitty windows mobile devices then it can be done on the iphone.
I still can't believe after the mp3 patent fiasco that we don't have widely accepted open music and video codecs.
I already don't run bloated Apple software on my computer I can't wait to file Adobe in the same cabinet I put Realplayer and Quicktime in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31061486</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with technical capabilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lack of flash support on the iphone and ipad have nothing to do with its lack of technical capabilities, and everything to do with sites like lala.com.  If people are able to stream music for free, they aren't going to pay for itunes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lack of flash support on the iphone and ipad have nothing to do with its lack of technical capabilities , and everything to do with sites like lala.com .
If people are able to stream music for free , they are n't going to pay for itunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lack of flash support on the iphone and ipad have nothing to do with its lack of technical capabilities, and everything to do with sites like lala.com.
If people are able to stream music for free, they aren't going to pay for itunes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049596</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265467320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're probably right, but this is what the Flash Guy says:</p><p>"But let&rsquo;s talk more about the Flash Player on the Mac. If it is not 100\% on par with the Windows player people assume that it is all our fault. The facts show that this is simply not the case. Let&rsquo;s take for example the question of hardware acceleration for H.264 video that we released with Flash Player 10.1. Here you can see some published results for how much the situation has improved on Windows. Unfortunately we could not add this acceleration to the Mac player because Apple does not provide a public API to make this happen. You can easily verify that by asking Apple. I&rsquo;m happy to say that we still made some improvements for the Mac player when it comes to video playback, but we simply could not implement the hardware acceleration. This is but one example of stumbling blocks we face when it comes to Apple."</p><p>http://theflashblog.com/?p=1641</p><p>Personally I think Flash is a resource hog and a piece of crap, and it needs to die soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're probably right , but this is what the Flash Guy says : " But let    s talk more about the Flash Player on the Mac .
If it is not 100 \ % on par with the Windows player people assume that it is all our fault .
The facts show that this is simply not the case .
Let    s take for example the question of hardware acceleration for H.264 video that we released with Flash Player 10.1 .
Here you can see some published results for how much the situation has improved on Windows .
Unfortunately we could not add this acceleration to the Mac player because Apple does not provide a public API to make this happen .
You can easily verify that by asking Apple .
I    m happy to say that we still made some improvements for the Mac player when it comes to video playback , but we simply could not implement the hardware acceleration .
This is but one example of stumbling blocks we face when it comes to Apple .
" http : //theflashblog.com/ ? p = 1641Personally I think Flash is a resource hog and a piece of crap , and it needs to die soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're probably right, but this is what the Flash Guy says:"But let’s talk more about the Flash Player on the Mac.
If it is not 100\% on par with the Windows player people assume that it is all our fault.
The facts show that this is simply not the case.
Let’s take for example the question of hardware acceleration for H.264 video that we released with Flash Player 10.1.
Here you can see some published results for how much the situation has improved on Windows.
Unfortunately we could not add this acceleration to the Mac player because Apple does not provide a public API to make this happen.
You can easily verify that by asking Apple.
I’m happy to say that we still made some improvements for the Mac player when it comes to video playback, but we simply could not implement the hardware acceleration.
This is but one example of stumbling blocks we face when it comes to Apple.
"http://theflashblog.com/?p=1641Personally I think Flash is a resource hog and a piece of crap, and it needs to die soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418</id>
	<title>Control freaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't they let us decide?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't they let us decide ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't they let us decide?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1265458920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree with you, that is somewhat Apple's fault.  On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available. On Mac OS X, it does not. In Flash 10, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you , that is somewhat Apple 's fault .
On Windows , Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264 , if available .
On Mac OS X , it does not .
In Flash 10 , H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you, that is somewhat Apple's fault.
On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available.
On Mac OS X, it does not.
In Flash 10, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049514</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265466180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect a lot of history behind this. I first encountered Flash back in 2000 when I started working at Sp&#252;mc&#248;, doing Internet cartoons. We were an all-Mac shop, and grumbled a lot about the fact that Flash's performance was always better on Windows machines of roughly the same power. Macromedia clearly treated the Mac as a low-priority thing, as the horrible glitchiness of the Mac version of Flash 5 showed; there was a 5.01 release that only existed on the Mac, to fix a ton of horrible crasher bugs in the editor.</p><p>So the Flash team clearly didn't give a shit about Mac performance back then. It worked half-assedly and that was good enough for them, it seemed.</p><p>This attitude did not change when Adobe bought Macromedia to get ahold of Flash. If anything, it spread to the rest of the company, along with Macromedia's horrible ideas of branding - I'm told the much-unloved CS rebranding was primarily the work of ex-Macromedia people.</p><p>So, there <em>is</em> a reason: it's a complicated, nasty pile of decade-old code that barely worked on the Mac in the first place, with nobody in a position of power at Macromedia/Adobe complaining loud enough to make anyone take out the machetes and start cutting their way into the underbrush to fix things until the iPad came out, and Adobe began to see all their dreams of Flash-as-platform swirling down the toilet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect a lot of history behind this .
I first encountered Flash back in 2000 when I started working at Sp   mc   , doing Internet cartoons .
We were an all-Mac shop , and grumbled a lot about the fact that Flash 's performance was always better on Windows machines of roughly the same power .
Macromedia clearly treated the Mac as a low-priority thing , as the horrible glitchiness of the Mac version of Flash 5 showed ; there was a 5.01 release that only existed on the Mac , to fix a ton of horrible crasher bugs in the editor.So the Flash team clearly did n't give a shit about Mac performance back then .
It worked half-assedly and that was good enough for them , it seemed.This attitude did not change when Adobe bought Macromedia to get ahold of Flash .
If anything , it spread to the rest of the company , along with Macromedia 's horrible ideas of branding - I 'm told the much-unloved CS rebranding was primarily the work of ex-Macromedia people.So , there is a reason : it 's a complicated , nasty pile of decade-old code that barely worked on the Mac in the first place , with nobody in a position of power at Macromedia/Adobe complaining loud enough to make anyone take out the machetes and start cutting their way into the underbrush to fix things until the iPad came out , and Adobe began to see all their dreams of Flash-as-platform swirling down the toilet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect a lot of history behind this.
I first encountered Flash back in 2000 when I started working at Spümcø, doing Internet cartoons.
We were an all-Mac shop, and grumbled a lot about the fact that Flash's performance was always better on Windows machines of roughly the same power.
Macromedia clearly treated the Mac as a low-priority thing, as the horrible glitchiness of the Mac version of Flash 5 showed; there was a 5.01 release that only existed on the Mac, to fix a ton of horrible crasher bugs in the editor.So the Flash team clearly didn't give a shit about Mac performance back then.
It worked half-assedly and that was good enough for them, it seemed.This attitude did not change when Adobe bought Macromedia to get ahold of Flash.
If anything, it spread to the rest of the company, along with Macromedia's horrible ideas of branding - I'm told the much-unloved CS rebranding was primarily the work of ex-Macromedia people.So, there is a reason: it's a complicated, nasty pile of decade-old code that barely worked on the Mac in the first place, with nobody in a position of power at Macromedia/Adobe complaining loud enough to make anyone take out the machetes and start cutting their way into the underbrush to fix things until the iPad came out, and Adobe began to see all their dreams of Flash-as-platform swirling down the toilet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048540</id>
	<title>Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash can't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers. Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements. How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something?</p></div><p>On an iPhone/iPad it's called a finger. Also most flash apps aren't that CPU intensive. There's debate about encoded videos which Apple solved for Youtube by supplying hardware decoding. The resistance seems to be mostly from the Apple side and not Adobe not wishing to support the Apple mobile devices. There was a break somewhere along the way and there's lots of speculation but no one outside of Apple seems a 100\% sure why they are so adamant about not supporting Flash. Steve Jobs appeared so upset by Flash it seemed like Adobe pissed in his corn flakes. It came off just as personal as it was a business decision. The problem is for some one that pushes their mobile devices as the ultimate mobile web surfing experience it's hard to claim that with a straight face when you don't support Flash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash ca n't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers .
Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements .
How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something ? On an iPhone/iPad it 's called a finger .
Also most flash apps are n't that CPU intensive .
There 's debate about encoded videos which Apple solved for Youtube by supplying hardware decoding .
The resistance seems to be mostly from the Apple side and not Adobe not wishing to support the Apple mobile devices .
There was a break somewhere along the way and there 's lots of speculation but no one outside of Apple seems a 100 \ % sure why they are so adamant about not supporting Flash .
Steve Jobs appeared so upset by Flash it seemed like Adobe pissed in his corn flakes .
It came off just as personal as it was a business decision .
The problem is for some one that pushes their mobile devices as the ultimate mobile web surfing experience it 's hard to claim that with a straight face when you do n't support Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash can't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers.
Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements.
How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something?On an iPhone/iPad it's called a finger.
Also most flash apps aren't that CPU intensive.
There's debate about encoded videos which Apple solved for Youtube by supplying hardware decoding.
The resistance seems to be mostly from the Apple side and not Adobe not wishing to support the Apple mobile devices.
There was a break somewhere along the way and there's lots of speculation but no one outside of Apple seems a 100\% sure why they are so adamant about not supporting Flash.
Steve Jobs appeared so upset by Flash it seemed like Adobe pissed in his corn flakes.
It came off just as personal as it was a business decision.
The problem is for some one that pushes their mobile devices as the ultimate mobile web surfing experience it's hard to claim that with a straight face when you don't support Flash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050698</id>
	<title>Re:Tired of the Apple propaganda -Agreed</title>
	<author>pankajgautam</author>
	<datestamp>1265482260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
thats so true..
they have mutilated the old FreeBSD so bad and still never hesitate to call it unix underneath...</htmltext>
<tokenext>thats so true. . they have mutilated the old FreeBSD so bad and still never hesitate to call it unix underneath.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
thats so true..
they have mutilated the old FreeBSD so bad and still never hesitate to call it unix underneath...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe Flash will die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.</p><p>What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced , but not with HTML 5.What happens to open source browsers like FF who ca n't pay for the patents and licenses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050382</id>
	<title>Re:Control freaks</title>
	<author>he-sk</author>
	<datestamp>1265478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're on a Mac, try this: <a href="http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/" title="github.com">http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/</a> [github.com]</p><p>As a bonus, you can open H.264 streams from Youtube in Quicktime.  Free Software, too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're on a Mac , try this : http : //rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/ [ github.com ] As a bonus , you can open H.264 streams from Youtube in Quicktime .
Free Software , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're on a Mac, try this: http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/ [github.com]As a bonus, you can open H.264 streams from Youtube in Quicktime.
Free Software, too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049240</id>
	<title>Re:Control freaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265463240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Precisely, why can't Adobe let us decide.  I can disable Java, Javascript, image animation.  I can block pop ups.  Why not Flash?  And I am not even talking about disabling flash.  I am only talking about click to play so when a site I visit has 20 flash entities, I can choose not to load the 10 I don't need.
<p>
I have said this a hundred times and I will say this again.  IMHO, Flash on iPhone requires that there be an option not to load Flash by default. Not only because too many Flash entities can crash the browser, not only because Flash  can have inappropriate content for an area of us, not only because flash can create excessive load on the network, but because users should have a choice.
</p><p>
Adobe, respect your end users and give them a choice.  But then, you do, because those of us who browse are not your end users, we are your play things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely , why ca n't Adobe let us decide .
I can disable Java , Javascript , image animation .
I can block pop ups .
Why not Flash ?
And I am not even talking about disabling flash .
I am only talking about click to play so when a site I visit has 20 flash entities , I can choose not to load the 10 I do n't need .
I have said this a hundred times and I will say this again .
IMHO , Flash on iPhone requires that there be an option not to load Flash by default .
Not only because too many Flash entities can crash the browser , not only because Flash can have inappropriate content for an area of us , not only because flash can create excessive load on the network , but because users should have a choice .
Adobe , respect your end users and give them a choice .
But then , you do , because those of us who browse are not your end users , we are your play things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely, why can't Adobe let us decide.
I can disable Java, Javascript, image animation.
I can block pop ups.
Why not Flash?
And I am not even talking about disabling flash.
I am only talking about click to play so when a site I visit has 20 flash entities, I can choose not to load the 10 I don't need.
I have said this a hundred times and I will say this again.
IMHO, Flash on iPhone requires that there be an option not to load Flash by default.
Not only because too many Flash entities can crash the browser, not only because Flash  can have inappropriate content for an area of us, not only because flash can create excessive load on the network, but because users should have a choice.
Adobe, respect your end users and give them a choice.
But then, you do, because those of us who browse are not your end users, we are your play things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048494</id>
	<title>One big fat reason that gets missed...</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1265456580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...security.</p><p>Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system, I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone's 'walled garden' setup (what with it's default root password and all...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...security.Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system , I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone 's 'walled garden ' setup ( what with it 's default root password and all... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...security.Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system, I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone's 'walled garden' setup (what with it's default root password and all...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1265456580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How old is your dual core? A lot of Mac processor are woefully out of date.  If you're running a Core 2 Duo from 2006 then I bet just about everything sucks.  Also, people used to complain that Flash wasn't taking advantage of multiple cores, now it seems they complain that it does.  Good old Slashdot.  The Flash hate continues unabated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How old is your dual core ?
A lot of Mac processor are woefully out of date .
If you 're running a Core 2 Duo from 2006 then I bet just about everything sucks .
Also , people used to complain that Flash was n't taking advantage of multiple cores , now it seems they complain that it does .
Good old Slashdot .
The Flash hate continues unabated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How old is your dual core?
A lot of Mac processor are woefully out of date.
If you're running a Core 2 Duo from 2006 then I bet just about everything sucks.
Also, people used to complain that Flash wasn't taking advantage of multiple cores, now it seems they complain that it does.
Good old Slashdot.
The Flash hate continues unabated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048638</id>
	<title>Tired of the Apple propaganda</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265458080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them. Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.</i></p><p>Just look at story. "Insanely great mobile experience"???? Give me a break. I am sick and tired of this company being hailed as god's gift to design and bug free products. It just isn't true. They are one of the least open, most overpriced, most marketing based companies on the planet. Their products don't "just work". What they do is force you to work in a limited way according to their rules and in Apple's interests. Yet otherwise intelligent people start foaming at the mouth about how great Apple is and repeating their marketing drivel verbatim. It's just plain disturbing. Apple's genius is the marketing, which seems to brainwash intelligent people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style , manner , and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial , they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone , Touch , and iPad , and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them .
Apple only cares about profits and control these days , having become the very thing they once railed against.Just look at story .
" Insanely great mobile experience " ? ? ? ?
Give me a break .
I am sick and tired of this company being hailed as god 's gift to design and bug free products .
It just is n't true .
They are one of the least open , most overpriced , most marketing based companies on the planet .
Their products do n't " just work " .
What they do is force you to work in a limited way according to their rules and in Apple 's interests .
Yet otherwise intelligent people start foaming at the mouth about how great Apple is and repeating their marketing drivel verbatim .
It 's just plain disturbing .
Apple 's genius is the marketing , which seems to brainwash intelligent people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them.
Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.Just look at story.
"Insanely great mobile experience"????
Give me a break.
I am sick and tired of this company being hailed as god's gift to design and bug free products.
It just isn't true.
They are one of the least open, most overpriced, most marketing based companies on the planet.
Their products don't "just work".
What they do is force you to work in a limited way according to their rules and in Apple's interests.
Yet otherwise intelligent people start foaming at the mouth about how great Apple is and repeating their marketing drivel verbatim.
It's just plain disturbing.
Apple's genius is the marketing, which seems to brainwash intelligent people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049206</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265462940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is there something that I'm missing?</i></p><p>er... a brain maybe. the fact that flash doesn't run nicely on the mac is more of a feature than a bug if you ask me. Until you get a real computer you deserve to be excluded from the web and it is certainly better off without you.</p><p>flash is the most distributed piece of software in history.<br>compare the number of idiot mac users with the number of people that have flash installed on their computers. do the math if you want to see how this tussle will end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there something that I 'm missing ? er... a brain maybe .
the fact that flash does n't run nicely on the mac is more of a feature than a bug if you ask me .
Until you get a real computer you deserve to be excluded from the web and it is certainly better off without you.flash is the most distributed piece of software in history.compare the number of idiot mac users with the number of people that have flash installed on their computers .
do the math if you want to see how this tussle will end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there something that I'm missing?er... a brain maybe.
the fact that flash doesn't run nicely on the mac is more of a feature than a bug if you ask me.
Until you get a real computer you deserve to be excluded from the web and it is certainly better off without you.flash is the most distributed piece of software in history.compare the number of idiot mac users with the number of people that have flash installed on their computers.
do the math if you want to see how this tussle will end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048396</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shill much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shill much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shill much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048314</id>
	<title>Liars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want to fully control what you can do with an iPhone.  They can't do that as well if they allow you to make arbitrary programs out of Flash.</p><p>Nothing new here, just standard operating procedure for Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want to fully control what you can do with an iPhone .
They ca n't do that as well if they allow you to make arbitrary programs out of Flash.Nothing new here , just standard operating procedure for Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want to fully control what you can do with an iPhone.
They can't do that as well if they allow you to make arbitrary programs out of Flash.Nothing new here, just standard operating procedure for Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048474</id>
	<title>Oh please stop this crap!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple does not want a way to bypass the appstore-assrape, plain-and-simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does not want a way to bypass the appstore-assrape , plain-and-simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple does not want a way to bypass the appstore-assrape, plain-and-simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31069780</id>
	<title>Re:If Apple Really Cared...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265709240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple cares far more about their potential bottom line than they do about empowering the user. Way, way more. They have always seen Flash as a means to subvert the notion that Apple controls and generally gets paid for every application that on the iPhone. If you're playing a Flash game on the iPhone, you're not playing an iPhone native game... despite the fact the two could be identical playing experiences.</p><p>This is a general rule, it's not just Flash. Apple will not allow any other means of programming the iPhone from the outside. Well, other than Javascript. Their Javascript -- you can't sell a replacement, even if it's 10x faster (well, Apple themselves might be interested, or Palm, given their standard SDK is based on Javascript, HTML and CSS). You can't buy Commodore 64 or Nintendo emulators, for the very same reason -- my desire to run Commodore BASIC 2.0 games from 1983 on my smart phone is overridden by the fear that prospect instills in the Apple PTB (eg, Steve Jobs). Apparently, Commodore 64 games would be so wildly popular on the iPhone, they would stop all game sales and ruin Apple. Or some-such.</p><p>Apple would not be held responsible for stupid Flash sites or Commodore 64 games lack of quality control. And it's not as if Apple is all that much about quality control on the apps they approve, anyway -- they still have issues, there are still very poorly rated apps in the iTunes store.</p><p>As for "computer"... yeah, the iPhone is very much a computer. So are DVD players and Microwave ovens these days. The iPhone proports to be an application processing computer.. the same basic class of computer as a PC or a PDA, even if the particulars are different. The thing is, unlike most other such devices (PCs, Macs, Android devices, Palm WebOS device, Windows Mobile devices, etc) there are two kinds of applications on the device: those from Apple, and those from everyone else. Apple's can multitask, live as daemons, etc. All others are one-shot deals. So while I can, say, play music on museek or Pandora on my DROID while I write an email or play a game or look up something on a map, one can only do that with Apple's media player on the iPhone.  As a developer, you are always second class. The customer is rather treated like #2 on the iPhone as well.</p><p>You have your iPhone supporters all over.. I have at least one in the family, sad to say (and she's got a PhD from Stanford, so hey, whadda I know?) But here, I would expect them to be far less common.  I think most people here value computing freedom and actually do understand the issues.  There's no place for an iPhone in that universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple cares far more about their potential bottom line than they do about empowering the user .
Way , way more .
They have always seen Flash as a means to subvert the notion that Apple controls and generally gets paid for every application that on the iPhone .
If you 're playing a Flash game on the iPhone , you 're not playing an iPhone native game... despite the fact the two could be identical playing experiences.This is a general rule , it 's not just Flash .
Apple will not allow any other means of programming the iPhone from the outside .
Well , other than Javascript .
Their Javascript -- you ca n't sell a replacement , even if it 's 10x faster ( well , Apple themselves might be interested , or Palm , given their standard SDK is based on Javascript , HTML and CSS ) .
You ca n't buy Commodore 64 or Nintendo emulators , for the very same reason -- my desire to run Commodore BASIC 2.0 games from 1983 on my smart phone is overridden by the fear that prospect instills in the Apple PTB ( eg , Steve Jobs ) .
Apparently , Commodore 64 games would be so wildly popular on the iPhone , they would stop all game sales and ruin Apple .
Or some-such.Apple would not be held responsible for stupid Flash sites or Commodore 64 games lack of quality control .
And it 's not as if Apple is all that much about quality control on the apps they approve , anyway -- they still have issues , there are still very poorly rated apps in the iTunes store.As for " computer " ... yeah , the iPhone is very much a computer .
So are DVD players and Microwave ovens these days .
The iPhone proports to be an application processing computer.. the same basic class of computer as a PC or a PDA , even if the particulars are different .
The thing is , unlike most other such devices ( PCs , Macs , Android devices , Palm WebOS device , Windows Mobile devices , etc ) there are two kinds of applications on the device : those from Apple , and those from everyone else .
Apple 's can multitask , live as daemons , etc .
All others are one-shot deals .
So while I can , say , play music on museek or Pandora on my DROID while I write an email or play a game or look up something on a map , one can only do that with Apple 's media player on the iPhone .
As a developer , you are always second class .
The customer is rather treated like # 2 on the iPhone as well.You have your iPhone supporters all over.. I have at least one in the family , sad to say ( and she 's got a PhD from Stanford , so hey , whadda I know ?
) But here , I would expect them to be far less common .
I think most people here value computing freedom and actually do understand the issues .
There 's no place for an iPhone in that universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple cares far more about their potential bottom line than they do about empowering the user.
Way, way more.
They have always seen Flash as a means to subvert the notion that Apple controls and generally gets paid for every application that on the iPhone.
If you're playing a Flash game on the iPhone, you're not playing an iPhone native game... despite the fact the two could be identical playing experiences.This is a general rule, it's not just Flash.
Apple will not allow any other means of programming the iPhone from the outside.
Well, other than Javascript.
Their Javascript -- you can't sell a replacement, even if it's 10x faster (well, Apple themselves might be interested, or Palm, given their standard SDK is based on Javascript, HTML and CSS).
You can't buy Commodore 64 or Nintendo emulators, for the very same reason -- my desire to run Commodore BASIC 2.0 games from 1983 on my smart phone is overridden by the fear that prospect instills in the Apple PTB (eg, Steve Jobs).
Apparently, Commodore 64 games would be so wildly popular on the iPhone, they would stop all game sales and ruin Apple.
Or some-such.Apple would not be held responsible for stupid Flash sites or Commodore 64 games lack of quality control.
And it's not as if Apple is all that much about quality control on the apps they approve, anyway -- they still have issues, there are still very poorly rated apps in the iTunes store.As for "computer"... yeah, the iPhone is very much a computer.
So are DVD players and Microwave ovens these days.
The iPhone proports to be an application processing computer.. the same basic class of computer as a PC or a PDA, even if the particulars are different.
The thing is, unlike most other such devices (PCs, Macs, Android devices, Palm WebOS device, Windows Mobile devices, etc) there are two kinds of applications on the device: those from Apple, and those from everyone else.
Apple's can multitask, live as daemons, etc.
All others are one-shot deals.
So while I can, say, play music on museek or Pandora on my DROID while I write an email or play a game or look up something on a map, one can only do that with Apple's media player on the iPhone.
As a developer, you are always second class.
The customer is rather treated like #2 on the iPhone as well.You have your iPhone supporters all over.. I have at least one in the family, sad to say (and she's got a PhD from Stanford, so hey, whadda I know?
) But here, I would expect them to be far less common.
I think most people here value computing freedom and actually do understand the issues.
There's no place for an iPhone in that universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052288</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1265557020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple won't release the APIs to allow for Flash GPU acceleration on Macs. Microsoft allows it and Flash is obviously faster on Windows. Apple is lazy, plain and simple.</p><p>Got completely sucked into the distortion field, didn't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple wo n't release the APIs to allow for Flash GPU acceleration on Macs .
Microsoft allows it and Flash is obviously faster on Windows .
Apple is lazy , plain and simple.Got completely sucked into the distortion field , did n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple won't release the APIs to allow for Flash GPU acceleration on Macs.
Microsoft allows it and Flash is obviously faster on Windows.
Apple is lazy, plain and simple.Got completely sucked into the distortion field, didn't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31063998</id>
	<title>Re:Because that's how Apple works</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1265662620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Apple has always been a "we have good taste, therefore other people who have good taste will like our products" company.</p><p>Of course good taste is relative, but my point is still valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Apple has always been a " we have good taste , therefore other people who have good taste will like our products " company.Of course good taste is relative , but my point is still valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Apple has always been a "we have good taste, therefore other people who have good taste will like our products" company.Of course good taste is relative, but my point is still valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055016</id>
	<title>It's not performance or security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265538840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ONLY reason it isn't run on the iPod/iPad/iPhone is money. Plain &amp; simple.<br>Flash would make it possible, even easy, to replicate a lot of things that Apple currently charges money for.</p><p>They don't want that. So no Flash support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ONLY reason it is n't run on the iPod/iPad/iPhone is money .
Plain &amp; simple.Flash would make it possible , even easy , to replicate a lot of things that Apple currently charges money for.They do n't want that .
So no Flash support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ONLY reason it isn't run on the iPod/iPad/iPhone is money.
Plain &amp; simple.Flash would make it possible, even easy, to replicate a lot of things that Apple currently charges money for.They don't want that.
So no Flash support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048562</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265457240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...is very developer friendly</p></div><p>I disagree. Many of the SL2 code doesn't even compile in SL3 - WebClient can no longer be used synchronously for example.</p><p>GIF just isn't supported. Sure it may be dieing, but unfortunately, there's a shit load of legacy code that creates only GIFs.</p><p>XAML has some really crazy issues with scope. As a matter of fact, some of MS' own example code doesn't compile on my VS 2010 B2 SL3 setup. I was doing a filter for input and the code wouldn't even compile - even though I copied and pasted from their site.</p><p>There's some nice things about SIlverlight, but I just think it's too bulky for a web application framework. I don't so much should be put upon the client, whether it's Silverlight, Flash, or Java applets - especially with the trend towards hand held devices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is very developer friendlyI disagree .
Many of the SL2 code does n't even compile in SL3 - WebClient can no longer be used synchronously for example.GIF just is n't supported .
Sure it may be dieing , but unfortunately , there 's a shit load of legacy code that creates only GIFs.XAML has some really crazy issues with scope .
As a matter of fact , some of MS ' own example code does n't compile on my VS 2010 B2 SL3 setup .
I was doing a filter for input and the code would n't even compile - even though I copied and pasted from their site.There 's some nice things about SIlverlight , but I just think it 's too bulky for a web application framework .
I do n't so much should be put upon the client , whether it 's Silverlight , Flash , or Java applets - especially with the trend towards hand held devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...is very developer friendlyI disagree.
Many of the SL2 code doesn't even compile in SL3 - WebClient can no longer be used synchronously for example.GIF just isn't supported.
Sure it may be dieing, but unfortunately, there's a shit load of legacy code that creates only GIFs.XAML has some really crazy issues with scope.
As a matter of fact, some of MS' own example code doesn't compile on my VS 2010 B2 SL3 setup.
I was doing a filter for input and the code wouldn't even compile - even though I copied and pasted from their site.There's some nice things about SIlverlight, but I just think it's too bulky for a web application framework.
I don't so much should be put upon the client, whether it's Silverlight, Flash, or Java applets - especially with the trend towards hand held devices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048352</id>
	<title>I would be happy with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just an 'OK' mobile experience. You know, my standards aren't really that great, so if you give me an OK experience I won't be pissed off just because it's not 'insanely great'. Rather than having no experience at all. Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just an 'OK ' mobile experience .
You know , my standards are n't really that great , so if you give me an OK experience I wo n't be pissed off just because it 's not 'insanely great' .
Rather than having no experience at all .
Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just an 'OK' mobile experience.
You know, my standards aren't really that great, so if you give me an OK experience I won't be pissed off just because it's not 'insanely great'.
Rather than having no experience at all.
Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048730</id>
	<title>Advertising under a different name</title>
	<author>fruitbane</author>
	<datestamp>1265458920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like what little insight this article provides into the issue of flash on the iPhone, but it's really not substantive enough to warrant posting here on Slashdot. What does stand out, is how much of an advertising pitch this is for Corona. I'm sure it's fantastic, but the first part of the piece seemed, to me, to simply be an advertising lead-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like what little insight this article provides into the issue of flash on the iPhone , but it 's really not substantive enough to warrant posting here on Slashdot .
What does stand out , is how much of an advertising pitch this is for Corona .
I 'm sure it 's fantastic , but the first part of the piece seemed , to me , to simply be an advertising lead-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like what little insight this article provides into the issue of flash on the iPhone, but it's really not substantive enough to warrant posting here on Slashdot.
What does stand out, is how much of an advertising pitch this is for Corona.
I'm sure it's fantastic, but the first part of the piece seemed, to me, to simply be an advertising lead-in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049280</id>
	<title>HTML5/WebKit animation already has Flash beat</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1265463660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is so easy to do transitions, transforms, animate properties such as opacity, add vectors, audio, video in HTML5/WebKit right now, which represents all mobile usage except for mobile Firefox which is still not 1.0. What is needed is for Firefox to catch up with ISO video and CSS animations. I did Flash development since 1997, I much prefer to develop for WebKit now. You make a CSS class that defines one state of the animation, another for another state, and just change the class of the element to animate it and WebKit does the tweening in the GPU. Flash was never, ever this fast or easy or had this performance, and WebKit runs on every OS and architecture and is open source. The idea that we need something else is ridiculous. We just need more browsers to support this. But even now, Safari on PC, Mac, iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Chrome, Android, Blackberry, Nokia all support this.</p><p>Flash is PC software, it has system requirements of a P4 or better, 2GHz or better, there is no such thing as a mobile that can run it. Notice that Mobile Firefox dropped Flash in RC3 for performance and stability reasons. Adobe is using Apple as a red herring, the problem is Flash itself is not part of the Web. It has not been managed like WebKit was since 2002, totally open source, built primarily for speed and standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so easy to do transitions , transforms , animate properties such as opacity , add vectors , audio , video in HTML5/WebKit right now , which represents all mobile usage except for mobile Firefox which is still not 1.0 .
What is needed is for Firefox to catch up with ISO video and CSS animations .
I did Flash development since 1997 , I much prefer to develop for WebKit now .
You make a CSS class that defines one state of the animation , another for another state , and just change the class of the element to animate it and WebKit does the tweening in the GPU .
Flash was never , ever this fast or easy or had this performance , and WebKit runs on every OS and architecture and is open source .
The idea that we need something else is ridiculous .
We just need more browsers to support this .
But even now , Safari on PC , Mac , iPhone , iPod , iPad , and Chrome , Android , Blackberry , Nokia all support this.Flash is PC software , it has system requirements of a P4 or better , 2GHz or better , there is no such thing as a mobile that can run it .
Notice that Mobile Firefox dropped Flash in RC3 for performance and stability reasons .
Adobe is using Apple as a red herring , the problem is Flash itself is not part of the Web .
It has not been managed like WebKit was since 2002 , totally open source , built primarily for speed and standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so easy to do transitions, transforms, animate properties such as opacity, add vectors, audio, video in HTML5/WebKit right now, which represents all mobile usage except for mobile Firefox which is still not 1.0.
What is needed is for Firefox to catch up with ISO video and CSS animations.
I did Flash development since 1997, I much prefer to develop for WebKit now.
You make a CSS class that defines one state of the animation, another for another state, and just change the class of the element to animate it and WebKit does the tweening in the GPU.
Flash was never, ever this fast or easy or had this performance, and WebKit runs on every OS and architecture and is open source.
The idea that we need something else is ridiculous.
We just need more browsers to support this.
But even now, Safari on PC, Mac, iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Chrome, Android, Blackberry, Nokia all support this.Flash is PC software, it has system requirements of a P4 or better, 2GHz or better, there is no such thing as a mobile that can run it.
Notice that Mobile Firefox dropped Flash in RC3 for performance and stability reasons.
Adobe is using Apple as a red herring, the problem is Flash itself is not part of the Web.
It has not been managed like WebKit was since 2002, totally open source, built primarily for speed and standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050312</id>
	<title>For anyone that missed it...</title>
	<author>djupedal</author>
	<datestamp>1265477100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/" title="wired.com">"Adobe Is Lazy" : Apple&rsquo;s Steve Jobs</a> [wired.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Adobe Is Lazy " : Apple    s Steve Jobs [ wired.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Adobe Is Lazy" : Apple’s Steve Jobs [wired.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31064508</id>
	<title>Re:Tired of the Apple propaganda</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1265621700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they do is force you to work in a limited way according to their rules and in Apple's interests.</p> </div><p>Apple's interest is to provide a superior user experience, so that they can sell more products.  By all measures, they're vary successful at this.  People continue to pick Apple over competitor's despite higher prices.</p><p>You can plug your ears and pretend it's some magic fairy dust reality distortion field.  The reality is that Apple is providing something of value that people want.</p><p>I'll take a first-party only device that does what I want over an "open" device that sucks.  And I'll gladly pay a premium for the time and headache I save by doing so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they do is force you to work in a limited way according to their rules and in Apple 's interests .
Apple 's interest is to provide a superior user experience , so that they can sell more products .
By all measures , they 're vary successful at this .
People continue to pick Apple over competitor 's despite higher prices.You can plug your ears and pretend it 's some magic fairy dust reality distortion field .
The reality is that Apple is providing something of value that people want.I 'll take a first-party only device that does what I want over an " open " device that sucks .
And I 'll gladly pay a premium for the time and headache I save by doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they do is force you to work in a limited way according to their rules and in Apple's interests.
Apple's interest is to provide a superior user experience, so that they can sell more products.
By all measures, they're vary successful at this.
People continue to pick Apple over competitor's despite higher prices.You can plug your ears and pretend it's some magic fairy dust reality distortion field.
The reality is that Apple is providing something of value that people want.I'll take a first-party only device that does what I want over an "open" device that sucks.
And I'll gladly pay a premium for the time and headache I save by doing so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048856</id>
	<title>You dont get the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265460000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having old hardware should NOT be an issue when you are hitting a web page.</p><p>And its not just flash that is the issue. The entire mindset you just displayed is the core of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having old hardware should NOT be an issue when you are hitting a web page.And its not just flash that is the issue .
The entire mindset you just displayed is the core of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having old hardware should NOT be an issue when you are hitting a web page.And its not just flash that is the issue.
The entire mindset you just displayed is the core of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049876</id>
	<title>Re:One big fat reason that gets missed...</title>
	<author>MacDork</author>
	<datestamp>1265471640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jailbroken iPhones ARE breaches in the walled garden.  Flash wouldn't be providing anything new in that respect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jailbroken iPhones ARE breaches in the walled garden .
Flash would n't be providing anything new in that respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jailbroken iPhones ARE breaches in the walled garden.
Flash wouldn't be providing anything new in that respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049228</id>
	<title>Re:Insanely Great Experiences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265463120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting to note the Flash benchmark used both cores while HTML5 sticks to one regardless of browser (Chrome, Webkit, Firefox, Stainless, Camino).  Chrome seemed to do best with Flash (why the disparity?) while Webkit best with HTML5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting to note the Flash benchmark used both cores while HTML5 sticks to one regardless of browser ( Chrome , Webkit , Firefox , Stainless , Camino ) .
Chrome seemed to do best with Flash ( why the disparity ?
) while Webkit best with HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting to note the Flash benchmark used both cores while HTML5 sticks to one regardless of browser (Chrome, Webkit, Firefox, Stainless, Camino).
Chrome seemed to do best with Flash (why the disparity?
) while Webkit best with HTML5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048840</id>
	<title>Lazy Adobe</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1265459940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree totally. It should NOT require that sort of horsepower to display a freaking web page.. That is what 'web' was all about.. moving the horsepower to the servers.</p><p>As far as Adobe being lazy.. its rather appropriate since most sites that use flash are done by lazy developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree totally .
It should NOT require that sort of horsepower to display a freaking web page.. That is what 'web ' was all about.. moving the horsepower to the servers.As far as Adobe being lazy.. its rather appropriate since most sites that use flash are done by lazy developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree totally.
It should NOT require that sort of horsepower to display a freaking web page.. That is what 'web' was all about.. moving the horsepower to the servers.As far as Adobe being lazy.. its rather appropriate since most sites that use flash are done by lazy developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31053164</id>
	<title>Re:Because that's how Apple works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265566800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never really understood this until I tried switching from Windows to a Mac about half a year ago.</p><p>I tried a Macbook Pro for about two months and I just couldn't stand it.  All the shortcuts are so different (or just different enough to totally piss you off) and then just the way they do things, such as with the Mac Finder where you cannot cut and paste files with a shortcut, or choose how it sorts files (alphabetically with folders first like Windows).</p><p>I understand there's a learning curve and Apple has the right to suggest some defaults, but for the love of fuck, allow me to enable some of that functionality in the preferences!</p><p>If you look through forums, users have been demanding these things for years and Apple has done nothing.  The only help you get is suggestions about using additional software like Path Finder, which is really only a partial solution.</p><p>It's the Mac culture that really pisses me off where you can't customize your machine the way you really want it because the "Almighty Steve Jobs" just knows better.</p><p>In the end I just said "Fuck You!" and went back to Windows where I could get some real work done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never really understood this until I tried switching from Windows to a Mac about half a year ago.I tried a Macbook Pro for about two months and I just could n't stand it .
All the shortcuts are so different ( or just different enough to totally piss you off ) and then just the way they do things , such as with the Mac Finder where you can not cut and paste files with a shortcut , or choose how it sorts files ( alphabetically with folders first like Windows ) .I understand there 's a learning curve and Apple has the right to suggest some defaults , but for the love of fuck , allow me to enable some of that functionality in the preferences ! If you look through forums , users have been demanding these things for years and Apple has done nothing .
The only help you get is suggestions about using additional software like Path Finder , which is really only a partial solution.It 's the Mac culture that really pisses me off where you ca n't customize your machine the way you really want it because the " Almighty Steve Jobs " just knows better.In the end I just said " Fuck You !
" and went back to Windows where I could get some real work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never really understood this until I tried switching from Windows to a Mac about half a year ago.I tried a Macbook Pro for about two months and I just couldn't stand it.
All the shortcuts are so different (or just different enough to totally piss you off) and then just the way they do things, such as with the Mac Finder where you cannot cut and paste files with a shortcut, or choose how it sorts files (alphabetically with folders first like Windows).I understand there's a learning curve and Apple has the right to suggest some defaults, but for the love of fuck, allow me to enable some of that functionality in the preferences!If you look through forums, users have been demanding these things for years and Apple has done nothing.
The only help you get is suggestions about using additional software like Path Finder, which is really only a partial solution.It's the Mac culture that really pisses me off where you can't customize your machine the way you really want it because the "Almighty Steve Jobs" just knows better.In the end I just said "Fuck You!
" and went back to Windows where I could get some real work done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394</id>
	<title>If Apple Really Cared...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1265455680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them.<br> <br>
Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style , manner , and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial , they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone , Touch , and iPad , and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them .
Apple only cares about profits and control these days , having become the very thing they once railed against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them.
Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312</id>
	<title>Silverlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now Flash has most of the market, but my prediction is that within 5 years Silverlight will start to supplant Flash for this purpose.  XAML is gaining ground rapidly, Silverlight supports DRM content for applications such as streaming movies, it supports DeepZoom, a rich set of built in controls, runs on every major OS (Mac, Linux, Windows), supports multitouch out of the box, and is very developer friendly.  It's moving much faster than Flash, and while it doesn't yet have the same market share, it has enough compelling advantages that it's just a matter of time before it will become the dominant standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now Flash has most of the market , but my prediction is that within 5 years Silverlight will start to supplant Flash for this purpose .
XAML is gaining ground rapidly , Silverlight supports DRM content for applications such as streaming movies , it supports DeepZoom , a rich set of built in controls , runs on every major OS ( Mac , Linux , Windows ) , supports multitouch out of the box , and is very developer friendly .
It 's moving much faster than Flash , and while it does n't yet have the same market share , it has enough compelling advantages that it 's just a matter of time before it will become the dominant standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now Flash has most of the market, but my prediction is that within 5 years Silverlight will start to supplant Flash for this purpose.
XAML is gaining ground rapidly, Silverlight supports DRM content for applications such as streaming movies, it supports DeepZoom, a rich set of built in controls, runs on every major OS (Mac, Linux, Windows), supports multitouch out of the box, and is very developer friendly.
It's moving much faster than Flash, and while it doesn't yet have the same market share, it has enough compelling advantages that it's just a matter of time before it will become the dominant standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049308</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>emt377</author>
	<datestamp>1265464080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So at the very least, I'd expect flash videos to play smoothly and consistently without taxing my processors at 80 to 90 percent!</p></div><p>Flash is primarily a programming language, compiled to SWF.  (But it has some other features as well, like a timeline and a notion of time-based actions.)  Used well it produces nice, fast, very compact code - in fact, people use it to build software to run on embedded devices that would make your Mac look like a supercomputer.  There are two performance culprits: 1) the VP6 codec still popularly in use; this has no hardware support (unlike H.264) and playback requires your main processors to decode.  2) poor code - the problem in this case is that people who aren't programmers use Flash to cobble together ads and other animated objects, usually with little or no QA before it goes out the door.  You can't justify a comprehensive development process for something that is done by a non-programmer in an afternoon, has to be out in a few days, and shouldn't cost more than any other design work.  Needless to say, this non-process produces garbage software, and when your browser loads a whole bunch of these it's no surprise it doesn't function well.  ClickToFlash is your friend in the short term, but in the long term this needs to be addressed by ad providers (campaign managers).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So at the very least , I 'd expect flash videos to play smoothly and consistently without taxing my processors at 80 to 90 percent ! Flash is primarily a programming language , compiled to SWF .
( But it has some other features as well , like a timeline and a notion of time-based actions .
) Used well it produces nice , fast , very compact code - in fact , people use it to build software to run on embedded devices that would make your Mac look like a supercomputer .
There are two performance culprits : 1 ) the VP6 codec still popularly in use ; this has no hardware support ( unlike H.264 ) and playback requires your main processors to decode .
2 ) poor code - the problem in this case is that people who are n't programmers use Flash to cobble together ads and other animated objects , usually with little or no QA before it goes out the door .
You ca n't justify a comprehensive development process for something that is done by a non-programmer in an afternoon , has to be out in a few days , and should n't cost more than any other design work .
Needless to say , this non-process produces garbage software , and when your browser loads a whole bunch of these it 's no surprise it does n't function well .
ClickToFlash is your friend in the short term , but in the long term this needs to be addressed by ad providers ( campaign managers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So at the very least, I'd expect flash videos to play smoothly and consistently without taxing my processors at 80 to 90 percent!Flash is primarily a programming language, compiled to SWF.
(But it has some other features as well, like a timeline and a notion of time-based actions.
)  Used well it produces nice, fast, very compact code - in fact, people use it to build software to run on embedded devices that would make your Mac look like a supercomputer.
There are two performance culprits: 1) the VP6 codec still popularly in use; this has no hardware support (unlike H.264) and playback requires your main processors to decode.
2) poor code - the problem in this case is that people who aren't programmers use Flash to cobble together ads and other animated objects, usually with little or no QA before it goes out the door.
You can't justify a comprehensive development process for something that is done by a non-programmer in an afternoon, has to be out in a few days, and shouldn't cost more than any other design work.
Needless to say, this non-process produces garbage software, and when your browser loads a whole bunch of these it's no surprise it doesn't function well.
ClickToFlash is your friend in the short term, but in the long term this needs to be addressed by ad providers (campaign managers).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048570</id>
	<title>apple likes it lock down and free flash games as b</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265457300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apple likes it lock down and lock in app store and free flash games are bad for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apple likes it lock down and lock in app store and free flash games are bad for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apple likes it lock down and lock in app store and free flash games are bad for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048830</id>
	<title>Nice ad!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265459820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Luh's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK"</p><p>Duh... its a commercial blog on the Corono SDK website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Luh 's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK " Duh... its a commercial blog on the Corono SDK website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Luh's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK"Duh... its a commercial blog on the Corono SDK website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31069792</id>
	<title>Re:Because that's how Apple works</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265709480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so much. Most consumers have no idea that Apple's this controlling, and really don't get the limitations. At first. In time, some do.. that's why many iPhone users are switching to Android devices. Android will be the inevitable winner in this contest, and Apple's policies are only helping that happen sooner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so much .
Most consumers have no idea that Apple 's this controlling , and really do n't get the limitations .
At first .
In time , some do.. that 's why many iPhone users are switching to Android devices .
Android will be the inevitable winner in this contest , and Apple 's policies are only helping that happen sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so much.
Most consumers have no idea that Apple's this controlling, and really don't get the limitations.
At first.
In time, some do.. that's why many iPhone users are switching to Android devices.
Android will be the inevitable winner in this contest, and Apple's policies are only helping that happen sooner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049006</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>he-sk</author>
	<datestamp>1265461440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With many websites you can get to the MP4 or FLV file that is displayed inside the flash player when you look at the HTML source.  How come that VLC/Quicktime/whatever can play that file with my processor barely noticing, yet when I view the move inside flash, my Macbook starts screaming like a fucking jet engine?</p><p>Sure, it's the processors fault.  Not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With many websites you can get to the MP4 or FLV file that is displayed inside the flash player when you look at the HTML source .
How come that VLC/Quicktime/whatever can play that file with my processor barely noticing , yet when I view the move inside flash , my Macbook starts screaming like a fucking jet engine ? Sure , it 's the processors fault .
Not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With many websites you can get to the MP4 or FLV file that is displayed inside the flash player when you look at the HTML source.
How come that VLC/Quicktime/whatever can play that file with my processor barely noticing, yet when I view the move inside flash, my Macbook starts screaming like a fucking jet engine?Sure, it's the processors fault.
Not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050498</id>
	<title>Flash has strengths??</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265479620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...namely that Flash has its strengths</p></div><p>[<a href="\%23" title="slashdot.org">proof needed</a> [slashdot.org]]!</p><p>P.S.: Citations don&rsquo;t prove shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...namely that Flash has its strengths [ proof needed [ slashdot.org ] ] ! P.S .
: Citations don    t prove shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...namely that Flash has its strengths[proof needed [slashdot.org]]!P.S.
: Citations don’t prove shit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049786</id>
	<title>Re:It's a two-part problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265470260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sorry to make you look really, really stupid but the ARM Cortex-A8 runs flash quite happily on an n900.</p><p>this information is available to all but the most complete and clueless jacka**es. like your good self.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry to make you look really , really stupid but the ARM Cortex-A8 runs flash quite happily on an n900.this information is available to all but the most complete and clueless jacka * * es .
like your good self .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry to make you look really, really stupid but the ARM Cortex-A8 runs flash quite happily on an n900.this information is available to all but the most complete and clueless jacka**es.
like your good self.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048714</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1265458740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all widely accepted software technologies, the customer base demands "more, more, more," and the products get fat from all the features.  Flash is just the most recent 'mature' technology -- e.g., DOS, Windows, Office, Adobe CS4, Adaptec/Sonic/Roxio CD/DVD/BluRay Creator, AutoCAD, and TurboTax (originally on the Commodore64).  Even Linux is starting to look a little thick around the middle.  As for those that don't grow, is anyone using Minix?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all widely accepted software technologies , the customer base demands " more , more , more , " and the products get fat from all the features .
Flash is just the most recent 'mature ' technology -- e.g. , DOS , Windows , Office , Adobe CS4 , Adaptec/Sonic/Roxio CD/DVD/BluRay Creator , AutoCAD , and TurboTax ( originally on the Commodore64 ) .
Even Linux is starting to look a little thick around the middle .
As for those that do n't grow , is anyone using Minix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all widely accepted software technologies, the customer base demands "more, more, more," and the products get fat from all the features.
Flash is just the most recent 'mature' technology -- e.g., DOS, Windows, Office, Adobe CS4, Adaptec/Sonic/Roxio CD/DVD/BluRay Creator, AutoCAD, and TurboTax (originally on the Commodore64).
Even Linux is starting to look a little thick around the middle.
As for those that don't grow, is anyone using Minix?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049646</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just Flash, but all virtual machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265467920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is it that you can't really have a good Flash implementation if you don't support multitasking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is it that you ca n't really have a good Flash implementation if you do n't support multitasking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is it that you can't really have a good Flash implementation if you don't support multitasking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050438</id>
	<title>Opposite</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1265478960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform.</i></p><p>That is utterly opposite to the experience I have had developing mobile apps for the iPhone. Functionality is nothing with experience making it pleasant to use, and if you've done it right the mobile device does not feel limiting, it feels empowering.  There is no excuse for ANY of the modern mobile platforms today (iPhone OS, Android, PalmOS) to be making applications that are solely feature-centric, nor will users buy them.   Even if they are free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform.That is utterly opposite to the experience I have had developing mobile apps for the iPhone .
Functionality is nothing with experience making it pleasant to use , and if you 've done it right the mobile device does not feel limiting , it feels empowering .
There is no excuse for ANY of the modern mobile platforms today ( iPhone OS , Android , PalmOS ) to be making applications that are solely feature-centric , nor will users buy them .
Even if they are free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform.That is utterly opposite to the experience I have had developing mobile apps for the iPhone.
Functionality is nothing with experience making it pleasant to use, and if you've done it right the mobile device does not feel limiting, it feels empowering.
There is no excuse for ANY of the modern mobile platforms today (iPhone OS, Android, PalmOS) to be making applications that are solely feature-centric, nor will users buy them.
Even if they are free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049194</id>
	<title>And it should be noted</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1265462820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That H.264 is a beast to decode, Flash or not. You will discover that many Core 2 Duos cannot play back Blu-Ray movies without assistance. High bitrate H.264 requires so much power, that slower dual core CPUs just aren't enough, even when that's all the computer is doing. It is just an intense algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That H.264 is a beast to decode , Flash or not .
You will discover that many Core 2 Duos can not play back Blu-Ray movies without assistance .
High bitrate H.264 requires so much power , that slower dual core CPUs just are n't enough , even when that 's all the computer is doing .
It is just an intense algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That H.264 is a beast to decode, Flash or not.
You will discover that many Core 2 Duos cannot play back Blu-Ray movies without assistance.
High bitrate H.264 requires so much power, that slower dual core CPUs just aren't enough, even when that's all the computer is doing.
It is just an intense algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048480</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1265456460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595\_22-285784.html" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">Troll detected.</a> [zdnet.com] No, even paying people off won't make them stick with Silverlight. I predict it'll die a slow, stinky death like the Zune and Bing will.

Not that any of this really matters, people will keep buying Apple stuff regardless, because Papa Jobs knows best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll detected .
[ zdnet.com ] No , even paying people off wo n't make them stick with Silverlight .
I predict it 'll die a slow , stinky death like the Zune and Bing will .
Not that any of this really matters , people will keep buying Apple stuff regardless , because Papa Jobs knows best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll detected.
[zdnet.com] No, even paying people off won't make them stick with Silverlight.
I predict it'll die a slow, stinky death like the Zune and Bing will.
Not that any of this really matters, people will keep buying Apple stuff regardless, because Papa Jobs knows best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226</id>
	<title>Because that's how Apple works</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1265463120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have long been a "We know what's best for you," company. They decide what experiences they want to offer the user, and the user has very little choice in the matter. They tell you what you want, you just have to go along with it. If you don't like it, you go elsewhere.</p><p>That is one of the primary reasons I don't use Apple products. They don't offer what I want, and don't offer the ability to become what I want. So, I take my cash elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have long been a " We know what 's best for you , " company .
They decide what experiences they want to offer the user , and the user has very little choice in the matter .
They tell you what you want , you just have to go along with it .
If you do n't like it , you go elsewhere.That is one of the primary reasons I do n't use Apple products .
They do n't offer what I want , and do n't offer the ability to become what I want .
So , I take my cash elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have long been a "We know what's best for you," company.
They decide what experiences they want to offer the user, and the user has very little choice in the matter.
They tell you what you want, you just have to go along with it.
If you don't like it, you go elsewhere.That is one of the primary reasons I don't use Apple products.
They don't offer what I want, and don't offer the ability to become what I want.
So, I take my cash elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052704</id>
	<title>Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265561820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>queue the idiot defend-apple-at-all-costs fanboys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>queue the idiot defend-apple-at-all-costs fanboys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>queue the idiot defend-apple-at-all-costs fanboys!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050860</id>
	<title>Re:Flash gfx rendering abt 2 be faster on Mac than</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But will it stop crashing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But will it stop crashing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But will it stop crashing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051794</id>
	<title>Re:Because that's how Apple works</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265548920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; <i>That is one of the primary reasons I don't use Apple products.</i></p><p>That is also the primary reason why a lot of people use Apple products.  Such is choice.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; That is one of the primary reasons I do n't use Apple products.That is also the primary reason why a lot of people use Apple products .
Such is choice .
          -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; That is one of the primary reasons I don't use Apple products.That is also the primary reason why a lot of people use Apple products.
Such is choice.
          -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049092</id>
	<title>Re:If Apple Really Cared...</title>
	<author>c4t3y3</author>
	<datestamp>1265462040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them.
 Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.</p></div><p>Does that apply to the Mozilla Foundation too?</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://blog.pavlov.net/2010/01/27/firefox-for-maemo-rc3/" title="pavlov.net" rel="nofollow">Firefox for Maemo RC3</a> [pavlov.net] <br>We&rsquo;ve decided to disable plugin (not to be confused with add-ons, which are supported) support for this release.  The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn&rsquo;t meet our standards.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Attempting Flash playback on a phone cripples the device because there is no hardware support for vector graphics.</p><blockquote><div><p>Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works. --Steve Jobs</p></div></blockquote><p> Flash Lite doesn't. Hell, even my badass Mac Pro freaks out playing Flash. I just tried and got WebKitPluginHost at 93\% on one core. Look, Flash performance on OS X *desktop* is abysmal, it is utter crap. You don't want that on your iPhone.</p><blockquote><div><p>You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new. --Steve Jobs</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style , manner , and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial , they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone , Touch , and iPad , and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them .
Apple only cares about profits and control these days , having become the very thing they once railed against.Does that apply to the Mozilla Foundation too ?
Firefox for Maemo RC3 [ pavlov.net ] We    ve decided to disable plugin ( not to be confused with add-ons , which are supported ) support for this release .
The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn    t meet our standards .
Attempting Flash playback on a phone cripples the device because there is no hardware support for vector graphics.Design is not just what it looks like and feels like .
Design is how it works .
--Steve Jobs Flash Lite does n't .
Hell , even my badass Mac Pro freaks out playing Flash .
I just tried and got WebKitPluginHost at 93 \ % on one core .
Look , Flash performance on OS X * desktop * is abysmal , it is utter crap .
You do n't want that on your iPhone.You ca n't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them .
By the time you get it built , they 'll want something new .
--Steve Jobs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them.
Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.Does that apply to the Mozilla Foundation too?
Firefox for Maemo RC3 [pavlov.net] We’ve decided to disable plugin (not to be confused with add-ons, which are supported) support for this release.
The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn’t meet our standards.
Attempting Flash playback on a phone cripples the device because there is no hardware support for vector graphics.Design is not just what it looks like and feels like.
Design is how it works.
--Steve Jobs Flash Lite doesn't.
Hell, even my badass Mac Pro freaks out playing Flash.
I just tried and got WebKitPluginHost at 93\% on one core.
Look, Flash performance on OS X *desktop* is abysmal, it is utter crap.
You don't want that on your iPhone.You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.
--Steve Jobs
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051204</id>
	<title>Re:It's a two-part problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265538600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if that's the case then i would really like to know how my ARM based chumby displays Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if that 's the case then i would really like to know how my ARM based chumby displays Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if that's the case then i would really like to know how my ARM based chumby displays Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055046</id>
	<title>Re:The optimal mobile experience for Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265539080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple's store. That's it.</p><p>It's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered "non optimal". After all, Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be "confused" by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.</p></div><p>You are completely wrong.</p><p>Using iTunes/iPhone/iPad to watch video, listen to audio and see your photos DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PURCHASES from the apple iTunes store whatsoever.</p><p>RIP all your CD's and DVD's or move your limewire content into iTunes (or just the movies and/or music folders) and you can access all of it on the iPad/iPhone or what-have-you.</p><p>Furthermore, you can obtain plenty of free applications at the app store.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple 's store .
That 's it.It 's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered " non optimal " .
After all , Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be " confused " by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.You are completely wrong.Using iTunes/iPhone/iPad to watch video , listen to audio and see your photos DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PURCHASES from the apple iTunes store whatsoever.RIP all your CD 's and DVD 's or move your limewire content into iTunes ( or just the movies and/or music folders ) and you can access all of it on the iPad/iPhone or what-have-you.Furthermore , you can obtain plenty of free applications at the app store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple's store.
That's it.It's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered "non optimal".
After all, Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be "confused" by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.You are completely wrong.Using iTunes/iPhone/iPad to watch video, listen to audio and see your photos DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PURCHASES from the apple iTunes store whatsoever.RIP all your CD's and DVD's or move your limewire content into iTunes (or just the movies and/or music folders) and you can access all of it on the iPad/iPhone or what-have-you.Furthermore, you can obtain plenty of free applications at the app store.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048708</id>
	<title>Re:It's a two-part problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then what the hell I'm using on my Nokia 770 Internet Tablet (2005ish)? Silverlight? And what's the Nokia N900 using?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then what the hell I 'm using on my Nokia 770 Internet Tablet ( 2005ish ) ?
Silverlight ? And what 's the Nokia N900 using ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then what the hell I'm using on my Nokia 770 Internet Tablet (2005ish)?
Silverlight? And what's the Nokia N900 using?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470</id>
	<title>It's a two-part problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first problem is that it's hideously slow, and bloated beyond belief. A hideous, disfigured freak of a software abortion. The second problem is a tad bigger, and, strikingly, it seems that everyone belching their thoughts on this point appear to be complete, clueless jacka**es: there is no ARM version of Flash. Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system. There, someone had to break the news to the morons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first problem is that it 's hideously slow , and bloated beyond belief .
A hideous , disfigured freak of a software abortion .
The second problem is a tad bigger , and , strikingly , it seems that everyone belching their thoughts on this point appear to be complete , clueless jacka * * es : there is no ARM version of Flash .
Let 's repeat that : there is no ARM version of Flash ; it does not run on any ARM based system .
There , someone had to break the news to the morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first problem is that it's hideously slow, and bloated beyond belief.
A hideous, disfigured freak of a software abortion.
The second problem is a tad bigger, and, strikingly, it seems that everyone belching their thoughts on this point appear to be complete, clueless jacka**es: there is no ARM version of Flash.
Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.
There, someone had to break the news to the morons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048446</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe Flash will die</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1265456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What patents and licenses? From <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/" title="w3.org">the W3C's patent policy</a> [w3.org]:</p><p><em>The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.</em></p><p>Of course, anything hypothetically <em>could</em> be patented; but HTML5 is at least in the position that there are no known patent restrictions on implementing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What patents and licenses ?
From the W3C 's patent policy [ w3.org ] : The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free ( RF ) basis.Of course , anything hypothetically could be patented ; but HTML5 is at least in the position that there are no known patent restrictions on implementing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What patents and licenses?
From the W3C's patent policy [w3.org]:The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.Of course, anything hypothetically could be patented; but HTML5 is at least in the position that there are no known patent restrictions on implementing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048956</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever used Photoshop? Illustrator? Acrobat? *any* other Adobe app besides Flash?</p><p>Large and resource-rich companies like Adobe tend to be driven by their marketing team rather than engineers, so their software tends to be a huge, bloated mess that generally does what you need, along with a hundred other features that look nice on paper but you'll never use within your lifetime and have never been optimized because the engineers are too busy hacking together feature #101, as John from marketing demanded.</p><p>Though given how awful iTunes and Quicktime run on Windows, I don't know whether Steve Jobs has any right to call others lazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever used Photoshop ?
Illustrator ? Acrobat ?
* any * other Adobe app besides Flash ? Large and resource-rich companies like Adobe tend to be driven by their marketing team rather than engineers , so their software tends to be a huge , bloated mess that generally does what you need , along with a hundred other features that look nice on paper but you 'll never use within your lifetime and have never been optimized because the engineers are too busy hacking together feature # 101 , as John from marketing demanded.Though given how awful iTunes and Quicktime run on Windows , I do n't know whether Steve Jobs has any right to call others lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever used Photoshop?
Illustrator? Acrobat?
*any* other Adobe app besides Flash?Large and resource-rich companies like Adobe tend to be driven by their marketing team rather than engineers, so their software tends to be a huge, bloated mess that generally does what you need, along with a hundred other features that look nice on paper but you'll never use within your lifetime and have never been optimized because the engineers are too busy hacking together feature #101, as John from marketing demanded.Though given how awful iTunes and Quicktime run on Windows, I don't know whether Steve Jobs has any right to call others lazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048860</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1265460060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any processor built in the last decade should be able to handle most flash (certain games and h264 excluded... for processors made back around 2000).  It doesn't exactly require 3 gigaflops to draw a triangle.  People forget how powerful modern computers actually are, and mistake a woeful lack of optimization for irreducible complexity.  Heck, a modern computer can do more work in a second than 20 people can do in a lifetime, which kinda makes one go WTF when they take &gt;200 ms to do something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any processor built in the last decade should be able to handle most flash ( certain games and h264 excluded... for processors made back around 2000 ) .
It does n't exactly require 3 gigaflops to draw a triangle .
People forget how powerful modern computers actually are , and mistake a woeful lack of optimization for irreducible complexity .
Heck , a modern computer can do more work in a second than 20 people can do in a lifetime , which kinda makes one go WTF when they take &gt; 200 ms to do something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any processor built in the last decade should be able to handle most flash (certain games and h264 excluded... for processors made back around 2000).
It doesn't exactly require 3 gigaflops to draw a triangle.
People forget how powerful modern computers actually are, and mistake a woeful lack of optimization for irreducible complexity.
Heck, a modern computer can do more work in a second than 20 people can do in a lifetime, which kinda makes one go WTF when they take &gt;200 ms to do something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052202</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265555880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I agree with you, that is somewhat Apple's fault. On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available. On Mac OS X, it does not. In Flash 10, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs.</p></div><p>Hardware acceleration for H264 decoding is not used by Flash player on any platform today. Flash player *will* use hardware acceleration for H264 with Flash Player 10.1 which is still in in alpha/beta.</p><p>Plus, a little hint: the bottleneck was never with the decoding, but with the rendering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you , that is somewhat Apple 's fault .
On Windows , Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264 , if available .
On Mac OS X , it does not .
In Flash 10 , H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs.Hardware acceleration for H264 decoding is not used by Flash player on any platform today .
Flash player * will * use hardware acceleration for H264 with Flash Player 10.1 which is still in in alpha/beta.Plus , a little hint : the bottleneck was never with the decoding , but with the rendering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you, that is somewhat Apple's fault.
On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available.
On Mac OS X, it does not.
In Flash 10, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs.Hardware acceleration for H264 decoding is not used by Flash player on any platform today.
Flash player *will* use hardware acceleration for H264 with Flash Player 10.1 which is still in in alpha/beta.Plus, a little hint: the bottleneck was never with the decoding, but with the rendering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048576</id>
	<title>Flex/Flash is the only option for some use cases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265457300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try building a Web App that allow the client to cache thousands of domain objects like we do at our company, and<br>you'll quickly find Flash is the only technology that works well. It's 1000 times faster than JavaScript (jQuery, GWT, etc),<br>Grails, Rails, JSF, etc.   Believe me, I tried them all.</p><p>We can build a VERY robust web app in flex in a day that is blazingly fast for the<br>client, autocompletes every drop-down from massive result sets, and looks amazing (and I'm not a graphic artist).<br>It integrates easily with the Spring Framework, and BlazeDS removes all the old marshalling code you used to write by hand.</p><p>I totally understand why Jobs doesnt want Flash on the iPhone. It makes the app store worthless.<br>Who's going to pay for apps when you can get free flash ones that are just as good?<br>I'm just really sick that I have to learn ObjectC (something I gave up 7 years ago) to write iPhone apps.<br>But, the barrier to entry makes the apps I write, that much more valuable.</p><p>Senior Software Architect</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try building a Web App that allow the client to cache thousands of domain objects like we do at our company , andyou 'll quickly find Flash is the only technology that works well .
It 's 1000 times faster than JavaScript ( jQuery , GWT , etc ) ,Grails , Rails , JSF , etc .
Believe me , I tried them all.We can build a VERY robust web app in flex in a day that is blazingly fast for theclient , autocompletes every drop-down from massive result sets , and looks amazing ( and I 'm not a graphic artist ) .It integrates easily with the Spring Framework , and BlazeDS removes all the old marshalling code you used to write by hand.I totally understand why Jobs doesnt want Flash on the iPhone .
It makes the app store worthless.Who 's going to pay for apps when you can get free flash ones that are just as good ? I 'm just really sick that I have to learn ObjectC ( something I gave up 7 years ago ) to write iPhone apps.But , the barrier to entry makes the apps I write , that much more valuable.Senior Software Architect</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try building a Web App that allow the client to cache thousands of domain objects like we do at our company, andyou'll quickly find Flash is the only technology that works well.
It's 1000 times faster than JavaScript (jQuery, GWT, etc),Grails, Rails, JSF, etc.
Believe me, I tried them all.We can build a VERY robust web app in flex in a day that is blazingly fast for theclient, autocompletes every drop-down from massive result sets, and looks amazing (and I'm not a graphic artist).It integrates easily with the Spring Framework, and BlazeDS removes all the old marshalling code you used to write by hand.I totally understand why Jobs doesnt want Flash on the iPhone.
It makes the app store worthless.Who's going to pay for apps when you can get free flash ones that are just as good?I'm just really sick that I have to learn ObjectC (something I gave up 7 years ago) to write iPhone apps.But, the barrier to entry makes the apps I write, that much more valuable.Senior Software Architect</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048412</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe Flash will die</title>
	<author>negRo\_slim</author>
	<datestamp>1265455920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?</p></div><p>With any luck!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all the browser applications written in flash ?
Will we just not have them ? With any luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all the browser applications written in flash?
Will we just not have them?With any luck!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31106190</id>
	<title>Re:If Apple Really Cared...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple made a fuss about the Flash plugin and battery time and asked Adobe for an dedicated Web+Flash app, but Adobe just made a fuss and wanted Apple to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple made a fuss about the Flash plugin and battery time and asked Adobe for an dedicated Web + Flash app , but Adobe just made a fuss and wanted Apple to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple made a fuss about the Flash plugin and battery time and asked Adobe for an dedicated Web+Flash app, but Adobe just made a fuss and wanted Apple to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050532</id>
	<title>Bullshit, slow for non-video content too</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1265480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available. On Mac OS X, it does not.</i></p><p>I read the Adobe press releases too.</p><p>However how do you then explain that four or so small flash ads in a page with minimal advertising send the CPU's into a similar frenzy?  There's no h.264 involved there.  Just really crappy programming.</p><p>That's what finally drove me to install ClickToFlash in Safari about a year ago.  From that point on, the only flash I ever clicked to activate was on YouTube, which now happily offers that HTML5 video trial.  And I love ads, I mean in the sense that I feel they support sites I like to visit so I never even thought about installing an ad-blocker.</p><p>I think the Flash proponents are mostly using ad-blockers and have forgotten just how much suck there is on web pages these days, much of it heavily Flash driven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264 , if available .
On Mac OS X , it does not.I read the Adobe press releases too.However how do you then explain that four or so small flash ads in a page with minimal advertising send the CPU 's into a similar frenzy ?
There 's no h.264 involved there .
Just really crappy programming.That 's what finally drove me to install ClickToFlash in Safari about a year ago .
From that point on , the only flash I ever clicked to activate was on YouTube , which now happily offers that HTML5 video trial .
And I love ads , I mean in the sense that I feel they support sites I like to visit so I never even thought about installing an ad-blocker.I think the Flash proponents are mostly using ad-blockers and have forgotten just how much suck there is on web pages these days , much of it heavily Flash driven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available.
On Mac OS X, it does not.I read the Adobe press releases too.However how do you then explain that four or so small flash ads in a page with minimal advertising send the CPU's into a similar frenzy?
There's no h.264 involved there.
Just really crappy programming.That's what finally drove me to install ClickToFlash in Safari about a year ago.
From that point on, the only flash I ever clicked to activate was on YouTube, which now happily offers that HTML5 video trial.
And I love ads, I mean in the sense that I feel they support sites I like to visit so I never even thought about installing an ad-blocker.I think the Flash proponents are mostly using ad-blockers and have forgotten just how much suck there is on web pages these days, much of it heavily Flash driven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051068</id>
	<title>Re:Insanely Great Experiences?</title>
	<author>Nalgas D. Lemur</author>
	<datestamp>1265534940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just for the hell of it, I tried both on an ancient iMac, with all of a 500 MHz G3 in it and the latest Safari.  They were both about the same speed: Flash was just over 2 fps, and HTML5 was just under 2 fps.  I actually expected a lot worse.  The Flash one scales to fit my relatively small window (the screen can only do 1024x768, after all), but the HTML5 one has scrollbars.  No idea how/if that affects it, but I've seen stranger things make a noticeable difference.  Also, the Flash one stutters and drops a lot in speed temporarily if I click on it, while the HTML5 one doesn't seem to mind at all.  Considering other people are getting 10 fps with multi-core CPUs (even a single core of which is dramatically faster for just about anything than this is) I'm amazed this thing can pull off 2 fps.  It can't even handle the low-res/low-quality videos on YouTube without choking and dying miserably.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for the hell of it , I tried both on an ancient iMac , with all of a 500 MHz G3 in it and the latest Safari .
They were both about the same speed : Flash was just over 2 fps , and HTML5 was just under 2 fps .
I actually expected a lot worse .
The Flash one scales to fit my relatively small window ( the screen can only do 1024x768 , after all ) , but the HTML5 one has scrollbars .
No idea how/if that affects it , but I 've seen stranger things make a noticeable difference .
Also , the Flash one stutters and drops a lot in speed temporarily if I click on it , while the HTML5 one does n't seem to mind at all .
Considering other people are getting 10 fps with multi-core CPUs ( even a single core of which is dramatically faster for just about anything than this is ) I 'm amazed this thing can pull off 2 fps .
It ca n't even handle the low-res/low-quality videos on YouTube without choking and dying miserably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for the hell of it, I tried both on an ancient iMac, with all of a 500 MHz G3 in it and the latest Safari.
They were both about the same speed: Flash was just over 2 fps, and HTML5 was just under 2 fps.
I actually expected a lot worse.
The Flash one scales to fit my relatively small window (the screen can only do 1024x768, after all), but the HTML5 one has scrollbars.
No idea how/if that affects it, but I've seen stranger things make a noticeable difference.
Also, the Flash one stutters and drops a lot in speed temporarily if I click on it, while the HTML5 one doesn't seem to mind at all.
Considering other people are getting 10 fps with multi-core CPUs (even a single core of which is dramatically faster for just about anything than this is) I'm amazed this thing can pull off 2 fps.
It can't even handle the low-res/low-quality videos on YouTube without choking and dying miserably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048926</id>
	<title>Treating users as dumb doesn't solve the problem..</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1265460600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.. there's always going to be dumb users. There are dumb car drivers, there are stupid firearm users.</p><p>I all for flash dieing a painful death, but Apple needs to stop being a jerk corporation and let people choose how to run the stuff they buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.. there 's always going to be dumb users .
There are dumb car drivers , there are stupid firearm users.I all for flash dieing a painful death , but Apple needs to stop being a jerk corporation and let people choose how to run the stuff they buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.. there's always going to be dumb users.
There are dumb car drivers, there are stupid firearm users.I all for flash dieing a painful death, but Apple needs to stop being a jerk corporation and let people choose how to run the stuff they buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048824</id>
	<title>Re:If Apple Really Cared...</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1265459760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And have the customers complain that its too slow? They wont blame flash, they will blame the device/Apple.</p><p>Its a no-win situation for apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And have the customers complain that its too slow ?
They wont blame flash , they will blame the device/Apple.Its a no-win situation for apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And have the customers complain that its too slow?
They wont blame flash, they will blame the device/Apple.Its a no-win situation for apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048566</id>
	<title>The optimal mobile experience for Apple</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1265457240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple's store. That's it.
<p>
It's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered "non optimal". After all, Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be "confused" by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple 's store .
That 's it .
It 's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered " non optimal " .
After all , Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be " confused " by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple's store.
That's it.
It's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered "non optimal".
After all, Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be "confused" by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049498</id>
	<title>Re:It's a two-part problem</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265466000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.</p></div><p>What CPU architecture do you think Nokia N900 uses?..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's repeat that : there is no ARM version of Flash ; it does not run on any ARM based system.What CPU architecture do you think Nokia N900 uses ? . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.What CPU architecture do you think Nokia N900 uses?..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356</id>
	<title>Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind</title>
	<author>T-Bone-T</author>
	<datestamp>1265455380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash can't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers. Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements. How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash ca n't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers .
Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements .
How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash can't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers.
Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements.
How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055050</id>
	<title>Re:Insanely Great Experiences?</title>
	<author>Confuzzled</author>
	<datestamp>1265539080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me your benchmarks are biased. The HTML5 page loaded instantly and gave me 10fps. The Flash page took about 10 seconds to load, then gave me 20fps.

I think I'd much prefer the first experience (instant gratification) versus the second one. But it seems to me the second one is biased because it's prefetching and loading things into memory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me your benchmarks are biased .
The HTML5 page loaded instantly and gave me 10fps .
The Flash page took about 10 seconds to load , then gave me 20fps .
I think I 'd much prefer the first experience ( instant gratification ) versus the second one .
But it seems to me the second one is biased because it 's prefetching and loading things into memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me your benchmarks are biased.
The HTML5 page loaded instantly and gave me 10fps.
The Flash page took about 10 seconds to load, then gave me 20fps.
I think I'd much prefer the first experience (instant gratification) versus the second one.
But it seems to me the second one is biased because it's prefetching and loading things into memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048702</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference between "taking advantage of multiple cores" and "require a dual core."  It's really telling when someone asks "How old is your dual core?" because a computer from 4 years ago shouldn't even have to struggle for the functionality Flash provides.</p><p>A <i>single</i> core Pentium 4 should be more than enough, yet Flash struggles on a multi-core processor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between " taking advantage of multiple cores " and " require a dual core .
" It 's really telling when someone asks " How old is your dual core ?
" because a computer from 4 years ago should n't even have to struggle for the functionality Flash provides.A single core Pentium 4 should be more than enough , yet Flash struggles on a multi-core processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between "taking advantage of multiple cores" and "require a dual core.
"  It's really telling when someone asks "How old is your dual core?
" because a computer from 4 years ago shouldn't even have to struggle for the functionality Flash provides.A single core Pentium 4 should be more than enough, yet Flash struggles on a multi-core processor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051058</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe Flash will die</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1265534700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the next great gold rush will be some product that takes a Flash site and recodes it in some other language.<br> <br>Look, I know it's an oversimplification but these roadblocks often lead to greater progress after the dust settles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the next great gold rush will be some product that takes a Flash site and recodes it in some other language .
Look , I know it 's an oversimplification but these roadblocks often lead to greater progress after the dust settles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the next great gold rush will be some product that takes a Flash site and recodes it in some other language.
Look, I know it's an oversimplification but these roadblocks often lead to greater progress after the dust settles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048882</id>
	<title>Re:It's a two-part problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265460180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there is no ARM version of Flash. Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.androidguys.com/2010/01/08/flash-for-most-android-devices-in-2010/" title="androidguys.com">False</a> [androidguys.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>However, in the past week we have seen Flash running on the new Nexus One released earlier this week.  Additionally, the Droid has now been shown successfully running Flash as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>Guess which architecture the Nexus One and Droid run on?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no ARM version of Flash .
Let 's repeat that : there is no ARM version of Flash ; it does not run on any ARM based system .
False [ androidguys.com ] : However , in the past week we have seen Flash running on the new Nexus One released earlier this week .
Additionally , the Droid has now been shown successfully running Flash as well.Guess which architecture the Nexus One and Droid run on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no ARM version of Flash.
Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system.
False [androidguys.com]:However, in the past week we have seen Flash running on the new Nexus One released earlier this week.
Additionally, the Droid has now been shown successfully running Flash as well.Guess which architecture the Nexus One and Droid run on?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052290</id>
	<title>Re:If Apple Really Cared...</title>
	<author>605dave</author>
	<datestamp>1265557020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, this is insightful?  Apple is pushing the market towards an open standard, and away from a propreitary one.  And this is because they want control?  Open standards can be as important as open source in my view.  Apple has pushed open standards since the release of OS X, including calendaring, contacts, email, and server services to name a few that come to mind.  In addition, Apple <a href="http://opensource.apple.com/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">has made many contributions</a> [apple.com] to the open source community, far more than most people realize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , this is insightful ?
Apple is pushing the market towards an open standard , and away from a propreitary one .
And this is because they want control ?
Open standards can be as important as open source in my view .
Apple has pushed open standards since the release of OS X , including calendaring , contacts , email , and server services to name a few that come to mind .
In addition , Apple has made many contributions [ apple.com ] to the open source community , far more than most people realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, this is insightful?
Apple is pushing the market towards an open standard, and away from a propreitary one.
And this is because they want control?
Open standards can be as important as open source in my view.
Apple has pushed open standards since the release of OS X, including calendaring, contacts, email, and server services to name a few that come to mind.
In addition, Apple has made many contributions [apple.com] to the open source community, far more than most people realize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048516</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making a Microsoft product a de-facto web standard is madness. Nobody is going to trust Microsoft with Silverlight, after their past track record.</p><p>Sure, right now they'll happily support Macs and Linux and offer complete parity between platforms while they're trying to get a toehold against Flash-- but once that happened, next thing you know some Windows-only improvements would be made, and oops, now you've got to be running Windows for a "premium web experience" on any site that hitches their wagon to Silverlight.</p><p>Fuck that shit. I'm not crazy about Flash, but I'll put up with Adobe before I ever trust Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a Microsoft product a de-facto web standard is madness .
Nobody is going to trust Microsoft with Silverlight , after their past track record.Sure , right now they 'll happily support Macs and Linux and offer complete parity between platforms while they 're trying to get a toehold against Flash-- but once that happened , next thing you know some Windows-only improvements would be made , and oops , now you 've got to be running Windows for a " premium web experience " on any site that hitches their wagon to Silverlight.Fuck that shit .
I 'm not crazy about Flash , but I 'll put up with Adobe before I ever trust Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a Microsoft product a de-facto web standard is madness.
Nobody is going to trust Microsoft with Silverlight, after their past track record.Sure, right now they'll happily support Macs and Linux and offer complete parity between platforms while they're trying to get a toehold against Flash-- but once that happened, next thing you know some Windows-only improvements would be made, and oops, now you've got to be running Windows for a "premium web experience" on any site that hitches their wagon to Silverlight.Fuck that shit.
I'm not crazy about Flash, but I'll put up with Adobe before I ever trust Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048968</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Pius II.</author>
	<datestamp>1265460960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all due respect, that's bullshit. VLC decodes Youtube's streams (saved to disk) at 13\% CPU. Flash takes 90\%. I don't have a graphics chip that could decode H264 in hardware (apart from being programmable thru OpenCL, to which Adobe has all access in the world).
Apple not exposing any APIs (to what?) is a red herring. To me this looks like slowness in the Flash interpreter, a shoddy video codec they implemented, and pure lazyness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect , that 's bullshit .
VLC decodes Youtube 's streams ( saved to disk ) at 13 \ % CPU .
Flash takes 90 \ % .
I do n't have a graphics chip that could decode H264 in hardware ( apart from being programmable thru OpenCL , to which Adobe has all access in the world ) .
Apple not exposing any APIs ( to what ?
) is a red herring .
To me this looks like slowness in the Flash interpreter , a shoddy video codec they implemented , and pure lazyness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect, that's bullshit.
VLC decodes Youtube's streams (saved to disk) at 13\% CPU.
Flash takes 90\%.
I don't have a graphics chip that could decode H264 in hardware (apart from being programmable thru OpenCL, to which Adobe has all access in the world).
Apple not exposing any APIs (to what?
) is a red herring.
To me this looks like slowness in the Flash interpreter, a shoddy video codec they implemented, and pure lazyness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048930</id>
	<title>It's not just Flash, but all virtual machines</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1265460660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved. Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The true reason why Apple wo n't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they wo n't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store : it does n't want software running on these platforms that they have n't specifically approved .
Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved.
Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048684</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>ClaraBow</author>
	<datestamp>1265458500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not hate that drives my comment. I have a 3 year old Macbook Pro with 4GB of memory and 2.2ghz Dual Core processors.  The machine also has a 128MB discreet video card.  So at the very least, I'd expect flash videos to play smoothly and consistently without taxing my processors at 80 to 90 percent!  Even a processor heavy task like encoding video doesn't tax my processors as much as watching  a flash video. To be Fair, Adobe says they are working to make  Flash up to 50 percent faster on the Mac when it releases version 10.2. It seems a bit too little too late as it will take significant improvements on Adobes part to win over Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not hate that drives my comment .
I have a 3 year old Macbook Pro with 4GB of memory and 2.2ghz Dual Core processors .
The machine also has a 128MB discreet video card .
So at the very least , I 'd expect flash videos to play smoothly and consistently without taxing my processors at 80 to 90 percent !
Even a processor heavy task like encoding video does n't tax my processors as much as watching a flash video .
To be Fair , Adobe says they are working to make Flash up to 50 percent faster on the Mac when it releases version 10.2 .
It seems a bit too little too late as it will take significant improvements on Adobes part to win over Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not hate that drives my comment.
I have a 3 year old Macbook Pro with 4GB of memory and 2.2ghz Dual Core processors.
The machine also has a 128MB discreet video card.
So at the very least, I'd expect flash videos to play smoothly and consistently without taxing my processors at 80 to 90 percent!
Even a processor heavy task like encoding video doesn't tax my processors as much as watching  a flash video.
To be Fair, Adobe says they are working to make  Flash up to 50 percent faster on the Mac when it releases version 10.2.
It seems a bit too little too late as it will take significant improvements on Adobes part to win over Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048434</id>
	<title>Corona</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me like the entire article was more geared for promoting the Corona SDK than to explain why Apple chose not to do flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me like the entire article was more geared for promoting the Corona SDK than to explain why Apple chose not to do flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me like the entire article was more geared for promoting the Corona SDK than to explain why Apple chose not to do flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048310</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe Flash will die</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265454960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.</p></div><p>What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced , but not with HTML 5.What about all the browser applications written in flash ?
Will we just not have them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.What about all the browser applications written in flash?
Will we just not have them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055156</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just Flash, but all virtual machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265539500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved. Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.</p></div><p>What about all the web 2.0 apps? They don't control those</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The true reason why Apple wo n't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they wo n't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store : it does n't want software running on these platforms that they have n't specifically approved .
Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.What about all the web 2.0 apps ?
They do n't control those</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved.
Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.What about all the web 2.0 apps?
They don't control those
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048506</id>
	<title>What depends on hover?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265456640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Touch screens support every mouse action except hover. Any action that does not depend on hover can be simulated by always moving the mouse under the touch location. What actions are you talking about that depend on hover?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Touch screens support every mouse action except hover .
Any action that does not depend on hover can be simulated by always moving the mouse under the touch location .
What actions are you talking about that depend on hover ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Touch screens support every mouse action except hover.
Any action that does not depend on hover can be simulated by always moving the mouse under the touch location.
What actions are you talking about that depend on hover?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049140</id>
	<title>Re:Its the video codec, not the delivery system...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265462220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I expect this to end up in exact same way as MP3 playback on Linux: distros won't ship it by default, but it'll be one click away to install, with a warning label "this is illegal to install in U.S. unless you've paid the license fee" - which practically all users will ignore and install anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect this to end up in exact same way as MP3 playback on Linux : distros wo n't ship it by default , but it 'll be one click away to install , with a warning label " this is illegal to install in U.S. unless you 've paid the license fee " - which practically all users will ignore and install anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect this to end up in exact same way as MP3 playback on Linux: distros won't ship it by default, but it'll be one click away to install, with a warning label "this is illegal to install in U.S. unless you've paid the license fee" - which practically all users will ignore and install anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050690</id>
	<title>Re:Flash gfx rendering abt 2 be faster on Mac than</title>
	<author>Mr. Arbusto</author>
	<datestamp>1265482140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all fine and dandy but all of the Safari crashs I've had in the past 2 years have been flash plug in related.</p><p>Secondly, watching a YouTube video at 480p on my 2.5GHz Core2 Duo takes ~35\% of the CPU time available.  Watching the same video using the HTML5 version, ~3\% of the CPU time available.  Even if they did drop it down to 16\%, that is still a lot to make vertical mobile Hardware/Software vendors cringe at the power consumption.</p><p>Flash is cool because it has a large enough install base at this point you can say it is a compatible way to display rich media in a web page that displays on 99\% of the computers in the US.  I can't think of any other good things about flash, even if they fix the horrible CPU usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all fine and dandy but all of the Safari crashs I 've had in the past 2 years have been flash plug in related.Secondly , watching a YouTube video at 480p on my 2.5GHz Core2 Duo takes ~ 35 \ % of the CPU time available .
Watching the same video using the HTML5 version , ~ 3 \ % of the CPU time available .
Even if they did drop it down to 16 \ % , that is still a lot to make vertical mobile Hardware/Software vendors cringe at the power consumption.Flash is cool because it has a large enough install base at this point you can say it is a compatible way to display rich media in a web page that displays on 99 \ % of the computers in the US .
I ca n't think of any other good things about flash , even if they fix the horrible CPU usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all fine and dandy but all of the Safari crashs I've had in the past 2 years have been flash plug in related.Secondly, watching a YouTube video at 480p on my 2.5GHz Core2 Duo takes ~35\% of the CPU time available.
Watching the same video using the HTML5 version, ~3\% of the CPU time available.
Even if they did drop it down to 16\%, that is still a lot to make vertical mobile Hardware/Software vendors cringe at the power consumption.Flash is cool because it has a large enough install base at this point you can say it is a compatible way to display rich media in a web page that displays on 99\% of the computers in the US.
I can't think of any other good things about flash, even if they fix the horrible CPU usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048604</id>
	<title>Lua</title>
	<author>sohp</author>
	<datestamp>1265457780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Lua, hmm. Maybe all those hours I spent writing addons for World of Warcraft weren't entirely wasted. Just mostly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Lua , hmm .
Maybe all those hours I spent writing addons for World of Warcraft were n't entirely wasted .
Just mostly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Lua, hmm.
Maybe all those hours I spent writing addons for World of Warcraft weren't entirely wasted.
Just mostly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240</id>
	<title>Adobe Flash will die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe Flash will die rather sooner than later and it won't be missed. Now if only all browser vendors could agree on a video codec for HTML5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe Flash will die rather sooner than later and it wo n't be missed .
Now if only all browser vendors could agree on a video codec for HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe Flash will die rather sooner than later and it won't be missed.
Now if only all browser vendors could agree on a video codec for HTML5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048900</id>
	<title>Flash gfx rendering abt 2 be faster on Mac than PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265460360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to Adobe's Chief Technology Officer, Kevin Lynch, <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2010/02/open\_access\_to\_content\_and\_app.html#comment-2137153" title="adobe.com">Flash's graphics rendering is about to become even faster on Mac than on PC</a> [adobe.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>Now regarding performance, given identical hardware, Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac, and it is for the most part the same code running in Flash for each operating system. We have and continue to invest significant effort to make Mac OS optimizations to close this gap, and Apple has been helpful in working with us on this. Vector graphics rendering in Flash Player 10 now runs almost exactly the same in terms of CPU usage across Mac and Windows, which is due to this work. <b>In Flash Player 10.1 we are moving to CoreAnimation, which will further reduce CPU usage and we believe will get us to the point where Mac will be faster than Windows for graphics rendering.</b> <br> <br>

Video rendering is an area we are focusing more attention on -- for example, today a 480p video on a 1.8 Ghz Mac Mini in Safari uses about 34\% of CPU on Mac versus 16\% on Windows (running in BootCamp on same hardware). With Flash Player 10.1, we are optimizing video rendering further on the Mac and expect to reduce CPU usage by half, bringing Mac and Windows closer to parity for video.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Adobe 's Chief Technology Officer , Kevin Lynch , Flash 's graphics rendering is about to become even faster on Mac than on PC [ adobe.com ] : Now regarding performance , given identical hardware , Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac , and it is for the most part the same code running in Flash for each operating system .
We have and continue to invest significant effort to make Mac OS optimizations to close this gap , and Apple has been helpful in working with us on this .
Vector graphics rendering in Flash Player 10 now runs almost exactly the same in terms of CPU usage across Mac and Windows , which is due to this work .
In Flash Player 10.1 we are moving to CoreAnimation , which will further reduce CPU usage and we believe will get us to the point where Mac will be faster than Windows for graphics rendering .
Video rendering is an area we are focusing more attention on -- for example , today a 480p video on a 1.8 Ghz Mac Mini in Safari uses about 34 \ % of CPU on Mac versus 16 \ % on Windows ( running in BootCamp on same hardware ) .
With Flash Player 10.1 , we are optimizing video rendering further on the Mac and expect to reduce CPU usage by half , bringing Mac and Windows closer to parity for video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Adobe's Chief Technology Officer, Kevin Lynch, Flash's graphics rendering is about to become even faster on Mac than on PC [adobe.com]:Now regarding performance, given identical hardware, Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac, and it is for the most part the same code running in Flash for each operating system.
We have and continue to invest significant effort to make Mac OS optimizations to close this gap, and Apple has been helpful in working with us on this.
Vector graphics rendering in Flash Player 10 now runs almost exactly the same in terms of CPU usage across Mac and Windows, which is due to this work.
In Flash Player 10.1 we are moving to CoreAnimation, which will further reduce CPU usage and we believe will get us to the point where Mac will be faster than Windows for graphics rendering.
Video rendering is an area we are focusing more attention on -- for example, today a 480p video on a 1.8 Ghz Mac Mini in Safari uses about 34\% of CPU on Mac versus 16\% on Windows (running in BootCamp on same hardware).
With Flash Player 10.1, we are optimizing video rendering further on the Mac and expect to reduce CPU usage by half, bringing Mac and Windows closer to parity for video.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454</id>
	<title>Insanely Great Experiences?</title>
	<author>seanalltogether</author>
	<datestamp>1265456220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences" Nothing really creates insanely great mobile experiences, mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform. Most of our clients looking for iphone apps are trying to scale down the full experience to a limited set of core functionality that supports a sometimes connected, highly relevant, supplement to the richer web desktop/laptop experiences.

As much as people want to say that HTML5 richness can keep up with Flash, I've already tried to start some benchmarks to see where the performance gaps are.

<a href="http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/HTML5ChartingTest.html" title="craftymind.com" rel="nofollow">http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/HTML5ChartingTest.html</a> [craftymind.com]
<a href="http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/FlashChartingTest.html" title="craftymind.com" rel="nofollow">http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/FlashChartingTest.html</a> [craftymind.com]

To give some perspective, the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Flash has its strengths , but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences " Nothing really creates insanely great mobile experiences , mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform .
Most of our clients looking for iphone apps are trying to scale down the full experience to a limited set of core functionality that supports a sometimes connected , highly relevant , supplement to the richer web desktop/laptop experiences .
As much as people want to say that HTML5 richness can keep up with Flash , I 've already tried to start some benchmarks to see where the performance gaps are .
http : //craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/HTML5ChartingTest.html [ craftymind.com ] http : //craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/FlashChartingTest.html [ craftymind.com ] To give some perspective , the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences" Nothing really creates insanely great mobile experiences, mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform.
Most of our clients looking for iphone apps are trying to scale down the full experience to a limited set of core functionality that supports a sometimes connected, highly relevant, supplement to the richer web desktop/laptop experiences.
As much as people want to say that HTML5 richness can keep up with Flash, I've already tried to start some benchmarks to see where the performance gaps are.
http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/HTML5ChartingTest.html [craftymind.com]
http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/FlashChartingTest.html [craftymind.com]

To give some perspective, the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</id>
	<title>Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right.</title>
	<author>ClaraBow</author>
	<datestamp>1265454960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There isn't any reason why Flash should require a dual core processor just to barely run on the Mac.  I use both Macs and PCs and the performance on the Mac side is horrible.  Surely a company as large and as resource  rich as adobe could have figured out how to program a flash plugin that is quick and lightweight.  Is there something that I'm missing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't any reason why Flash should require a dual core processor just to barely run on the Mac .
I use both Macs and PCs and the performance on the Mac side is horrible .
Surely a company as large and as resource rich as adobe could have figured out how to program a flash plugin that is quick and lightweight .
Is there something that I 'm missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't any reason why Flash should require a dual core processor just to barely run on the Mac.
I use both Macs and PCs and the performance on the Mac side is horrible.
Surely a company as large and as resource  rich as adobe could have figured out how to program a flash plugin that is quick and lightweight.
Is there something that I'm missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048466</id>
	<title>Shameless plug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post has nothing to do with Apple, Adobe, Flash or iPhone. It is just a shameless plug for the author promoting an SDK that is nowhere near being usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post has nothing to do with Apple , Adobe , Flash or iPhone .
It is just a shameless plug for the author promoting an SDK that is nowhere near being usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post has nothing to do with Apple, Adobe, Flash or iPhone.
It is just a shameless plug for the author promoting an SDK that is nowhere near being usable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050900</id>
	<title>Re:Insanely Great Experiences?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265573340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To give some perspective, the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps.</p></div><p>Yeah, but I bet the iPhone renders the Flash test... not at all.
</p><p>Look, HTML5 is new, and it may be that the standard will need to be improved some more and Apple's implementation needs to be optimized.  For now, developers targeting these mobile devices should probably write native programs for best performance.  However, I for one am kind of glad Apple is throwing their weight behind a standard rather than some proprietary plugin that, in spite of being around for 15 years, hasn't been shown to have more than limited use, runs like crap, and crashes constantly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To give some perspective , the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps.Yeah , but I bet the iPhone renders the Flash test... not at all .
Look , HTML5 is new , and it may be that the standard will need to be improved some more and Apple 's implementation needs to be optimized .
For now , developers targeting these mobile devices should probably write native programs for best performance .
However , I for one am kind of glad Apple is throwing their weight behind a standard rather than some proprietary plugin that , in spite of being around for 15 years , has n't been shown to have more than limited use , runs like crap , and crashes constantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give some perspective, the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps.Yeah, but I bet the iPhone renders the Flash test... not at all.
Look, HTML5 is new, and it may be that the standard will need to be improved some more and Apple's implementation needs to be optimized.
For now, developers targeting these mobile devices should probably write native programs for best performance.
However, I for one am kind of glad Apple is throwing their weight behind a standard rather than some proprietary plugin that, in spite of being around for 15 years, hasn't been shown to have more than limited use, runs like crap, and crashes constantly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31054004</id>
	<title>Re:Because that's how Apple works</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265574360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They don't offer what I want, and don't offer the ability to become what I want.</p></div><p>And they change their minds.  At one time they offered something I wanted.  Then they decided it was passe and nobody wanted it.</p><p>Apparently, "nobody" is the same as "not everybody".  I cannot support any company that thinks that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't offer what I want , and do n't offer the ability to become what I want.And they change their minds .
At one time they offered something I wanted .
Then they decided it was passe and nobody wanted it.Apparently , " nobody " is the same as " not everybody " .
I can not support any company that thinks that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't offer what I want, and don't offer the ability to become what I want.And they change their minds.
At one time they offered something I wanted.
Then they decided it was passe and nobody wanted it.Apparently, "nobody" is the same as "not everybody".
I cannot support any company that thinks that way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048758</id>
	<title>Its the video codec, not the delivery system...</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1265459040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.</p></div><p>For general "rich internet application" stuff, moving from proprietary Flash to standards-based HTML5 (+DOM/SVG/ECMAScript) should be good news for open source. The problem is not HTML 5 <i>per se</i> but that the only video codec that seems to be gaining widespread support in HTML 5 is the patent-encumbered H.264.

</p><p>Newer versions of Flash look like shifting H.264 as the codec for video anyway (albeit with different packaging), so Flash vs. HTML5 is a non-issue on the video front.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced , but not with HTML 5.For general " rich internet application " stuff , moving from proprietary Flash to standards-based HTML5 ( + DOM/SVG/ECMAScript ) should be good news for open source .
The problem is not HTML 5 per se but that the only video codec that seems to be gaining widespread support in HTML 5 is the patent-encumbered H.264 .
Newer versions of Flash look like shifting H.264 as the codec for video anyway ( albeit with different packaging ) , so Flash vs. HTML5 is a non-issue on the video front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.For general "rich internet application" stuff, moving from proprietary Flash to standards-based HTML5 (+DOM/SVG/ECMAScript) should be good news for open source.
The problem is not HTML 5 per se but that the only video codec that seems to be gaining widespread support in HTML 5 is the patent-encumbered H.264.
Newer versions of Flash look like shifting H.264 as the codec for video anyway (albeit with different packaging), so Flash vs. HTML5 is a non-issue on the video front.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051582</id>
	<title>Re:Because that's how Apple works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on Apple's stock price, that seems to be an approach that's working for you and for them. So everyone's happy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on Apple 's stock price , that seems to be an approach that 's working for you and for them .
So everyone 's happy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on Apple's stock price, that seems to be an approach that's working for you and for them.
So everyone's happy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048734</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are talking about video, we know why it is slow.. because Apple will not let them use hardware acceleration. That level of GPU access is limited to the OS and QuickTime. Apple feels that only Quick Time should be used for video and they are enforcing it in the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are talking about video , we know why it is slow.. because Apple will not let them use hardware acceleration .
That level of GPU access is limited to the OS and QuickTime .
Apple feels that only Quick Time should be used for video and they are enforcing it in the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are talking about video, we know why it is slow.. because Apple will not let them use hardware acceleration.
That level of GPU access is limited to the OS and QuickTime.
Apple feels that only Quick Time should be used for video and they are enforcing it in the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048456</id>
	<title>BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>" Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience."<br><br>I say bullshit. Flash is very optimal on my Nokia n900, and a whole range of other smartphones that support it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Flash did n't provide the optimal mobile user experience .
" I say bullshit .
Flash is very optimal on my Nokia n900 , and a whole range of other smartphones that support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience.
"I say bullshit.
Flash is very optimal on my Nokia n900, and a whole range of other smartphones that support it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31069780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31106190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31063998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31053164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31064508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31069792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31054004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1955253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31069792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31063998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31054004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31053164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048900
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050860
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048968
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31064508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31106190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31069780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31050900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31052704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31055046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1955253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31049064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048310
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31051058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1955253.31048446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
