<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_1945219</id>
	<title>20 Years of Photoshop</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266393660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>benwiggy writes <i>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoshop">Photoshop</a> turned 20 on 10th February 2010. Here's <a href="http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/02/20-years-of-adobe-photoshop/">an excellent history</a>, including how the Knoll family created one of the biggest apps of all time. The article also has screenshots of the workspace through the versions."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>benwiggy writes " Photoshop turned 20 on 10th February 2010 .
Here 's an excellent history , including how the Knoll family created one of the biggest apps of all time .
The article also has screenshots of the workspace through the versions .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>benwiggy writes "Photoshop turned 20 on 10th February 2010.
Here's an excellent history, including how the Knoll family created one of the biggest apps of all time.
The article also has screenshots of the workspace through the versions.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180698</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm starting to think xkcd is just an index for Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think xkcd is just an index for Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think xkcd is just an index for Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175240</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265016360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A verb? It&rsquo;s worse. What I&rsquo;ve seen:</p><p>Photoshop -&gt; to photoshop / photoshopped -&gt; to &rsquo;shop / shopped -&gt; to shoop -&gt; and then there is this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2yjhHdDjYo" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2yjhHdDjYo</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A verb ?
It    s worse .
What I    ve seen : Photoshop - &gt; to photoshop / photoshopped - &gt; to    shop / shopped - &gt; to shoop - &gt; and then there is this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = l2yjhHdDjYo [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A verb?
It’s worse.
What I’ve seen:Photoshop -&gt; to photoshop / photoshopped -&gt; to ’shop / shopped -&gt; to shoop -&gt; and then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2yjhHdDjYo [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174906</id>
	<title>Photoshop anniversary contest suggestion</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1265015220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photoshopping photos over 20 years old to show people using Photoshop.  Then claim they are legit.  "Photoshop is over 20 years old, you can clearly see here they were using it during the Civil War!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshopping photos over 20 years old to show people using Photoshop .
Then claim they are legit .
" Photoshop is over 20 years old , you can clearly see here they were using it during the Civil War !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshopping photos over 20 years old to show people using Photoshop.
Then claim they are legit.
"Photoshop is over 20 years old, you can clearly see here they were using it during the Civil War!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31182138</id>
	<title>Re:Or should we say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266492120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually lens flare was a new feature in Photoshop 4.0, along with layers. So, what, 12 years?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually lens flare was a new feature in Photoshop 4.0 , along with layers .
So , what , 12 years ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually lens flare was a new feature in Photoshop 4.0, along with layers.
So, what, 12 years?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179134</id>
	<title>Re:Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1265035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the reasons Photoshop is so good for output to print media is that Adobe works with manufacturers of output devices and inks (from cheap inkjets through to million dollar printing presses) to make sure that Photoshop has accurate color mapping tables. That way when you print your magazine or whatever, it will look correct on the output device you are using.</p><p>GIMP doesn't have that (or if it does, it most likely doesn't have the vast array of device support Photoshop has)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons Photoshop is so good for output to print media is that Adobe works with manufacturers of output devices and inks ( from cheap inkjets through to million dollar printing presses ) to make sure that Photoshop has accurate color mapping tables .
That way when you print your magazine or whatever , it will look correct on the output device you are using.GIMP does n't have that ( or if it does , it most likely does n't have the vast array of device support Photoshop has )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons Photoshop is so good for output to print media is that Adobe works with manufacturers of output devices and inks (from cheap inkjets through to million dollar printing presses) to make sure that Photoshop has accurate color mapping tables.
That way when you print your magazine or whatever, it will look correct on the output device you are using.GIMP doesn't have that (or if it does, it most likely doesn't have the vast array of device support Photoshop has)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</id>
	<title>Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1265017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Photoshop instructor here. It's a great app, but really is overkill for most needs. I actually used GIMP to design my Photoshop class websites, since I like some of the GTK conveniences better than Photoshop's relatively primitive widget set (can't hover over a spinner and use the scroll wheel alone to change the value, being one example).<br> <br>Of course, I don't really advertise GIMP in my classes, but I do give extra credit to students who are willing to give it a try and write a review (they can also choose to try other software, like Aviary).<br> <br>Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes, expensive third-party plugins, weird bugs, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop instructor here .
It 's a great app , but really is overkill for most needs .
I actually used GIMP to design my Photoshop class websites , since I like some of the GTK conveniences better than Photoshop 's relatively primitive widget set ( ca n't hover over a spinner and use the scroll wheel alone to change the value , being one example ) .
Of course , I do n't really advertise GIMP in my classes , but I do give extra credit to students who are willing to give it a try and write a review ( they can also choose to try other software , like Aviary ) .
Anyway , it 's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop , but it 's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software , and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes , expensive third-party plugins , weird bugs , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop instructor here.
It's a great app, but really is overkill for most needs.
I actually used GIMP to design my Photoshop class websites, since I like some of the GTK conveniences better than Photoshop's relatively primitive widget set (can't hover over a spinner and use the scroll wheel alone to change the value, being one example).
Of course, I don't really advertise GIMP in my classes, but I do give extra credit to students who are willing to give it a try and write a review (they can also choose to try other software, like Aviary).
Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes, expensive third-party plugins, weird bugs, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181080</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>zanderredux</author>
	<datestamp>1266524400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>have a try with Lightroom. It provides all the ease of use of, say, Picasa, with all the quality of Photoshop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>have a try with Lightroom .
It provides all the ease of use of , say , Picasa , with all the quality of Photoshop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have a try with Lightroom.
It provides all the ease of use of, say, Picasa, with all the quality of Photoshop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175538</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>kaizendojo</author>
	<datestamp>1265017260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IrfanView does all that you list (and few other useful things) and is free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IrfanView does all that you list ( and few other useful things ) and is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IrfanView does all that you list (and few other useful things) and is free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</id>
	<title>May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>rduke15</author>
	<datestamp>1265016480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses. In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.</p><p>While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:</p><p>- Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg)<br>- Resize<br>- Crop<br>- Print<br>- Convert to another format (Save as)<br>- Adjust brightness, contrast, white balance</p><p>Then maybe<br>- Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags)<br>- rarely convert a color scan to black and white.<br>- and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.</p><p>Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.</p><p>For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)</p><p>But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months. The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like). Is there a gem I missed somewhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being a graphics designer , I never liked Photoshop which was too slow , bloated and complicated ( and expensive ) for my simple uses .
In my Windows days , I first found Paint Shop Pro ( of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere ) , and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView , + occasionally PhotoFiltre.While I 'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals , let 's try a list of things normal users ( like myself ) mainly need in a graphics program : - Rotate ( losslessly for Jpeg ) - Resize- Crop- Print- Convert to another format ( Save as ) - Adjust brightness , contrast , white balanceThen maybe- Edit metadata ( Jpeg comments , Exif description , maybe IPTC tags ) - rarely convert a color scan to black and white.- and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.Obviously , Photoshop is really too much for this.For Windows users , I know what to recommend ( usually XnView ; + PhotoFiltre if needed ) But I still do n't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months .
The Gimp feels just like Photoshop : too heavy and complicated ( though the price is fine ) , and all the others I tried too limited ( gThumb and the like ) .
Is there a gem I missed somewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses.
In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:- Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg)- Resize- Crop- Print- Convert to another format (Save as)- Adjust brightness, contrast, white balanceThen maybe- Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags)- rarely convert a color scan to black and white.- and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months.
The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like).
Is there a gem I missed somewhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177236</id>
	<title>Every Web Designer?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1265023740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Photoshop has been a part of every web designer's life since they picked up their first mouse.</p></div><p>Say what? Why does a web designer even need a high-end graphics editor? Unless, of course, he's running an art web site. Or he's one of those really inept designers who doesn't understand the difference between print design and web design.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop has been a part of every web designer 's life since they picked up their first mouse.Say what ?
Why does a web designer even need a high-end graphics editor ?
Unless , of course , he 's running an art web site .
Or he 's one of those really inept designers who does n't understand the difference between print design and web design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop has been a part of every web designer's life since they picked up their first mouse.Say what?
Why does a web designer even need a high-end graphics editor?
Unless, of course, he's running an art web site.
Or he's one of those really inept designers who doesn't understand the difference between print design and web design.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175544</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>director\_mr</author>
	<datestamp>1265017320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure what is a good alternative that does all that you mention on linux or apple computers, but irfanview does everything you mention and more and it is free.  Check out www.irfanview.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure what is a good alternative that does all that you mention on linux or apple computers , but irfanview does everything you mention and more and it is free .
Check out www.irfanview.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure what is a good alternative that does all that you mention on linux or apple computers, but irfanview does everything you mention and more and it is free.
Check out www.irfanview.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178160</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265027640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes, expensive third-party plugins, weird bugs, etc.</p></div><p>It's also surprising how little the UI has changed over 20 years.  If you look at the screenshots going all the way back, you don't see a whole lot of change.  I guess you could argue either way: either the UI is stagnant, or it was so well designed in the first place that it didn't need to change.
</p><p>As far as "tons of crashes", I'm not with you on that one.  I haven't really upgraded to CS4 and I don't use any 3rd party plugins, but Photoshop is pretty solid to me.  I don't see lots of weird bugs either.  Expensive third-party plugins?  I don't see how that's really Adobe's fault unless they're somehow setting the price through deals that I'm not aware of.
</p><p>What I find a little more annoying is the feeling of being on the upgrade treadmill.  Here's my petty little rant (don't read it if you don't want to read a petty little rant): I had a copy of CS2 for OSX, but felt a little railroaded into CS3 because I had to upgrade to get Intel support.  Meh, that's understandable, but kind of annoying.  Now Snow Leopard comes out, and they say they won't really support CS3 on Snow Leopard.  Ok, that's annoying, but not a big deal-- CS3 still works.  But I go to reinstall CS3 recently, and it's kind of annoying-- they dropped CS3 trialware completely off their website.  You can upgrade directly from the trial to the full version using a credit card, I hadn't kept an electronic copy around.  I finally get it installed, and Adobe's Updater won't work.  The Updater needs to be updated first, and it won't work well enough to update itself.  You can download the Updater from their website, but they try to push you to use the CS4 Updater.  The CS4 Updater won't update CS3 software.  So it basically takes me a day and a half of hunting around online before I find an update to the old CS3 Updater online.  I install it, and it updates Adobe Acrobat from 8.1 and stops.  I run the Updater again, and it upgrades to Acrobat 8.1.2 and stops.  Run it again, 8.1.3.  Then 8.1.4.  It keeps going like this until I hit... I don't know... 8.2.1 or whatever the most recent version is.  I'm sitting there thinking, "I paid something like $1,500 for this, and they can't make this all easier?"  Then I realize, "No, they don't want to make it easier.  They want me to get frustrated and just buy the upgrade to CS4."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , it 's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop , but it 's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software , and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes , expensive third-party plugins , weird bugs , etc.It 's also surprising how little the UI has changed over 20 years .
If you look at the screenshots going all the way back , you do n't see a whole lot of change .
I guess you could argue either way : either the UI is stagnant , or it was so well designed in the first place that it did n't need to change .
As far as " tons of crashes " , I 'm not with you on that one .
I have n't really upgraded to CS4 and I do n't use any 3rd party plugins , but Photoshop is pretty solid to me .
I do n't see lots of weird bugs either .
Expensive third-party plugins ?
I do n't see how that 's really Adobe 's fault unless they 're somehow setting the price through deals that I 'm not aware of .
What I find a little more annoying is the feeling of being on the upgrade treadmill .
Here 's my petty little rant ( do n't read it if you do n't want to read a petty little rant ) : I had a copy of CS2 for OSX , but felt a little railroaded into CS3 because I had to upgrade to get Intel support .
Meh , that 's understandable , but kind of annoying .
Now Snow Leopard comes out , and they say they wo n't really support CS3 on Snow Leopard .
Ok , that 's annoying , but not a big deal-- CS3 still works .
But I go to reinstall CS3 recently , and it 's kind of annoying-- they dropped CS3 trialware completely off their website .
You can upgrade directly from the trial to the full version using a credit card , I had n't kept an electronic copy around .
I finally get it installed , and Adobe 's Updater wo n't work .
The Updater needs to be updated first , and it wo n't work well enough to update itself .
You can download the Updater from their website , but they try to push you to use the CS4 Updater .
The CS4 Updater wo n't update CS3 software .
So it basically takes me a day and a half of hunting around online before I find an update to the old CS3 Updater online .
I install it , and it updates Adobe Acrobat from 8.1 and stops .
I run the Updater again , and it upgrades to Acrobat 8.1.2 and stops .
Run it again , 8.1.3 .
Then 8.1.4 .
It keeps going like this until I hit... I do n't know... 8.2.1 or whatever the most recent version is .
I 'm sitting there thinking , " I paid something like $ 1,500 for this , and they ca n't make this all easier ?
" Then I realize , " No , they do n't want to make it easier .
They want me to get frustrated and just buy the upgrade to CS4 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes, expensive third-party plugins, weird bugs, etc.It's also surprising how little the UI has changed over 20 years.
If you look at the screenshots going all the way back, you don't see a whole lot of change.
I guess you could argue either way: either the UI is stagnant, or it was so well designed in the first place that it didn't need to change.
As far as "tons of crashes", I'm not with you on that one.
I haven't really upgraded to CS4 and I don't use any 3rd party plugins, but Photoshop is pretty solid to me.
I don't see lots of weird bugs either.
Expensive third-party plugins?
I don't see how that's really Adobe's fault unless they're somehow setting the price through deals that I'm not aware of.
What I find a little more annoying is the feeling of being on the upgrade treadmill.
Here's my petty little rant (don't read it if you don't want to read a petty little rant): I had a copy of CS2 for OSX, but felt a little railroaded into CS3 because I had to upgrade to get Intel support.
Meh, that's understandable, but kind of annoying.
Now Snow Leopard comes out, and they say they won't really support CS3 on Snow Leopard.
Ok, that's annoying, but not a big deal-- CS3 still works.
But I go to reinstall CS3 recently, and it's kind of annoying-- they dropped CS3 trialware completely off their website.
You can upgrade directly from the trial to the full version using a credit card, I hadn't kept an electronic copy around.
I finally get it installed, and Adobe's Updater won't work.
The Updater needs to be updated first, and it won't work well enough to update itself.
You can download the Updater from their website, but they try to push you to use the CS4 Updater.
The CS4 Updater won't update CS3 software.
So it basically takes me a day and a half of hunting around online before I find an update to the old CS3 Updater online.
I install it, and it updates Adobe Acrobat from 8.1 and stops.
I run the Updater again, and it upgrades to Acrobat 8.1.2 and stops.
Run it again, 8.1.3.
Then 8.1.4.
It keeps going like this until I hit... I don't know... 8.2.1 or whatever the most recent version is.
I'm sitting there thinking, "I paid something like $1,500 for this, and they can't make this all easier?
"  Then I realize, "No, they don't want to make it easier.
They want me to get frustrated and just buy the upgrade to CS4.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180642</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually,</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1265049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title was "you suck at photoshop" but I gotta say that I think they did a terrific job there hiding the truck with the dud missile.  No trace of the original truck was visible, and they faded the trail and whatnot so that unless you were looking at the shape of the billowy dust cloud, you could easily have taken it to be a picture of four successful launches instead of the 75\% (or less.  we wouldn't be able to tell if it was cropped) of four launches.</p><p>They're certainly <em>much</em> better photoshop artists than whoever <a href="http://www.zombietime.com/reuters\_photo\_fraud/" title="zombietime.com">reuters</a> [zombietime.com] got workin' for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title was " you suck at photoshop " but I got ta say that I think they did a terrific job there hiding the truck with the dud missile .
No trace of the original truck was visible , and they faded the trail and whatnot so that unless you were looking at the shape of the billowy dust cloud , you could easily have taken it to be a picture of four successful launches instead of the 75 \ % ( or less .
we would n't be able to tell if it was cropped ) of four launches.They 're certainly much better photoshop artists than whoever reuters [ zombietime.com ] got workin ' for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title was "you suck at photoshop" but I gotta say that I think they did a terrific job there hiding the truck with the dud missile.
No trace of the original truck was visible, and they faded the trail and whatnot so that unless you were looking at the shape of the billowy dust cloud, you could easily have taken it to be a picture of four successful launches instead of the 75\% (or less.
we wouldn't be able to tell if it was cropped) of four launches.They're certainly much better photoshop artists than whoever reuters [zombietime.com] got workin' for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175802</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1265018100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, I really don't get why Adobe does not finance Wine support for its products. Shouldn't be too expensive. The advantage of Linux is that it runs on super-computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , I really do n't get why Adobe does not finance Wine support for its products .
Should n't be too expensive .
The advantage of Linux is that it runs on super-computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, I really don't get why Adobe does not finance Wine support for its products.
Shouldn't be too expensive.
The advantage of Linux is that it runs on super-computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176422</id>
	<title>Re:Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1265020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GIMP is going nowhere? They are switching the graphics engine to support bigger color spaces and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/02/hands-on-new-single-window-mode-makes-gimp-less-gimpy.ars?utm\_source=rss&amp;utm\_medium=rss&amp;utm\_campaign=rss" title="arstechnica.com">finally shutting up the massive amounts of people complaining about the multi-window interface</a> [arstechnica.com] (unfortunately since most of them had no intention to use GIMP in the first place they'll just jump on some other minor "problem").</htmltext>
<tokenext>GIMP is going nowhere ?
They are switching the graphics engine to support bigger color spaces and finally shutting up the massive amounts of people complaining about the multi-window interface [ arstechnica.com ] ( unfortunately since most of them had no intention to use GIMP in the first place they 'll just jump on some other minor " problem " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GIMP is going nowhere?
They are switching the graphics engine to support bigger color spaces and finally shutting up the massive amounts of people complaining about the multi-window interface [arstechnica.com] (unfortunately since most of them had no intention to use GIMP in the first place they'll just jump on some other minor "problem").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178976</id>
	<title>Maybe for SVG...</title>
	<author>rHBa</author>
	<datestamp>1265033520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(X)HTML doesn't handle vector graphics so surely you only need your web graphics in a vector format if you plan to use SVG?<br>
<br>
I'm very happy doing front end development from a PSD if it's been made by a GOOD web designer, i.e:<ul>
<li>Designed in a way that can be easily scaled</li><li>Well organised layers</li><li>Easily tiled bg images</li><li>Single pixel lines where they want a single pixel line (no aliased borders)</li><li>Consistent use of repeated elements etc...</li></ul><p>
(BTW there are MANY other things that make a good web designer but these are a few that I thought were relevant)<br>
<br>
I'm not a web designer my self but the ones I work with find photoshop more intuitive which means they think less about the software and more about design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( X ) HTML does n't handle vector graphics so surely you only need your web graphics in a vector format if you plan to use SVG ?
I 'm very happy doing front end development from a PSD if it 's been made by a GOOD web designer , i.e : Designed in a way that can be easily scaledWell organised layersEasily tiled bg imagesSingle pixel lines where they want a single pixel line ( no aliased borders ) Consistent use of repeated elements etc.. . ( BTW there are MANY other things that make a good web designer but these are a few that I thought were relevant ) I 'm not a web designer my self but the ones I work with find photoshop more intuitive which means they think less about the software and more about design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(X)HTML doesn't handle vector graphics so surely you only need your web graphics in a vector format if you plan to use SVG?
I'm very happy doing front end development from a PSD if it's been made by a GOOD web designer, i.e:
Designed in a way that can be easily scaledWell organised layersEasily tiled bg imagesSingle pixel lines where they want a single pixel line (no aliased borders)Consistent use of repeated elements etc...
(BTW there are MANY other things that make a good web designer but these are a few that I thought were relevant)

I'm not a web designer my self but the ones I work with find photoshop more intuitive which means they think less about the software and more about design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175934</id>
	<title>Re:Gimp?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1265018520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gimp is not nearly as important in the world of free software as Photoshop is in the proprietary one. 25 years of vi, that's a milestone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gimp is not nearly as important in the world of free software as Photoshop is in the proprietary one .
25 years of vi , that 's a milestone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gimp is not nearly as important in the world of free software as Photoshop is in the proprietary one.
25 years of vi, that's a milestone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177002</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>noewun</author>
	<datestamp>1265022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true. For those of us who make our money in print production, Photoshop is (unfortunately) absolutely necessary and an amazing tool. The program's abilities really are infinitely deep.</p><p>However, for 95\% of the people out there, Photoshop is like driving a Ferrari a mile to get milk: lots of snorting, engine noise and wheelspin but, in the end, a lot of wasted effort.</p><p>This leads to another problem: because I spend all my image editing time in Photoshop, I have no idea what to recommend to people who need to do much simple editing. If you're on OS X I know iPhoto does some basic brightness/contrast/color balance stuff, but that's about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
For those of us who make our money in print production , Photoshop is ( unfortunately ) absolutely necessary and an amazing tool .
The program 's abilities really are infinitely deep.However , for 95 \ % of the people out there , Photoshop is like driving a Ferrari a mile to get milk : lots of snorting , engine noise and wheelspin but , in the end , a lot of wasted effort.This leads to another problem : because I spend all my image editing time in Photoshop , I have no idea what to recommend to people who need to do much simple editing .
If you 're on OS X I know iPhoto does some basic brightness/contrast/color balance stuff , but that 's about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
For those of us who make our money in print production, Photoshop is (unfortunately) absolutely necessary and an amazing tool.
The program's abilities really are infinitely deep.However, for 95\% of the people out there, Photoshop is like driving a Ferrari a mile to get milk: lots of snorting, engine noise and wheelspin but, in the end, a lot of wasted effort.This leads to another problem: because I spend all my image editing time in Photoshop, I have no idea what to recommend to people who need to do much simple editing.
If you're on OS X I know iPhoto does some basic brightness/contrast/color balance stuff, but that's about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176610</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paint.NET</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paint.NET</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paint.NET</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177332</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's the problem? it's a good comic to the tastes of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd, thus it's referenced a lot here. Other things are referenced here all the time (quotes from star trek, dr who, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, a space odyssey, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's the problem ?
it 's a good comic to the tastes of the / .
crowd , thus it 's referenced a lot here .
Other things are referenced here all the time ( quotes from star trek , dr who , the hitchhiker 's guide to the galaxy , a space odyssey , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's the problem?
it's a good comic to the tastes of the /.
crowd, thus it's referenced a lot here.
Other things are referenced here all the time (quotes from star trek, dr who, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, a space odyssey, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176092</id>
	<title>So are the Knoll's fantastically wealthy?</title>
	<author>fprintf</author>
	<datestamp>1265019120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all the "brilliance" that the article refers to in Photoshop that was contributed by the Knoll family, are they fantastically wealthy?  They basically created an industry segment all by themselves, one that is very robust to this day. I would hope they were suitably rewarded, though all of them are working in essentially the same places/jobs that they were 20 years ago!  Do they work for fun or do they need to work for money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the " brilliance " that the article refers to in Photoshop that was contributed by the Knoll family , are they fantastically wealthy ?
They basically created an industry segment all by themselves , one that is very robust to this day .
I would hope they were suitably rewarded , though all of them are working in essentially the same places/jobs that they were 20 years ago !
Do they work for fun or do they need to work for money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the "brilliance" that the article refers to in Photoshop that was contributed by the Knoll family, are they fantastically wealthy?
They basically created an industry segment all by themselves, one that is very robust to this day.
I would hope they were suitably rewarded, though all of them are working in essentially the same places/jobs that they were 20 years ago!
Do they work for fun or do they need to work for money?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177822</id>
	<title>Re: I think...</title>
	<author>Bobfrankly1</author>
	<datestamp>1265025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications.  The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications.  Think Visicalc.  Think Photoshop.  Think MacWrite.  Think Excel.  The iPhone is the same thing.
</p><p>
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.</p></div><p>I think for the same money, I could buy a just about as fast PC, with an extra monitor and a photoshop license. Oh wait, I think I did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications .
The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications .
Think Visicalc .
Think Photoshop .
Think MacWrite .
Think Excel .
The iPhone is the same thing .
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications , but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer , one thinks of a Visicalc , PhotoShop , page layout , etc.I think for the same money , I could buy a just about as fast PC , with an extra monitor and a photoshop license .
Oh wait , I think I did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications.
The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications.
Think Visicalc.
Think Photoshop.
Think MacWrite.
Think Excel.
The iPhone is the same thing.
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.I think for the same money, I could buy a just about as fast PC, with an extra monitor and a photoshop license.
Oh wait, I think I did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176954</id>
	<title>Whoops</title>
	<author>Mr. DOS</author>
	<datestamp>1265022480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who finds it ironic that an article on Photoshop has such low-quality screenshots? Most, if not all of them, are JPEG's, and almost all of them have been badly rescaled down (and a few of them down then up again).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who finds it ironic that an article on Photoshop has such low-quality screenshots ?
Most , if not all of them , are JPEG 's , and almost all of them have been badly rescaled down ( and a few of them down then up again ) .
      --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who finds it ironic that an article on Photoshop has such low-quality screenshots?
Most, if not all of them, are JPEG's, and almost all of them have been badly rescaled down (and a few of them down then up again).
      --- Mr. DOS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181382</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266484260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From dictionary.com...</p><p>photoshop  (v.)</p><p>"to edit an image using a computer program," 1992, originally in ref. to Photoshop, a bitmap graphics editor trademarked and published by Adobe, released in 1990.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From dictionary.com...photoshop ( v. ) " to edit an image using a computer program , " 1992 , originally in ref .
to Photoshop , a bitmap graphics editor trademarked and published by Adobe , released in 1990 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From dictionary.com...photoshop  (v.)"to edit an image using a computer program," 1992, originally in ref.
to Photoshop, a bitmap graphics editor trademarked and published by Adobe, released in 1990.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175246</id>
	<title>Going downhill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photoshop 3.0 was a speed demon on my Pentium-90 with 16mb of ram. Each successive version has gotten slower and slower.  CS3 brings my Core2-Duo two it's knees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop 3.0 was a speed demon on my Pentium-90 with 16mb of ram .
Each successive version has gotten slower and slower .
CS3 brings my Core2-Duo two it 's knees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop 3.0 was a speed demon on my Pentium-90 with 16mb of ram.
Each successive version has gotten slower and slower.
CS3 brings my Core2-Duo two it's knees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177582</id>
	<title>Re:I'm happy for ya</title>
	<author>norminator</author>
	<datestamp>1265025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it was funny, although you did forget the "Ima let you finish", and you probably should have repeated "OF ALL TIME!" just like that at the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was funny , although you did forget the " Ima let you finish " , and you probably should have repeated " OF ALL TIME !
" just like that at the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was funny, although you did forget the "Ima let you finish", and you probably should have repeated "OF ALL TIME!
" just like that at the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179364</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Photoshop is an overpriced pile, but even I wouldn't recommend Gimp to my worst enemies.<br>Do me a favor and kick your own teeth out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Photoshop is an overpriced pile , but even I would n't recommend Gimp to my worst enemies.Do me a favor and kick your own teeth out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Photoshop is an overpriced pile, but even I wouldn't recommend Gimp to my worst enemies.Do me a favor and kick your own teeth out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178146</id>
	<title>xv</title>
	<author>Fzz</author>
	<datestamp>1265027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>xv!  xv is ancient, but it did pretty much all this back in 1994.  "<i>xv 3.10a, Last release 12/29/94</i>" it says on the splash window.  And it still works well after all these years.  Can't say that about many pieces of software.  For simple editing, I still use it, even on my Mac (though you do need a two-button mouse).</htmltext>
<tokenext>xv !
xv is ancient , but it did pretty much all this back in 1994 .
" xv 3.10a , Last release 12/29/94 " it says on the splash window .
And it still works well after all these years .
Ca n't say that about many pieces of software .
For simple editing , I still use it , even on my Mac ( though you do need a two-button mouse ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xv!
xv is ancient, but it did pretty much all this back in 1994.
"xv 3.10a, Last release 12/29/94" it says on the splash window.
And it still works well after all these years.
Can't say that about many pieces of software.
For simple editing, I still use it, even on my Mac (though you do need a two-button mouse).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175494</id>
	<title>20 years of bloatware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe - still the king of bloatware</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe - still the king of bloatware</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe - still the king of bloatware</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179020</id>
	<title>keep going...</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1265033880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First on Mac: Adobe Illustrator, Quark XPress, Aldus PageMaker, Adobe Premiere, AfterEffects, Altsys/Aldus Freehand, etc, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First on Mac : Adobe Illustrator , Quark XPress , Aldus PageMaker , Adobe Premiere , AfterEffects , Altsys/Aldus Freehand , etc , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First on Mac: Adobe Illustrator, Quark XPress, Aldus PageMaker, Adobe Premiere, AfterEffects, Altsys/Aldus Freehand, etc, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175504</id>
	<title>Is it just me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me or has the interface not really changed in all these years. It's added a lot of things and some of the layout stuff has changed but to me it looks like the same old thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or has the interface not really changed in all these years .
It 's added a lot of things and some of the layout stuff has changed but to me it looks like the same old thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or has the interface not really changed in all these years.
It's added a lot of things and some of the layout stuff has changed but to me it looks like the same old thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175966</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I wish the free software alternative wasn't such a GIMP.</p><p>[no offense intended, meant in the Pulp Fiction sense]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I wish the free software alternative was n't such a GIMP .
[ no offense intended , meant in the Pulp Fiction sense ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I wish the free software alternative wasn't such a GIMP.
[no offense intended, meant in the Pulp Fiction sense]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178672</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>AncientPC</author>
	<datestamp>1265030880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photoshop is more for graphic designers rather than photographers.  If you work in RAW look into Adobe Lightroom.</p><p>It's the primary reason preventing me from switching to Linux 100\% of the time (other reason is games).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop is more for graphic designers rather than photographers .
If you work in RAW look into Adobe Lightroom.It 's the primary reason preventing me from switching to Linux 100 \ % of the time ( other reason is games ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop is more for graphic designers rather than photographers.
If you work in RAW look into Adobe Lightroom.It's the primary reason preventing me from switching to Linux 100\% of the time (other reason is games).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1265016900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For this, I use <a href="http://paint.net/" title="paint.net" rel="nofollow">Paint.NET</a> [paint.net] on Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For this , I use Paint.NET [ paint.net ] on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this, I use Paint.NET [paint.net] on Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1265020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm starting to think Slashdot is just an index for xkcd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think Slashdot is just an index for xkcd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think Slashdot is just an index for xkcd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175582</id>
	<title>Re:This must be fake.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178786</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1265031900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>paint.net is GREAT, it handles all the stuff I need natively including transparent PNGs and DirectX DDS texture files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>paint.net is GREAT , it handles all the stuff I need natively including transparent PNGs and DirectX DDS texture files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>paint.net is GREAT, it handles all the stuff I need natively including transparent PNGs and DirectX DDS texture files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31184560</id>
	<title>Re:This must be fake.</title>
	<author>catd77</author>
	<datestamp>1266509220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your username looks photoshopped, there's no way it could have all those numbers and stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your username looks photoshopped , there 's no way it could have all those numbers and stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your username looks photoshopped, there's no way it could have all those numbers and stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175126</id>
	<title>Well, actually,</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1265015880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photoshop is only 10 years old. They photoshopped all the pictures to make it look like 20.</p><p>And also to give themselves <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html" title="boingboing.net">more functional weapons of mass destruction.</a> [boingboing.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop is only 10 years old .
They photoshopped all the pictures to make it look like 20.And also to give themselves more functional weapons of mass destruction .
[ boingboing.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop is only 10 years old.
They photoshopped all the pictures to make it look like 20.And also to give themselves more functional weapons of mass destruction.
[boingboing.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</id>
	<title>So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1265014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kudos photoshop. You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.<br>
That said, spread some lovin' over to the linux side of things. Right now that's the only thing that's keeping me from using linux as my main OS (using win7 right now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kudos photoshop .
You know that you 've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb .
That said , spread some lovin ' over to the linux side of things .
Right now that 's the only thing that 's keeping me from using linux as my main OS ( using win7 right now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kudos photoshop.
You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.
That said, spread some lovin' over to the linux side of things.
Right now that's the only thing that's keeping me from using linux as my main OS (using win7 right now).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177078</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1265023020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me too, the only thing I miss is the airbrush tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too , the only thing I miss is the airbrush tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too, the only thing I miss is the airbrush tool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174922</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Careful what you ask for, you might get it.  CS 4 is enormously bloated, slow, powerful.  Two of those adjectives are not complements.  Besides, if Adobe did it, you would have some measure of the annoying and bug strewn activation code that infests their products.<br> <br>
I'm not sure I would go there....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful what you ask for , you might get it .
CS 4 is enormously bloated , slow , powerful .
Two of those adjectives are not complements .
Besides , if Adobe did it , you would have some measure of the annoying and bug strewn activation code that infests their products .
I 'm not sure I would go there... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful what you ask for, you might get it.
CS 4 is enormously bloated, slow, powerful.
Two of those adjectives are not complements.
Besides, if Adobe did it, you would have some measure of the annoying and bug strewn activation code that infests their products.
I'm not sure I would go there....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179404</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1265037120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, bloated and slow \_are\_ often complementary.</p><p>(Yes, this is essentially a spelling nitpick, but it ended up meaning the opposite of what you meant it to mean.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , bloated and slow \ _are \ _ often complementary .
( Yes , this is essentially a spelling nitpick , but it ended up meaning the opposite of what you meant it to mean .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, bloated and slow \_are\_ often complementary.
(Yes, this is essentially a spelling nitpick, but it ended up meaning the opposite of what you meant it to mean.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31187266</id>
	<title>Tutorials?</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1266520020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there good Photoshop tutorials on the web that walk you from a beginner level to advanced photo manipulation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there good Photoshop tutorials on the web that walk you from a beginner level to advanced photo manipulation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there good Photoshop tutorials on the web that walk you from a beginner level to advanced photo manipulation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175794</id>
	<title>you screwed the Earl</title>
	<author>arielCo</author>
	<datestamp>1265018100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's <a href="http://www.getpaint.net/" title="getpaint.net">www.paint.net</a> [getpaint.net]. Annoying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's www.paint.net [ getpaint.net ] .
Annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's www.paint.net [getpaint.net].
Annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176262</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use digiKam for organizing, rotate, crop, red eye and other basics.  When I want to do detail work or add someone to the family photo, I use GIMP.  My parents are happy with digiKam and find it is perfect for the basics they want to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use digiKam for organizing , rotate , crop , red eye and other basics .
When I want to do detail work or add someone to the family photo , I use GIMP .
My parents are happy with digiKam and find it is perfect for the basics they want to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use digiKam for organizing, rotate, crop, red eye and other basics.
When I want to do detail work or add someone to the family photo, I use GIMP.
My parents are happy with digiKam and find it is perfect for the basics they want to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179172</id>
	<title>Re:But the File Format Sucks. :)</title>
	<author>Jason O'Neil</author>
	<datestamp>1265035320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't agree more.  I was a long time Illustrator user when I had to create some simple vector graphics on a work computer without Illustrator installed, and so downloaded and installed Inkscape.</p><p>I was impressed, so much so that it's my main Vector Graphics editor now.  I have a few moments where I miss Illustrator, but far more moments where I'm impressed with Inkscape.  I don't use it because I'm too cheap to afford Illustrator, or for ideological open source reasons.  I use it because for me, it's the better tool for the job.</p><p>Well worth checking out for anyone who needs to do some vector graphics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more .
I was a long time Illustrator user when I had to create some simple vector graphics on a work computer without Illustrator installed , and so downloaded and installed Inkscape.I was impressed , so much so that it 's my main Vector Graphics editor now .
I have a few moments where I miss Illustrator , but far more moments where I 'm impressed with Inkscape .
I do n't use it because I 'm too cheap to afford Illustrator , or for ideological open source reasons .
I use it because for me , it 's the better tool for the job.Well worth checking out for anyone who needs to do some vector graphics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more.
I was a long time Illustrator user when I had to create some simple vector graphics on a work computer without Illustrator installed, and so downloaded and installed Inkscape.I was impressed, so much so that it's my main Vector Graphics editor now.
I have a few moments where I miss Illustrator, but far more moments where I'm impressed with Inkscape.
I don't use it because I'm too cheap to afford Illustrator, or for ideological open source reasons.
I use it because for me, it's the better tool for the job.Well worth checking out for anyone who needs to do some vector graphics...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175390</id>
	<title>Readable version of page on Google cache</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?strip=1&amp;q=cache:http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/02/20-years-of-adobe-photoshop/" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">Readable text version of article</a> [74.125.47.132] for older browsers or just for quick loading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Readable text version of article [ 74.125.47.132 ] for older browsers or just for quick loading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Readable text version of article [74.125.47.132] for older browsers or just for quick loading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177198</id>
	<title>Still have Photoshop on floppy disks</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still have Photoshop (version 2 I recall) which I tried using sometime ago to buy an upgraded version of PS CS or CS2 but the oldest they went back to at the time was 4 or 5.
<br> <br>
For me though I think Photoshop 6 was the first time I really got into it and to be quite honest it's still one of my favourite versions. PS 7 was awful, imo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still have Photoshop ( version 2 I recall ) which I tried using sometime ago to buy an upgraded version of PS CS or CS2 but the oldest they went back to at the time was 4 or 5 .
For me though I think Photoshop 6 was the first time I really got into it and to be quite honest it 's still one of my favourite versions .
PS 7 was awful , imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still have Photoshop (version 2 I recall) which I tried using sometime ago to buy an upgraded version of PS CS or CS2 but the oldest they went back to at the time was 4 or 5.
For me though I think Photoshop 6 was the first time I really got into it and to be quite honest it's still one of my favourite versions.
PS 7 was awful, imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175880</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265018340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had a lot of luck with <a href="http://krita.org/" title="krita.org">Krita</a> [krita.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had a lot of luck with Krita [ krita.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had a lot of luck with Krita [krita.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180322</id>
	<title>Re:But the File Format Sucks. :)</title>
	<author>zx-15</author>
	<datestamp>1265045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quote from the link above:
<br> <br>
<i>Having worked on this code for several weeks now, my hate for PSD has grown to a raging fire that burns with the fierce passion of a million suns.</i>
<br> <br>
OMG! I didn't know Carl Sagan was a programmer!</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote from the link above : Having worked on this code for several weeks now , my hate for PSD has grown to a raging fire that burns with the fierce passion of a million suns .
OMG ! I did n't know Carl Sagan was a programmer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote from the link above:
 
Having worked on this code for several weeks now, my hate for PSD has grown to a raging fire that burns with the fierce passion of a million suns.
OMG! I didn't know Carl Sagan was a programmer!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31182012</id>
	<title>Re:Gimp vs. PS</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1266490620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About a thousand things, but to me, that would be :</p><p>- integration with a powerful and easy to use RAW processor (Camera Raw or Lightroom)<br>- non-destructive processing with layers styles and adjustment layers<br>- developed, used and tested by many pro photographers and designers for the last 20 years</p><p>GIMP doesn't even come close to PS for my workflow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About a thousand things , but to me , that would be : - integration with a powerful and easy to use RAW processor ( Camera Raw or Lightroom ) - non-destructive processing with layers styles and adjustment layers- developed , used and tested by many pro photographers and designers for the last 20 yearsGIMP does n't even come close to PS for my workflow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About a thousand things, but to me, that would be :- integration with a powerful and easy to use RAW processor (Camera Raw or Lightroom)- non-destructive processing with layers styles and adjustment layers- developed, used and tested by many pro photographers and designers for the last 20 yearsGIMP doesn't even come close to PS for my workflow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180602</id>
	<title>Re:But the File Format Sucks. :)</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1265048940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or <a href="http://www.scribus.net/" title="scribus.net">scribus</a> [scribus.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or scribus [ scribus.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or scribus [scribus.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180264</id>
	<title>20 years of</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1265044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 years of photoshopping photos of ourselves to make ourselves look more attractive!</p><p>I'm not the only one who has done that, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 years of photoshopping photos of ourselves to make ourselves look more attractive ! I 'm not the only one who has done that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 years of photoshopping photos of ourselves to make ourselves look more attractive!I'm not the only one who has done that, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174950</id>
	<title>Nostalgia</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1265015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes I really miss photoshop 5.5.</p><p>7.0 was also pretty good. Things started to go down hill when they switched to the cs moniker</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I really miss photoshop 5.5.7.0 was also pretty good .
Things started to go down hill when they switched to the cs moniker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I really miss photoshop 5.5.7.0 was also pretty good.
Things started to go down hill when they switched to the cs moniker</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177146</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried <a href="http://f-spot.org/Features" title="f-spot.org" rel="nofollow">F-Spot</a> [f-spot.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried F-Spot [ f-spot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried F-Spot [f-spot.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176152</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">GIMPing is also a verb.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GIMPing is also a verb .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GIMPing is also a verb.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176060</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>domatic</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps mtpaint:</p><p><a href="http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p><p>mtpaint can also be set to do external actions on an image so if you find an exif utility you like.......</p><p>When it comes up, you may be fooled into thinking it is a 256 color program.  It isn't.  It defaults to 256 color palletted pix for new images but will edit and allow higher depth color choices fine.  gwenview is nice to view a directory of images and has a nice enough gui for editing exif and can be set to use mtpaint as an editor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps mtpaint : http : //mtpaint.sourceforge.net/ [ sourceforge.net ] mtpaint can also be set to do external actions on an image so if you find an exif utility you like.......When it comes up , you may be fooled into thinking it is a 256 color program .
It is n't .
It defaults to 256 color palletted pix for new images but will edit and allow higher depth color choices fine .
gwenview is nice to view a directory of images and has a nice enough gui for editing exif and can be set to use mtpaint as an editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps mtpaint:http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]mtpaint can also be set to do external actions on an image so if you find an exif utility you like.......When it comes up, you may be fooled into thinking it is a 256 color program.
It isn't.
It defaults to 256 color palletted pix for new images but will edit and allow higher depth color choices fine.
gwenview is nice to view a directory of images and has a nice enough gui for editing exif and can be set to use mtpaint as an editor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454</id>
	<title>Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>lyml</author>
	<datestamp>1265016960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a sad state of affairs that open source should be so behind in image manipulation programs that people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costs with draconian inspection clauses rather than use a truly free program. Sadly GIMP seems to be going nowhere and Paint.NET is targeting another audience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a sad state of affairs that open source should be so behind in image manipulation programs that people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costs with draconian inspection clauses rather than use a truly free program .
Sadly GIMP seems to be going nowhere and Paint.NET is targeting another audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a sad state of affairs that open source should be so behind in image manipulation programs that people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costs with draconian inspection clauses rather than use a truly free program.
Sadly GIMP seems to be going nowhere and Paint.NET is targeting another audience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176108</id>
	<title>Re:Is it just me?</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1265019180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. People said that about Microsoft Office (it really hadn't changed its UI much in over a decade), then they released Office 2007 and everyone screamed bloody murder because the interface was overhauled.</p><p>Photoshop isn't the simplest program in existence to pick up and use, but I'm of the persuasion that if the interface was *that* terrible that Adobe would have, at some point, done an Office 2007 ribbon-esque revamp, but my graphic designer friends give me the vibe that the UI was pretty solidly designed the first time around and really only needed to be tweaked and extended to accommodate new features as time progressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're damned if they do and damned if they do n't .
People said that about Microsoft Office ( it really had n't changed its UI much in over a decade ) , then they released Office 2007 and everyone screamed bloody murder because the interface was overhauled.Photoshop is n't the simplest program in existence to pick up and use , but I 'm of the persuasion that if the interface was * that * terrible that Adobe would have , at some point , done an Office 2007 ribbon-esque revamp , but my graphic designer friends give me the vibe that the UI was pretty solidly designed the first time around and really only needed to be tweaked and extended to accommodate new features as time progressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
People said that about Microsoft Office (it really hadn't changed its UI much in over a decade), then they released Office 2007 and everyone screamed bloody murder because the interface was overhauled.Photoshop isn't the simplest program in existence to pick up and use, but I'm of the persuasion that if the interface was *that* terrible that Adobe would have, at some point, done an Office 2007 ribbon-esque revamp, but my graphic designer friends give me the vibe that the UI was pretty solidly designed the first time around and really only needed to be tweaked and extended to accommodate new features as time progressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175546</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265017320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XnView is being ported. Beta versions:</p><p><a href="http://www.xnview.com/en/downloadunix.html" title="xnview.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xnview.com/en/downloadunix.html</a> [xnview.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XnView is being ported .
Beta versions : http : //www.xnview.com/en/downloadunix.html [ xnview.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XnView is being ported.
Beta versions:http://www.xnview.com/en/downloadunix.html [xnview.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175122</id>
	<title>Photoshopped ...</title>
	<author>Gopal.V</author>
	<datestamp>1265015880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking through those images, I couldn't help noticing that the screenshots look photoshopped<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking through those images , I could n't help noticing that the screenshots look photoshopped .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking through those images, I couldn't help noticing that the screenshots look photoshopped ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176278</id>
	<title>On Fireworks</title>
	<author>LibertineR</author>
	<datestamp>1265019780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I generally agree that Fireworks is superior for web mockups. However, I hope they get around to fixing text handling, which is still awful after all these years, which forces me back to Photoshop or Illustrator just to add text parts. In other respects, Fireworks CS4 is pretty amazing; able to spit CSS layouts from slices and all that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally agree that Fireworks is superior for web mockups .
However , I hope they get around to fixing text handling , which is still awful after all these years , which forces me back to Photoshop or Illustrator just to add text parts .
In other respects , Fireworks CS4 is pretty amazing ; able to spit CSS layouts from slices and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally agree that Fireworks is superior for web mockups.
However, I hope they get around to fixing text handling, which is still awful after all these years, which forces me back to Photoshop or Illustrator just to add text parts.
In other respects, Fireworks CS4 is pretty amazing; able to spit CSS layouts from slices and all that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179332</id>
	<title>ignores prior work</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1265036520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article leaves out quite a bit of the history of digital paint programs. <a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/PDFs/paint.pdf" title="google.com">This article</a> [google.com] contains a good summary (although it also leaves out yet other work).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article leaves out quite a bit of the history of digital paint programs .
This article [ google.com ] contains a good summary ( although it also leaves out yet other work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article leaves out quite a bit of the history of digital paint programs.
This article [google.com] contains a good summary (although it also leaves out yet other work).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176410</id>
	<title>adobe corporate abuses?</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1265020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Does the history show the abuses of the Adobe corporation, like the Dmitri Sklyarov incident?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the history show the abuses of the Adobe corporation , like the Dmitri Sklyarov incident ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Does the history show the abuses of the Adobe corporation, like the Dmitri Sklyarov incident?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176448</id>
	<title>Photoshop is amazing</title>
	<author>lakeland</author>
	<datestamp>1265020500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had similar views to yours.  Then I happened to get a summer job working for a desktop publisher and so had to use photoshop.  I won't claim to be an expert - and I'm awfully rusty now - but you can do very awesome things in Photoshop extremely easily if you happen to have spent a large number of hours learning how. Yes, Photoshop is hard to \_learn\_ but it is very easy to use.</p><p>You say that ordinary users just need to , adjust brightness etc.but I don't think this is true.  Ordinary users want to tune up their photos - e.g. sharpen, remove the shadow from someone's face, take the reflection off someone's glasses, remove a lamp-post or cyclist that unfortunately interfere with the shot, replace the blinking eyes from one photo with the open eyes from the next (especially group photos where someone is invariably looking away), etc, slightly fancier resize (e.g. fix camera not quite straight).</p><p>Also, my bet is that my list of basic features and the guy next to me's list will not be identical - if you want to make all basic users happy then I suspect you'll be in for a big list of features.  For instance a grandmother with a thousand old photos in a shoe box will have a very different basic list to the one I gave above involving scratch removal and the like.</p><p>Now, I've completely avoided answering your question.  Instead I've told you to invest the time in learning gimp, it will pay off over the years.  In terms of actually answering your question I haven't found a good answer - Apple's Aperture is an attempt, and Adobe makes Photoshop Elements but they all suck</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had similar views to yours .
Then I happened to get a summer job working for a desktop publisher and so had to use photoshop .
I wo n't claim to be an expert - and I 'm awfully rusty now - but you can do very awesome things in Photoshop extremely easily if you happen to have spent a large number of hours learning how .
Yes , Photoshop is hard to \ _learn \ _ but it is very easy to use.You say that ordinary users just need to , adjust brightness etc.but I do n't think this is true .
Ordinary users want to tune up their photos - e.g .
sharpen , remove the shadow from someone 's face , take the reflection off someone 's glasses , remove a lamp-post or cyclist that unfortunately interfere with the shot , replace the blinking eyes from one photo with the open eyes from the next ( especially group photos where someone is invariably looking away ) , etc , slightly fancier resize ( e.g .
fix camera not quite straight ) .Also , my bet is that my list of basic features and the guy next to me 's list will not be identical - if you want to make all basic users happy then I suspect you 'll be in for a big list of features .
For instance a grandmother with a thousand old photos in a shoe box will have a very different basic list to the one I gave above involving scratch removal and the like.Now , I 've completely avoided answering your question .
Instead I 've told you to invest the time in learning gimp , it will pay off over the years .
In terms of actually answering your question I have n't found a good answer - Apple 's Aperture is an attempt , and Adobe makes Photoshop Elements but they all suck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had similar views to yours.
Then I happened to get a summer job working for a desktop publisher and so had to use photoshop.
I won't claim to be an expert - and I'm awfully rusty now - but you can do very awesome things in Photoshop extremely easily if you happen to have spent a large number of hours learning how.
Yes, Photoshop is hard to \_learn\_ but it is very easy to use.You say that ordinary users just need to , adjust brightness etc.but I don't think this is true.
Ordinary users want to tune up their photos - e.g.
sharpen, remove the shadow from someone's face, take the reflection off someone's glasses, remove a lamp-post or cyclist that unfortunately interfere with the shot, replace the blinking eyes from one photo with the open eyes from the next (especially group photos where someone is invariably looking away), etc, slightly fancier resize (e.g.
fix camera not quite straight).Also, my bet is that my list of basic features and the guy next to me's list will not be identical - if you want to make all basic users happy then I suspect you'll be in for a big list of features.
For instance a grandmother with a thousand old photos in a shoe box will have a very different basic list to the one I gave above involving scratch removal and the like.Now, I've completely avoided answering your question.
Instead I've told you to invest the time in learning gimp, it will pay off over the years.
In terms of actually answering your question I haven't found a good answer - Apple's Aperture is an attempt, and Adobe makes Photoshop Elements but they all suck</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175132</id>
	<title>But how many bought a copy?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1265015940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thought not.</p><p>Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought not.Apart from MS Office , it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought not.Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176010</id>
	<title>Re:developers, developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I'm in CADCAM.  That means Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm in CADCAM .
That means Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm in CADCAM.
That means Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174876</id>
	<title>woot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>unfortunately, the last 5 years have been pure shit.  Like Joe Biden, it's senile and incontinent. The liberal douche of old spice is unable to mask the stench of shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>unfortunately , the last 5 years have been pure shit .
Like Joe Biden , it 's senile and incontinent .
The liberal douche of old spice is unable to mask the stench of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unfortunately, the last 5 years have been pure shit.
Like Joe Biden, it's senile and incontinent.
The liberal douche of old spice is unable to mask the stench of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175338</id>
	<title>mandatory xkcd reference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/331/</p><p>(posted as AC because I am lazy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/331/ ( posted as AC because I am lazy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/331/(posted as AC because I am lazy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180650</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1265049660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree.  Early Versions of Paint Shop Pro were great for people who know that they aren't Graphic Designers (And for people who think they are graphics Designers but really aren't.)  I used to use it back when i was in college (late 90's).  I'm pretty sure it was one of those pieces of software that would say "You are on day 74387 of your 90 day trial period.  Please Register!"  I would probably have registered but then I would not have been able to purchase beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
Early Versions of Paint Shop Pro were great for people who know that they are n't Graphic Designers ( And for people who think they are graphics Designers but really are n't .
) I used to use it back when i was in college ( late 90 's ) .
I 'm pretty sure it was one of those pieces of software that would say " You are on day 74387 of your 90 day trial period .
Please Register !
" I would probably have registered but then I would not have been able to purchase beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
Early Versions of Paint Shop Pro were great for people who know that they aren't Graphic Designers (And for people who think they are graphics Designers but really aren't.
)  I used to use it back when i was in college (late 90's).
I'm pretty sure it was one of those pieces of software that would say "You are on day 74387 of your 90 day trial period.
Please Register!
"  I would probably have registered but then I would not have been able to purchase beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175152</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Kudos photoshop. You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.<br>
That said, spread some lovin' over to the linux side of things. Right now that's the only thing that's keeping me from using linux as my main OS (using win7 right now).</i> <br>
<br>
IIRC, several years ago, Disney paid a decent amount to the CodeWeavers folks to ensure that Photoshop ran correctly under CrossOver Office. No idea what the current status is, but I'd think a PS version or two back should work fine for nearly anything you'd need to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kudos photoshop .
You know that you 've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb .
That said , spread some lovin ' over to the linux side of things .
Right now that 's the only thing that 's keeping me from using linux as my main OS ( using win7 right now ) .
IIRC , several years ago , Disney paid a decent amount to the CodeWeavers folks to ensure that Photoshop ran correctly under CrossOver Office .
No idea what the current status is , but I 'd think a PS version or two back should work fine for nearly anything you 'd need to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kudos photoshop.
You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.
That said, spread some lovin' over to the linux side of things.
Right now that's the only thing that's keeping me from using linux as my main OS (using win7 right now).
IIRC, several years ago, Disney paid a decent amount to the CodeWeavers folks to ensure that Photoshop ran correctly under CrossOver Office.
No idea what the current status is, but I'd think a PS version or two back should work fine for nearly anything you'd need to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362</id>
	<title>Re:But the File Format Sucks. :)</title>
	<author>I(rispee\_I(reme</author>
	<datestamp>1265020140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP.</i></p><p>Perhaps <a href="http://www.inkscape.org/screenshots/index.php?lang=en" title="inkscape.org">inkscape</a> [inkscape.org] is the GPL'd vector image editor you seek.</p><p>On topic: Everyone, please cease mentioning that Photoshop went to pot with the CS namechange, lest Adobe pulls a Comcast-esque rebranding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP.Perhaps inkscape [ inkscape.org ] is the GPL 'd vector image editor you seek.On topic : Everyone , please cease mentioning that Photoshop went to pot with the CS namechange , lest Adobe pulls a Comcast-esque rebranding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP.Perhaps inkscape [inkscape.org] is the GPL'd vector image editor you seek.On topic: Everyone, please cease mentioning that Photoshop went to pot with the CS namechange, lest Adobe pulls a Comcast-esque rebranding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181540</id>
	<title>Re:But the File Format Sucks. :)</title>
	<author>AlXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1266485760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A tool made for GUI mockups like <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8487" title="mozilla.org">Firefox Pencil</a> [mozilla.org] is even easier than Inkscape or Scribus.</p><p>Yes, it's a plugin/add-on. Give it a try, you might be surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A tool made for GUI mockups like Firefox Pencil [ mozilla.org ] is even easier than Inkscape or Scribus.Yes , it 's a plugin/add-on .
Give it a try , you might be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tool made for GUI mockups like Firefox Pencil [mozilla.org] is even easier than Inkscape or Scribus.Yes, it's a plugin/add-on.
Give it a try, you might be surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790</id>
	<title>But the File Format Sucks. :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://code.google.com/p/xee/source/browse/trunk/XeePhotoshopLoader.m?spec=svn28&amp;r=11#107" title="google.com">"At this point, I'd like to take a moment to speak to you about the Adobe PSD format. PSD is not a good format. PSD is not even a bad format. Calling it such would be an  insult to other bad formats, such as PCX or JPEG..."</a> [google.com]</p><p>And while we're at it, I have to say: Can we <em>please</em> be done with the idea that web mockups should be done in Photoshop? It never was a good tool for designing web layouts. The idea that it ever was is an artifact of its market position and the popularity of certain raster effects at the time the web rose. Illustrator has been a better tool for web layouts for a while, and Fireworks (with a fantastic blend of vector and raster capabilities) is even better, and there are probably half a dozen other vector capable layout tools I'm not aware of that are better...</p><p>(Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP. They're bad choices for web layouts for the same reasons Photoshop is.)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/soapbox</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At this point , I 'd like to take a moment to speak to you about the Adobe PSD format .
PSD is not a good format .
PSD is not even a bad format .
Calling it such would be an insult to other bad formats , such as PCX or JPEG... " [ google.com ] And while we 're at it , I have to say : Can we please be done with the idea that web mockups should be done in Photoshop ?
It never was a good tool for designing web layouts .
The idea that it ever was is an artifact of its market position and the popularity of certain raster effects at the time the web rose .
Illustrator has been a better tool for web layouts for a while , and Fireworks ( with a fantastic blend of vector and raster capabilities ) is even better , and there are probably half a dozen other vector capable layout tools I 'm not aware of that are better... ( Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP .
They 're bad choices for web layouts for the same reasons Photoshop is .
) /soapbox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At this point, I'd like to take a moment to speak to you about the Adobe PSD format.
PSD is not a good format.
PSD is not even a bad format.
Calling it such would be an  insult to other bad formats, such as PCX or JPEG..." [google.com]And while we're at it, I have to say: Can we please be done with the idea that web mockups should be done in Photoshop?
It never was a good tool for designing web layouts.
The idea that it ever was is an artifact of its market position and the popularity of certain raster effects at the time the web rose.
Illustrator has been a better tool for web layouts for a while, and Fireworks (with a fantastic blend of vector and raster capabilities) is even better, and there are probably half a dozen other vector capable layout tools I'm not aware of that are better...(Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP.
They're bad choices for web layouts for the same reasons Photoshop is.
) /soapbox</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180660</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thumbs plus was always great for me....</p><p>does raw images, etc... lots of little edits,. etc.. but not a drawing program, per se.</p><p>http://www.cerious.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thumbs plus was always great for me....does raw images , etc... lots of little edits, .
etc.. but not a drawing program , per se.http : //www.cerious.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thumbs plus was always great for me....does raw images, etc... lots of little edits,.
etc.. but not a drawing program, per se.http://www.cerious.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175496</id>
	<title>Knoll family not just programming geniuses</title>
	<author>cronb</author>
	<datestamp>1265017080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the sons may be known as the creators of photoshop their father is a giant in the field of nuclear engineering. His book "Raditation Detection and Measurement" is considered the bible on the topic for all nuclear engineers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the sons may be known as the creators of photoshop their father is a giant in the field of nuclear engineering .
His book " Raditation Detection and Measurement " is considered the bible on the topic for all nuclear engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the sons may be known as the creators of photoshop their father is a giant in the field of nuclear engineering.
His book "Raditation Detection and Measurement" is considered the bible on the topic for all nuclear engineers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176870</id>
	<title>Gimp vs. PS</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1265022120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What PS has what GIMP does not have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What PS has what GIMP does not have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What PS has what GIMP does not have?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176824</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265021940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What other software has become a verb?  Most archive formats have been verbed, zip, rar, etc.  Grep, of course, is a verb.  If networked software counts, Google would be one.  Blast (from NCBI) is often used as a verb too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What other software has become a verb ?
Most archive formats have been verbed , zip , rar , etc .
Grep , of course , is a verb .
If networked software counts , Google would be one .
Blast ( from NCBI ) is often used as a verb too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What other software has become a verb?
Most archive formats have been verbed, zip, rar, etc.
Grep, of course, is a verb.
If networked software counts, Google would be one.
Blast (from NCBI) is often used as a verb too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492</id>
	<title>developers, developers</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1265017080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications.  The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications.  Think Visicalc.  Think Photoshop.  Think MacWrite.  Think Excel.  The iPhone is the same thing.
<p>
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications .
The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications .
Think Visicalc .
Think Photoshop .
Think MacWrite .
Think Excel .
The iPhone is the same thing .
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications , but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer , one thinks of a Visicalc , PhotoShop , page layout , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications.
The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications.
Think Visicalc.
Think Photoshop.
Think MacWrite.
Think Excel.
The iPhone is the same thing.
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178372</id>
	<title>20 years old and it's STILL HARD TO USE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When, oh when are they going to give it an intuitive UI?  Please??</htmltext>
<tokenext>When , oh when are they going to give it an intuitive UI ?
Please ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When, oh when are they going to give it an intuitive UI?
Please??</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175890</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1265018400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I use IrfanView for most of that stuff. It can even use Photoshop plugins, I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I use IrfanView for most of that stuff .
It can even use Photoshop plugins , I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I use IrfanView for most of that stuff.
It can even use Photoshop plugins, I believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176834</id>
	<title>Re:Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1265021940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming consumers are well-informed and always make rational choices.</p><p>The truth is that most people don't know what FOSS is and have difficulty comprehending how it can replace a thousands-per-license app. They think there's something magical about obscenely expensive "professional-grade" software and every wanna-be designer thinks it's the <b>only</b> app to use.</p><p>Instead of encouraging diversity in software people think it <b>has</b> to be Photoshop or Cubase or whatever people say is "professional".<br>GIMP seems to be progressing perfectly. I feel more sorry for the other (non-free) reasonably-priced alternatives. Instead of considering them most users will just use expensive, bloated, ugly, hard-tp-use and comparatively bare applications, and praise them like crazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming consumers are well-informed and always make rational choices.The truth is that most people do n't know what FOSS is and have difficulty comprehending how it can replace a thousands-per-license app .
They think there 's something magical about obscenely expensive " professional-grade " software and every wan na-be designer thinks it 's the only app to use.Instead of encouraging diversity in software people think it has to be Photoshop or Cubase or whatever people say is " professional " .GIMP seems to be progressing perfectly .
I feel more sorry for the other ( non-free ) reasonably-priced alternatives .
Instead of considering them most users will just use expensive , bloated , ugly , hard-tp-use and comparatively bare applications , and praise them like crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming consumers are well-informed and always make rational choices.The truth is that most people don't know what FOSS is and have difficulty comprehending how it can replace a thousands-per-license app.
They think there's something magical about obscenely expensive "professional-grade" software and every wanna-be designer thinks it's the only app to use.Instead of encouraging diversity in software people think it has to be Photoshop or Cubase or whatever people say is "professional".GIMP seems to be progressing perfectly.
I feel more sorry for the other (non-free) reasonably-priced alternatives.
Instead of considering them most users will just use expensive, bloated, ugly, hard-tp-use and comparatively bare applications, and praise them like crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175516</id>
	<title>Re:Gimp?</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1265017200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the gimp turns 18, we'll celebrate with a gang-bang.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the gimp turns 18 , we 'll celebrate with a gang-bang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the gimp turns 18, we'll celebrate with a gang-bang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179534</id>
	<title>Re:So Good It's a Tradition</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1265037900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also see <a href="http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also see http : //photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also see http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31207078</id>
	<title>Thanks for the wikipedia link</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1266593280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I had no idea what this "Photos Shop" thing was all about. Thanks, man! One complaint though- I had quite a bit of trouble figuring out what a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">february</a> [wikipedia.org]" is, should've linked to that as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I had no idea what this " Photos Shop " thing was all about .
Thanks , man !
One complaint though- I had quite a bit of trouble figuring out what a " february [ wikipedia.org ] " is , should 've linked to that as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I had no idea what this "Photos Shop" thing was all about.
Thanks, man!
One complaint though- I had quite a bit of trouble figuring out what a "february [wikipedia.org]" is, should've linked to that as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175662</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or use Paint.NET, which does everything you mention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or use Paint.NET , which does everything you mention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or use Paint.NET, which does everything you mention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175602</id>
	<title>I miss photoshop on QNX</title>
	<author>Aan Cocks</author>
	<datestamp>1265017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>QNX is about to take another quantum leap forward. Production on a new QNX kernel, dubbed "Axion," aka QNX 8, is wrapping up later this summer and will debut sometime early next year. And it's going to pack a wallop in the embedded industry.</p><p>"Technologies like 64-bit, VT, SSE, and multi-core have all become important in the market today," said Luc du Croix, senior kernel engineer with QNX Software Systems. "And it's important that QNX take advantage of each and every one of them."</p><p>We spoke with du Croix, who has been with QSS for over a decade in various roles, about the changes coming in the new operating system. For the last year, he and his team have been hard at work rewiring their kernel alongside Intel and AMD engineers so they can support new features as soon as possible.</p><p>"With this upgrade we're actually using different SSE operations to speed kernel performance." Heretofore, SSE was seen mostly as a multimedia booster, useful for games and Photoshop plugins. "Imagine using a single instruction to move up to one hundred and twenty-eight bits of message data."</p><p>Multiple cores are key too. QNX already supports multi-processing and has won awards for its efficient use of multiple processors. But massively multi-core processing (MMCP) is a little different. "SMP is like starting a fire with sticks. MMCP is like lobbing a Molotov cocktail out of the window of a speeding Ferrari and that's what we'd really like to be doing."</p><p>Another thing that's changing is processor caching. Back when Neutrino was released, 256k off-die cache was common. Today, 2 MB on-chip cache is the norm. "QNX Neutrino is tiny, 69k, and with all of the processor cache available today, we've rewritten the kernel to load and run entirely from cache."</p><p>Running from cache has some serious speed advantages. "QNX messaging is a whole order of magnitude faster when run from cache versus system memory," du Croix said. "It prevents QNX from having to access the system bus." QSS calls this feature FastCache.</p><p>When QNX does run in main memory, however, it will be able to access up to sixteen exabytes thanks to the 64-bit ground-up rewrite. "Thirty-two bits just wasn't enough," du Croix said. "Our customers want to run on AMD 64, Core 2, Power6, and they're all playing with 64-bits."</p><p>After the update is polished, it will be bundled with the latest version of the Eclipse development suite and offered as an upgrade to developers as QNXtreme, the successor to the current QNX 6.3-based Momentics. QSS will also include a whole new userland based on FreeBSD 6's, an idea left over from the scrapped Overfiend project.</p><p>Customers deploying production systems will have the option to upgrade when the time comes as Axion will be completely backward compatible with 32-bit platforms. Customers using QNX4, however, will likely want to contact their QSS rep for evaluation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>QNX is about to take another quantum leap forward .
Production on a new QNX kernel , dubbed " Axion , " aka QNX 8 , is wrapping up later this summer and will debut sometime early next year .
And it 's going to pack a wallop in the embedded industry .
" Technologies like 64-bit , VT , SSE , and multi-core have all become important in the market today , " said Luc du Croix , senior kernel engineer with QNX Software Systems .
" And it 's important that QNX take advantage of each and every one of them .
" We spoke with du Croix , who has been with QSS for over a decade in various roles , about the changes coming in the new operating system .
For the last year , he and his team have been hard at work rewiring their kernel alongside Intel and AMD engineers so they can support new features as soon as possible .
" With this upgrade we 're actually using different SSE operations to speed kernel performance .
" Heretofore , SSE was seen mostly as a multimedia booster , useful for games and Photoshop plugins .
" Imagine using a single instruction to move up to one hundred and twenty-eight bits of message data .
" Multiple cores are key too .
QNX already supports multi-processing and has won awards for its efficient use of multiple processors .
But massively multi-core processing ( MMCP ) is a little different .
" SMP is like starting a fire with sticks .
MMCP is like lobbing a Molotov cocktail out of the window of a speeding Ferrari and that 's what we 'd really like to be doing .
" Another thing that 's changing is processor caching .
Back when Neutrino was released , 256k off-die cache was common .
Today , 2 MB on-chip cache is the norm .
" QNX Neutrino is tiny , 69k , and with all of the processor cache available today , we 've rewritten the kernel to load and run entirely from cache .
" Running from cache has some serious speed advantages .
" QNX messaging is a whole order of magnitude faster when run from cache versus system memory , " du Croix said .
" It prevents QNX from having to access the system bus .
" QSS calls this feature FastCache.When QNX does run in main memory , however , it will be able to access up to sixteen exabytes thanks to the 64-bit ground-up rewrite .
" Thirty-two bits just was n't enough , " du Croix said .
" Our customers want to run on AMD 64 , Core 2 , Power6 , and they 're all playing with 64-bits .
" After the update is polished , it will be bundled with the latest version of the Eclipse development suite and offered as an upgrade to developers as QNXtreme , the successor to the current QNX 6.3-based Momentics .
QSS will also include a whole new userland based on FreeBSD 6 's , an idea left over from the scrapped Overfiend project.Customers deploying production systems will have the option to upgrade when the time comes as Axion will be completely backward compatible with 32-bit platforms .
Customers using QNX4 , however , will likely want to contact their QSS rep for evaluation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>QNX is about to take another quantum leap forward.
Production on a new QNX kernel, dubbed "Axion," aka QNX 8, is wrapping up later this summer and will debut sometime early next year.
And it's going to pack a wallop in the embedded industry.
"Technologies like 64-bit, VT, SSE, and multi-core have all become important in the market today," said Luc du Croix, senior kernel engineer with QNX Software Systems.
"And it's important that QNX take advantage of each and every one of them.
"We spoke with du Croix, who has been with QSS for over a decade in various roles, about the changes coming in the new operating system.
For the last year, he and his team have been hard at work rewiring their kernel alongside Intel and AMD engineers so they can support new features as soon as possible.
"With this upgrade we're actually using different SSE operations to speed kernel performance.
" Heretofore, SSE was seen mostly as a multimedia booster, useful for games and Photoshop plugins.
"Imagine using a single instruction to move up to one hundred and twenty-eight bits of message data.
"Multiple cores are key too.
QNX already supports multi-processing and has won awards for its efficient use of multiple processors.
But massively multi-core processing (MMCP) is a little different.
"SMP is like starting a fire with sticks.
MMCP is like lobbing a Molotov cocktail out of the window of a speeding Ferrari and that's what we'd really like to be doing.
"Another thing that's changing is processor caching.
Back when Neutrino was released, 256k off-die cache was common.
Today, 2 MB on-chip cache is the norm.
"QNX Neutrino is tiny, 69k, and with all of the processor cache available today, we've rewritten the kernel to load and run entirely from cache.
"Running from cache has some serious speed advantages.
"QNX messaging is a whole order of magnitude faster when run from cache versus system memory," du Croix said.
"It prevents QNX from having to access the system bus.
" QSS calls this feature FastCache.When QNX does run in main memory, however, it will be able to access up to sixteen exabytes thanks to the 64-bit ground-up rewrite.
"Thirty-two bits just wasn't enough," du Croix said.
"Our customers want to run on AMD 64, Core 2, Power6, and they're all playing with 64-bits.
"After the update is polished, it will be bundled with the latest version of the Eclipse development suite and offered as an upgrade to developers as QNXtreme, the successor to the current QNX 6.3-based Momentics.
QSS will also include a whole new userland based on FreeBSD 6's, an idea left over from the scrapped Overfiend project.Customers deploying production systems will have the option to upgrade when the time comes as Axion will be completely backward compatible with 32-bit platforms.
Customers using QNX4, however, will likely want to contact their QSS rep for evaluation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176486</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1265020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that there's any need for Adobe to support Wine says more about Wine than Adobe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that there 's any need for Adobe to support Wine says more about Wine than Adobe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that there's any need for Adobe to support Wine says more about Wine than Adobe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174928</id>
	<title>So Good It's a Tradition</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1265015280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Kudos photoshop. You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.</p></div><p>It's more than a verb, for some people it's a <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/" title="somethingawful.com">tradition and art form</a> [somethingawful.com]*.  Had there been no Photoshop, something would have probably filled the void but it's definitely one of the (expensive) standards around.  <br> <br>

*Yeah, I know you see a link to Something Awful and are thinking "not gonna click that!" but it's just the Photoshop Phriday main page, a site like the Onion that briefly brightens my week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kudos photoshop .
You know that you 've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.It 's more than a verb , for some people it 's a tradition and art form [ somethingawful.com ] * .
Had there been no Photoshop , something would have probably filled the void but it 's definitely one of the ( expensive ) standards around .
* Yeah , I know you see a link to Something Awful and are thinking " not gon na click that !
" but it 's just the Photoshop Phriday main page , a site like the Onion that briefly brightens my week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kudos photoshop.
You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.It's more than a verb, for some people it's a tradition and art form [somethingawful.com]*.
Had there been no Photoshop, something would have probably filled the void but it's definitely one of the (expensive) standards around.
*Yeah, I know you see a link to Something Awful and are thinking "not gonna click that!
" but it's just the Photoshop Phriday main page, a site like the Onion that briefly brightens my week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175138</id>
	<title>I'm happy for ya</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YO, knoll family, i'm really happy for ya and all, but Microsoft had one of the biggest apps of all time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YO , knoll family , i 'm really happy for ya and all , but Microsoft had one of the biggest apps of all time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YO, knoll family, i'm really happy for ya and all, but Microsoft had one of the biggest apps of all time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175272</id>
	<title>Re:Gimp?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gimp is pretty much useless, where as Photoshop is industry, hobbiest, mom and pop, and every kid who can download warez's defacto standard.</p><p>I've been using it since PS 3 on the Mac (still have the floppies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:), now waiting for CS5, I must say, its been a great ride!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gimp is pretty much useless , where as Photoshop is industry , hobbiest , mom and pop , and every kid who can download warez 's defacto standard.I 've been using it since PS 3 on the Mac ( still have the floppies : ) , now waiting for CS5 , I must say , its been a great ride !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gimp is pretty much useless, where as Photoshop is industry, hobbiest, mom and pop, and every kid who can download warez's defacto standard.I've been using it since PS 3 on the Mac (still have the floppies :), now waiting for CS5, I must say, its been a great ride!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175718</id>
	<title>Stupid editor mistakes</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1265017800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In February of 1990, Adobe 1.0 was released.</p></div><p>You'd think that in an article on Photoshop, they wouldn't make the irritating novice mistake of conflating "Adobe" (the company) with "Photoshop" (the product). I expect this from the idiots where I work, where complaints of "my Adobe isn't working!" are common, but from them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In February of 1990 , Adobe 1.0 was released.You 'd think that in an article on Photoshop , they would n't make the irritating novice mistake of conflating " Adobe " ( the company ) with " Photoshop " ( the product ) .
I expect this from the idiots where I work , where complaints of " my Adobe is n't working !
" are common , but from them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In February of 1990, Adobe 1.0 was released.You'd think that in an article on Photoshop, they wouldn't make the irritating novice mistake of conflating "Adobe" (the company) with "Photoshop" (the product).
I expect this from the idiots where I work, where complaints of "my Adobe isn't working!
" are common, but from them?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179646</id>
	<title>Re:Every Web Designer?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the late 90s a lot of web designers created the pages first in photoshop, and then cut up the images, and aligned them on the web page with tables (unless you were one of those web designers who eschewed images). It was common enough that in 99 Photoshop came with a feature to automate the image cutting.<br> <br>
For an example, look at <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01473/dell\_1473602a.jpg" title="telegraph.co.uk">Dell when it first launched</a> [telegraph.co.uk].  You might have been able to do the original layout in Pagemaker, but it would have been pointless because you would have had to do it nearly all over again because users can't look at a Pagemaker file in their browser.  Each of the categories, like "Dimension Desktops", has to be an image because you can't have the image of a computer overlay the header of a table like that (even now it would be a pain).  So you just worked it up in Photoshop, cut out the images you needed, and then did the rest in html.  It sucked, but it's not like page layout for the web is all that great even today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the late 90s a lot of web designers created the pages first in photoshop , and then cut up the images , and aligned them on the web page with tables ( unless you were one of those web designers who eschewed images ) .
It was common enough that in 99 Photoshop came with a feature to automate the image cutting .
For an example , look at Dell when it first launched [ telegraph.co.uk ] .
You might have been able to do the original layout in Pagemaker , but it would have been pointless because you would have had to do it nearly all over again because users ca n't look at a Pagemaker file in their browser .
Each of the categories , like " Dimension Desktops " , has to be an image because you ca n't have the image of a computer overlay the header of a table like that ( even now it would be a pain ) .
So you just worked it up in Photoshop , cut out the images you needed , and then did the rest in html .
It sucked , but it 's not like page layout for the web is all that great even today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the late 90s a lot of web designers created the pages first in photoshop, and then cut up the images, and aligned them on the web page with tables (unless you were one of those web designers who eschewed images).
It was common enough that in 99 Photoshop came with a feature to automate the image cutting.
For an example, look at Dell when it first launched [telegraph.co.uk].
You might have been able to do the original layout in Pagemaker, but it would have been pointless because you would have had to do it nearly all over again because users can't look at a Pagemaker file in their browser.
Each of the categories, like "Dimension Desktops", has to be an image because you can't have the image of a computer overlay the header of a table like that (even now it would be a pain).
So you just worked it up in Photoshop, cut out the images you needed, and then did the rest in html.
It sucked, but it's not like page layout for the web is all that great even today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177166</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1265023440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's interesting &mdash; I actually find Gimp's user interface pretty hard to use, and that seems to be the most common reason for not switching to it. I wonder if GIMP isn't designed by and for advanced users who've outgrown Photoshop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's interesting    I actually find Gimp 's user interface pretty hard to use , and that seems to be the most common reason for not switching to it .
I wonder if GIMP is n't designed by and for advanced users who 've outgrown Photoshop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's interesting — I actually find Gimp's user interface pretty hard to use, and that seems to be the most common reason for not switching to it.
I wonder if GIMP isn't designed by and for advanced users who've outgrown Photoshop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058</id>
	<title>This must be fake.</title>
	<author>Cowclops</author>
	<datestamp>1265015700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article looks totally photoshopped, its probably fake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article looks totally photoshopped , its probably fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article looks totally photoshopped, its probably fake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176264</id>
	<title>mod 30wn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>own lube, beverage, Unlees you can work progrees. In 1992,</htmltext>
<tokenext>own lube , beverage , Unlees you can work progrees .
In 1992,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>own lube, beverage, Unlees you can work progrees.
In 1992,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178354</id>
	<title>Re:But the File Format Sucks. :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that Illustrator sucks ass unless you've gone to Illustrator School for 2 years.  It's so counter-intuitive and overly complex for most people's needs.
<br> <br>I'm a pretty bright guy.  I've taught myself how to be an expert Photoshop user for photography purposes.  I've been using graphics and image software since Aldus was producing Pagemaker.
However, I'm not a design professional. And I do NOT want to be.<br>Try, in illustrator, to just throw down a rectangle and start laying out text and images.  It's so far from intuitive that it's a joke.  It's the reverse polish notation of the design world.  Only worse.  Well what about InDesign?  Sigh.  Adobe quit trying to be "smart" and force me to do shit. How about just letting me put stuff where I want it?<br> <br>So when I need to communicate ideas with my web designer he has a choice, I can use Photoshop or MS Word!  ha.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Illustrator sucks ass unless you 've gone to Illustrator School for 2 years .
It 's so counter-intuitive and overly complex for most people 's needs .
I 'm a pretty bright guy .
I 've taught myself how to be an expert Photoshop user for photography purposes .
I 've been using graphics and image software since Aldus was producing Pagemaker .
However , I 'm not a design professional .
And I do NOT want to be.Try , in illustrator , to just throw down a rectangle and start laying out text and images .
It 's so far from intuitive that it 's a joke .
It 's the reverse polish notation of the design world .
Only worse .
Well what about InDesign ?
Sigh. Adobe quit trying to be " smart " and force me to do shit .
How about just letting me put stuff where I want it ?
So when I need to communicate ideas with my web designer he has a choice , I can use Photoshop or MS Word !
ha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Illustrator sucks ass unless you've gone to Illustrator School for 2 years.
It's so counter-intuitive and overly complex for most people's needs.
I'm a pretty bright guy.
I've taught myself how to be an expert Photoshop user for photography purposes.
I've been using graphics and image software since Aldus was producing Pagemaker.
However, I'm not a design professional.
And I do NOT want to be.Try, in illustrator, to just throw down a rectangle and start laying out text and images.
It's so far from intuitive that it's a joke.
It's the reverse polish notation of the design world.
Only worse.
Well what about InDesign?
Sigh.  Adobe quit trying to be "smart" and force me to do shit.
How about just letting me put stuff where I want it?
So when I need to communicate ideas with my web designer he has a choice, I can use Photoshop or MS Word!
ha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178406</id>
	<title>Re:developers, developers</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265029080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget Marathon and Myst.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Marathon and Myst .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Marathon and Myst.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175690</id>
	<title>Re:But how many bought a copy?</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1265017740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thought not.</p><p>Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.</p></div><p>No doubt you're right but not only do I own a copy (not the latest version, but it's legal), I also have a floppy disk with Macintosh version 1.0 on it around here somewhere. Hard to believe, I know, but at one time Photoshop fit on a single 1.44 MB floppy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought not.Apart from MS Office , it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.No doubt you 're right but not only do I own a copy ( not the latest version , but it 's legal ) , I also have a floppy disk with Macintosh version 1.0 on it around here somewhere .
Hard to believe , I know , but at one time Photoshop fit on a single 1.44 MB floppy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought not.Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.No doubt you're right but not only do I own a copy (not the latest version, but it's legal), I also have a floppy disk with Macintosh version 1.0 on it around here somewhere.
Hard to believe, I know, but at one time Photoshop fit on a single 1.44 MB floppy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176712</id>
	<title>Re:Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265021520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There really is a lot of perceived value in pirating a multi-thousand dollar program as appose to downloading a free app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There really is a lot of perceived value in pirating a multi-thousand dollar program as appose to downloading a free app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really is a lot of perceived value in pirating a multi-thousand dollar program as appose to downloading a free app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176726</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1265021580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes...</p></div><p>Could you elaborate on this a bit?  I work with Photoshop daily along with a large number of other people who do as well and stability is not one complaint I've heard.  In fact, some of my illustrator friends have a bad habit of not saving often.  Why Murphy's Law hasn't taught them a lesson about that I"ll never know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , it 's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop , but it 's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software , and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes...Could you elaborate on this a bit ?
I work with Photoshop daily along with a large number of other people who do as well and stability is not one complaint I 've heard .
In fact , some of my illustrator friends have a bad habit of not saving often .
Why Murphy 's Law has n't taught them a lesson about that I " ll never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes...Could you elaborate on this a bit?
I work with Photoshop daily along with a large number of other people who do as well and stability is not one complaint I've heard.
In fact, some of my illustrator friends have a bad habit of not saving often.
Why Murphy's Law hasn't taught them a lesson about that I"ll never know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179886</id>
	<title>Kinda cute</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1265041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The splashscreens are from MAC, but the screenshots from Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The splashscreens are from MAC , but the screenshots from Windows : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The splashscreens are from MAC, but the screenshots from Windows :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31184544</id>
	<title>Re:So good it's a verb</title>
	<author>catd77</author>
	<datestamp>1266509100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My mom started using Photoshop on an old Mainframe in the 90's, she taught me it and I've been designing ever since!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My mom started using Photoshop on an old Mainframe in the 90 's , she taught me it and I 've been designing ever since !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mom started using Photoshop on an old Mainframe in the 90's, she taught me it and I've been designing ever since!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175746</id>
	<title>Or should we say...</title>
	<author>zoom-ping</author>
	<datestamp>1265017920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Twenty years of lens flare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twenty years of lens flare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twenty years of lens flare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178120</id>
	<title>Artgem anyone?</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1265027460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone ever used ArtGem here?</p><p>It feels like an updated version of Amiga Deluxe Paint to use. Although it's not as powerful as Photoshop, it's faster, cheaper and much nicer to use. Unfortunately, it's been discontinued apparently due to piracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone ever used ArtGem here ? It feels like an updated version of Amiga Deluxe Paint to use .
Although it 's not as powerful as Photoshop , it 's faster , cheaper and much nicer to use .
Unfortunately , it 's been discontinued apparently due to piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone ever used ArtGem here?It feels like an updated version of Amiga Deluxe Paint to use.
Although it's not as powerful as Photoshop, it's faster, cheaper and much nicer to use.
Unfortunately, it's been discontinued apparently due to piracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176908</id>
	<title>Re:Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costs</i></p><p>LOL!  Do you actually know people who pay for Photoshop?  That's fucking hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costsLOL !
Do you actually know people who pay for Photoshop ?
That 's fucking hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costsLOL!
Do you actually know people who pay for Photoshop?
That's fucking hilarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175756</id>
	<title>Re:Gimp?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell?  Maybe it is because I haven't used photoshop recently but I remember gimp being basically a clone with all the functionality.</p><p>And more importantly GIMP is legally free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell ?
Maybe it is because I have n't used photoshop recently but I remember gimp being basically a clone with all the functionality.And more importantly GIMP is legally free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell?
Maybe it is because I haven't used photoshop recently but I remember gimp being basically a clone with all the functionality.And more importantly GIMP is legally free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180844</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1265051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From your list of needs it is clear that you are simply not an artist (IANAA2!) - and hence not part of the target audience of Photoshop - you are part of the target audience for IrfanView - geeks who need to adjust images without really touching pixels.  And yes, IrfanView can add circles and text in version 4.25, (Press F12). That's my main tool and Paint.NET if I need to do "pixelwork" or layering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From your list of needs it is clear that you are simply not an artist ( IANAA2 !
) - and hence not part of the target audience of Photoshop - you are part of the target audience for IrfanView - geeks who need to adjust images without really touching pixels .
And yes , IrfanView can add circles and text in version 4.25 , ( Press F12 ) .
That 's my main tool and Paint.NET if I need to do " pixelwork " or layering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From your list of needs it is clear that you are simply not an artist (IANAA2!
) - and hence not part of the target audience of Photoshop - you are part of the target audience for IrfanView - geeks who need to adjust images without really touching pixels.
And yes, IrfanView can add circles and text in version 4.25, (Press F12).
That's my main tool and Paint.NET if I need to do "pixelwork" or layering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178054</id>
	<title>Re:Nostalgia</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1265026980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used all versions of Photoshop up through 7.0,, now I use the Gimp exclusively.  Not that there is anything wrong with Photoshop, I just became tired of paying a premium to use it.  If you are old school and don't need a bunch of fancy plug-ins to accomplish an objective; for the serious photographer Gimp is the perfect fit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used all versions of Photoshop up through 7.0, , now I use the Gimp exclusively .
Not that there is anything wrong with Photoshop , I just became tired of paying a premium to use it .
If you are old school and do n't need a bunch of fancy plug-ins to accomplish an objective ; for the serious photographer Gimp is the perfect fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used all versions of Photoshop up through 7.0,, now I use the Gimp exclusively.
Not that there is anything wrong with Photoshop, I just became tired of paying a premium to use it.
If you are old school and don't need a bunch of fancy plug-ins to accomplish an objective; for the serious photographer Gimp is the perfect fit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175432</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>frodo from middle ea</author>
	<datestamp>1265016900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Picasa ? Runs fine under wine too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Picasa ?
Runs fine under wine too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picasa ?
Runs fine under wine too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175092</id>
	<title>Re:Gimp?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265015820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an article about the GIMP every time it farts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an article about the GIMP every time it farts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an article about the GIMP every time it farts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176428</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough I started using the GIMP once I switched to Photoshop I found that it was much easier to do a lot of simple things... Where if I were to do it with the GIMP it would be a massive struggle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough I started using the GIMP once I switched to Photoshop I found that it was much easier to do a lot of simple things... Where if I were to do it with the GIMP it would be a massive struggle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough I started using the GIMP once I switched to Photoshop I found that it was much easier to do a lot of simple things... Where if I were to do it with the GIMP it would be a massive struggle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175988</id>
	<title>Re:developers, developers</title>
	<author>tumnasgt</author>
	<datestamp>1265018760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quality of applications? You used CS4 on a Mac? It's appallingly slow, I use VirtualBox with XP and run CS4 on that which is much, much faster. When I need more power than provided by the VM, I walk across the room to my gaming PC with Win7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality of applications ?
You used CS4 on a Mac ?
It 's appallingly slow , I use VirtualBox with XP and run CS4 on that which is much , much faster .
When I need more power than provided by the VM , I walk across the room to my gaming PC with Win7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quality of applications?
You used CS4 on a Mac?
It's appallingly slow, I use VirtualBox with XP and run CS4 on that which is much, much faster.
When I need more power than provided by the VM, I walk across the room to my gaming PC with Win7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176178</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1265019420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Picasa was Ok until I started working with RAW files. Adobe Lightroom 3 is still in a free Beta and has been for awhile. I'm not sure what they'll ask me to pony up for it, but at this point it might be worth it. Just checked, looks like it expires April 30th 2010. <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/" title="adobe.com" rel="nofollow">http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/</a> [adobe.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Picasa was Ok until I started working with RAW files .
Adobe Lightroom 3 is still in a free Beta and has been for awhile .
I 'm not sure what they 'll ask me to pony up for it , but at this point it might be worth it .
Just checked , looks like it expires April 30th 2010. http : //labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/ [ adobe.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picasa was Ok until I started working with RAW files.
Adobe Lightroom 3 is still in a free Beta and has been for awhile.
I'm not sure what they'll ask me to pony up for it, but at this point it might be worth it.
Just checked, looks like it expires April 30th 2010. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/ [adobe.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177700</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1265025420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To respond to your first point, you are right on. I've never had a positive review of GIMP by a Photoshop student who hadn't already tried it prior to taking the course. Most of the crits come from interface-related issues. In my case, I had other motivations for using GIMP, and had already worked with free software, so I knew that I needed to adapt myself to "GIMP's way of doing things"; after I learned the TAB key shortcut and other little helps, it got a lot easier. But it is really nice to see that GIMP have got Peter doing some great interface work that will be rolled into future versions.<br> <br>Also, someone used to Photoshop will be more likely to move to an open toolchain rather than a single app like GIMP, if they're considering migrating to free software-land. That means also learning software like Inkscape, possibly Blender, possibly ImageMagick, and so on. But that quickly becomes one powerful toolchain, for all its quirks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To respond to your first point , you are right on .
I 've never had a positive review of GIMP by a Photoshop student who had n't already tried it prior to taking the course .
Most of the crits come from interface-related issues .
In my case , I had other motivations for using GIMP , and had already worked with free software , so I knew that I needed to adapt myself to " GIMP 's way of doing things " ; after I learned the TAB key shortcut and other little helps , it got a lot easier .
But it is really nice to see that GIMP have got Peter doing some great interface work that will be rolled into future versions .
Also , someone used to Photoshop will be more likely to move to an open toolchain rather than a single app like GIMP , if they 're considering migrating to free software-land .
That means also learning software like Inkscape , possibly Blender , possibly ImageMagick , and so on .
But that quickly becomes one powerful toolchain , for all its quirks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To respond to your first point, you are right on.
I've never had a positive review of GIMP by a Photoshop student who hadn't already tried it prior to taking the course.
Most of the crits come from interface-related issues.
In my case, I had other motivations for using GIMP, and had already worked with free software, so I knew that I needed to adapt myself to "GIMP's way of doing things"; after I learned the TAB key shortcut and other little helps, it got a lot easier.
But it is really nice to see that GIMP have got Peter doing some great interface work that will be rolled into future versions.
Also, someone used to Photoshop will be more likely to move to an open toolchain rather than a single app like GIMP, if they're considering migrating to free software-land.
That means also learning software like Inkscape, possibly Blender, possibly ImageMagick, and so on.
But that quickly becomes one powerful toolchain, for all its quirks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176062</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>M3.14</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly I must agree. However it's only my opinion. Photoshop from v7 up kinda lost it for me. All subsequent versions of PS just added more functions I don't use and probably never will. Maybe I should wait for PS elements to reach CS7 to be usable for everything PS7 could do.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and yes. I've tried GIMP too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly I must agree .
However it 's only my opinion .
Photoshop from v7 up kinda lost it for me .
All subsequent versions of PS just added more functions I do n't use and probably never will .
Maybe I should wait for PS elements to reach CS7 to be usable for everything PS7 could do .
... and yes .
I 've tried GIMP too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly I must agree.
However it's only my opinion.
Photoshop from v7 up kinda lost it for me.
All subsequent versions of PS just added more functions I don't use and probably never will.
Maybe I should wait for PS elements to reach CS7 to be usable for everything PS7 could do.
... and yes.
I've tried GIMP too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175672</id>
	<title>Guy</title>
	<author>teeloo</author>
	<datestamp>1265017680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny how in that video of the John Knoll interview, you realize that one of the people filming is actually Guy Kawasaki. Well, at least that's funny to me anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how in that video of the John Knoll interview , you realize that one of the people filming is actually Guy Kawasaki .
Well , at least that 's funny to me anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how in that video of the John Knoll interview, you realize that one of the people filming is actually Guy Kawasaki.
Well, at least that's funny to me anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174900</id>
	<title>20 Years of Photoshop</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1265015160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The subtitle of Nancy Pelosi's Cosmetics in Politics Guide. <br> <br>Bring the flames.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The subtitle of Nancy Pelosi 's Cosmetics in Politics Guide .
Bring the flames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subtitle of Nancy Pelosi's Cosmetics in Politics Guide.
Bring the flames.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175124</id>
	<title>4chan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>pics or it didnt happen</htmltext>
<tokenext>pics or it didnt happen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pics or it didnt happen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175306</id>
	<title>Re:This must be fake.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177928</id>
	<title>Re:Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>serviscope\_minor</author>
	<datestamp>1265026380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aw jeez. I like the gimp. I like the multi-window interface because I use a windowmanager which does not suck. And I agree that the whiners will just keep on whining. There is really no point in trying to placate them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aw jeez .
I like the gimp .
I like the multi-window interface because I use a windowmanager which does not suck .
And I agree that the whiners will just keep on whining .
There is really no point in trying to placate them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aw jeez.
I like the gimp.
I like the multi-window interface because I use a windowmanager which does not suck.
And I agree that the whiners will just keep on whining.
There is really no point in trying to placate them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178942</id>
	<title>Re:But how many bought a copy?</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1265033220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thought not.</p><p>Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.

</p></div><p>As I noted in a post upthread, I believe that one major reason for that is that up until Photoshop 7, it was probably one of the easiest programs to pirate, especially considering its price tag.  If you had a copy of a disk (not requiring any specific burning technique a la CloneCD) and its key, you could install it on as many machine as you wished, no cracks needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought not.Apart from MS Office , it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world .
As I noted in a post upthread , I believe that one major reason for that is that up until Photoshop 7 , it was probably one of the easiest programs to pirate , especially considering its price tag .
If you had a copy of a disk ( not requiring any specific burning technique a la CloneCD ) and its key , you could install it on as many machine as you wished , no cracks needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought not.Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.
As I noted in a post upthread, I believe that one major reason for that is that up until Photoshop 7, it was probably one of the easiest programs to pirate, especially considering its price tag.
If you had a copy of a disk (not requiring any specific burning technique a la CloneCD) and its key, you could install it on as many machine as you wished, no cracks needed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868</id>
	<title>Gimp?</title>
	<author>cytoman</author>
	<datestamp>1265015100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will there be an article about the Gimp when it turns 20, too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will there be an article about the Gimp when it turns 20 , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will there be an article about the Gimp when it turns 20, too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175134</id>
	<title>No multiple windows</title>
	<author>Xamusk</author>
	<datestamp>1265015940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, no multiple windows throughout its history. Just the usual MDI with panels interface.
</p><p>
That says something from the industry's standard to the would-be competitors.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , no multiple windows throughout its history .
Just the usual MDI with panels interface .
That says something from the industry 's standard to the would-be competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, no multiple windows throughout its history.
Just the usual MDI with panels interface.
That says something from the industry's standard to the would-be competitors.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31206814</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence</title>
	<author>Agripa</author>
	<datestamp>1266589740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With apologies to James Burke:</p><p>If it's not on XKCD, it doesn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With apologies to James Burke : If it 's not on XKCD , it does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With apologies to James Burke:If it's not on XKCD, it doesn't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175980</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RawTherapee!<br>I use it on Linux and Windows. And the Author recently released the code under GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RawTherapee ! I use it on Linux and Windows .
And the Author recently released the code under GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RawTherapee!I use it on Linux and Windows.
And the Author recently released the code under GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177938</id>
	<title>Re:Photoshop and open source</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1265026440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it people preferring to pay thousands, or companies deciding to pay thousands?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it people preferring to pay thousands , or companies deciding to pay thousands ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it people preferring to pay thousands, or companies deciding to pay thousands?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179268</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Piknik online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Piknik online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piknik online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175738</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Between jpegtran, exiftool, and ImageMagick you could probably do all of those things.  The nice thing is that you can use them from the command line; no GUI bloat necessary, although ImageMagick has a GUI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Between jpegtran , exiftool , and ImageMagick you could probably do all of those things .
The nice thing is that you can use them from the command line ; no GUI bloat necessary , although ImageMagick has a GUI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between jpegtran, exiftool, and ImageMagick you could probably do all of those things.
The nice thing is that you can use them from the command line; no GUI bloat necessary, although ImageMagick has a GUI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176208</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1265019480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>F-spot does all those things and more in a non-destructive fashion (meaning you can always undo) and comes with every Ubuntu install. Try it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>F-spot does all those things and more in a non-destructive fashion ( meaning you can always undo ) and comes with every Ubuntu install .
Try it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F-spot does all those things and more in a non-destructive fashion (meaning you can always undo) and comes with every Ubuntu install.
Try it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177576</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1265024940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Picasa is amazingly simple to use and has all the features you are looking for with the click of a button, in Windows or Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Picasa is amazingly simple to use and has all the features you are looking for with the click of a button , in Windows or Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picasa is amazingly simple to use and has all the features you are looking for with the click of a button, in Windows or Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177642</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Bobfrankly1</author>
	<datestamp>1265025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses. In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.</p><p>While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:</p><p>- Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg)
- Resize
- Crop
- Print
- Convert to another format (Save as)
- Adjust brightness, contrast, white balance</p><p>Then maybe
- Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags)
- rarely convert a color scan to black and white.
- and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.</p><p>Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.</p><p>For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)</p><p>But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months. The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like). Is there a gem I missed somewhere?</p></div><p>Photoshop Lightroom sounds like a good fit for you, with Gimp used only for the above mentioned text or circle adding duties. Used copies abound, and older versions should drop in price when 3 comes out in a few months (guessing based on expiration of public beta)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being a graphics designer , I never liked Photoshop which was too slow , bloated and complicated ( and expensive ) for my simple uses .
In my Windows days , I first found Paint Shop Pro ( of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere ) , and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView , + occasionally PhotoFiltre.While I 'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals , let 's try a list of things normal users ( like myself ) mainly need in a graphics program : - Rotate ( losslessly for Jpeg ) - Resize - Crop - Print - Convert to another format ( Save as ) - Adjust brightness , contrast , white balanceThen maybe - Edit metadata ( Jpeg comments , Exif description , maybe IPTC tags ) - rarely convert a color scan to black and white .
- and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.Obviously , Photoshop is really too much for this.For Windows users , I know what to recommend ( usually XnView ; + PhotoFiltre if needed ) But I still do n't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months .
The Gimp feels just like Photoshop : too heavy and complicated ( though the price is fine ) , and all the others I tried too limited ( gThumb and the like ) .
Is there a gem I missed somewhere ? Photoshop Lightroom sounds like a good fit for you , with Gimp used only for the above mentioned text or circle adding duties .
Used copies abound , and older versions should drop in price when 3 comes out in a few months ( guessing based on expiration of public beta )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses.
In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:- Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg)
- Resize
- Crop
- Print
- Convert to another format (Save as)
- Adjust brightness, contrast, white balanceThen maybe
- Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags)
- rarely convert a color scan to black and white.
- and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months.
The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like).
Is there a gem I missed somewhere?Photoshop Lightroom sounds like a good fit for you, with Gimp used only for the above mentioned text or circle adding duties.
Used copies abound, and older versions should drop in price when 3 comes out in a few months (guessing based on expiration of public beta)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175030</id>
	<title>First one I used</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1265015640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photoshop 3.0, I got it off the USENET in the spring of '96. 68k version for my Performa 575 w/ 12MB ram.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop 3.0 , I got it off the USENET in the spring of '96 .
68k version for my Performa 575 w/ 12MB ram .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop 3.0, I got it off the USENET in the spring of '96.
68k version for my Performa 575 w/ 12MB ram.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175990</id>
	<title>What version started requiring a mortgage?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265018760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A full version of Photoshop CS4 costs more than a cheap second hand car. Elements is cheaper but crippled in ways that make it much less useful even for a casual amateur. You use to be able to get around those restrictions up to Elements 2.0. Now Elements is a very different piece of software (ironically with some unique features of its own). Photoshop is wonderful, but it's a pity it's either inaccessible or pirated for a great many people. It's probably more pirated than Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A full version of Photoshop CS4 costs more than a cheap second hand car .
Elements is cheaper but crippled in ways that make it much less useful even for a casual amateur .
You use to be able to get around those restrictions up to Elements 2.0 .
Now Elements is a very different piece of software ( ironically with some unique features of its own ) .
Photoshop is wonderful , but it 's a pity it 's either inaccessible or pirated for a great many people .
It 's probably more pirated than Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A full version of Photoshop CS4 costs more than a cheap second hand car.
Elements is cheaper but crippled in ways that make it much less useful even for a casual amateur.
You use to be able to get around those restrictions up to Elements 2.0.
Now Elements is a very different piece of software (ironically with some unique features of its own).
Photoshop is wonderful, but it's a pity it's either inaccessible or pirated for a great many people.
It's probably more pirated than Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180766</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gwenview or digiKam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gwenview or digiKam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gwenview or digiKam</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175426</id>
	<title>Obligatory XKCD Refence</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1265016900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/331/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/331/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/331/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/331/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177250</id>
	<title>Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1265023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For Mac users, there are <a href="http://www.pixelmator.com/" title="pixelmator.com">Pixelmator</a> [pixelmator.com] and <a href="http://flyingmeat.com/acorn/" title="flyingmeat.com">Acorn</a> [flyingmeat.com].  For web users in general, there is <a href="http://aviary.com/" title="aviary.com">Aviary</a> [aviary.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>For Mac users , there are Pixelmator [ pixelmator.com ] and Acorn [ flyingmeat.com ] .
For web users in general , there is Aviary [ aviary.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Mac users, there are Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] and Acorn [flyingmeat.com].
For web users in general, there is Aviary [aviary.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175060</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Photoshop 7 was the last version I really wanted to use. After the CS-series it's just been horrible bloatware. But what can I do? It's not like there's an alternative. GIMP still sucks, and Paint Shop Pro is a joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop 7 was the last version I really wanted to use .
After the CS-series it 's just been horrible bloatware .
But what can I do ?
It 's not like there 's an alternative .
GIMP still sucks , and Paint Shop Pro is a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop 7 was the last version I really wanted to use.
After the CS-series it's just been horrible bloatware.
But what can I do?
It's not like there's an alternative.
GIMP still sucks, and Paint Shop Pro is a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31186926</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266518520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey photoshop instructor here too and you as a photoshop instructor should know what Photoshop is for and who it is for as well. Photoshop is not a product or software to do simple image correction. Possibly in the past in versions 2 and 3 but since the evolution of layers and masking on photoshop we as consumers have seen the effectiveness of using photoshop for more "professional" work. I am really tired of everyone here bashing photoshop for being a resource hog, too expensive and slow. Yes photoshop uses a lot of resources but its built for people that do advertising and professional photo editing. It is not Picassa or iPhoto or whatever cheap little photo editing program you all like to compare it to. I give major props to the people at Gimp for all the add-ons they do for their program its not bad but still not photoshop. What can you say though its free. Anyway, if you want a program that's going to allow you to do sophisticated editing then stick with Adobe but if not then look around, there's plenty of 3rd party software out there in the world.</p><p>As for me, I started PS at version 5 or 6 and was using Paint Shop Pro at that time regularly. However, over the years PS have blossomed a lot and really surpassed the Jasc software. Anyway that's my two cents about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey photoshop instructor here too and you as a photoshop instructor should know what Photoshop is for and who it is for as well .
Photoshop is not a product or software to do simple image correction .
Possibly in the past in versions 2 and 3 but since the evolution of layers and masking on photoshop we as consumers have seen the effectiveness of using photoshop for more " professional " work .
I am really tired of everyone here bashing photoshop for being a resource hog , too expensive and slow .
Yes photoshop uses a lot of resources but its built for people that do advertising and professional photo editing .
It is not Picassa or iPhoto or whatever cheap little photo editing program you all like to compare it to .
I give major props to the people at Gimp for all the add-ons they do for their program its not bad but still not photoshop .
What can you say though its free .
Anyway , if you want a program that 's going to allow you to do sophisticated editing then stick with Adobe but if not then look around , there 's plenty of 3rd party software out there in the world.As for me , I started PS at version 5 or 6 and was using Paint Shop Pro at that time regularly .
However , over the years PS have blossomed a lot and really surpassed the Jasc software .
Anyway that 's my two cents about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey photoshop instructor here too and you as a photoshop instructor should know what Photoshop is for and who it is for as well.
Photoshop is not a product or software to do simple image correction.
Possibly in the past in versions 2 and 3 but since the evolution of layers and masking on photoshop we as consumers have seen the effectiveness of using photoshop for more "professional" work.
I am really tired of everyone here bashing photoshop for being a resource hog, too expensive and slow.
Yes photoshop uses a lot of resources but its built for people that do advertising and professional photo editing.
It is not Picassa or iPhoto or whatever cheap little photo editing program you all like to compare it to.
I give major props to the people at Gimp for all the add-ons they do for their program its not bad but still not photoshop.
What can you say though its free.
Anyway, if you want a program that's going to allow you to do sophisticated editing then stick with Adobe but if not then look around, there's plenty of 3rd party software out there in the world.As for me, I started PS at version 5 or 6 and was using Paint Shop Pro at that time regularly.
However, over the years PS have blossomed a lot and really surpassed the Jasc software.
Anyway that's my two cents about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31190702</id>
	<title>Re:Nostalgia</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1266486660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is getting a bit silly now with all these new features. A raytracing engine in an image editor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is getting a bit silly now with all these new features .
A raytracing engine in an image editor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is getting a bit silly now with all these new features.
A raytracing engine in an image editor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174950</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31187266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31182012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31206814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31184544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31190702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31184560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31182138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31186926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1945219_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31182012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31184560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31184544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176362
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180602
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31182138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31181080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31206814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31180698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31175604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31186926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31187266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31176726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31177700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31179364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1945219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31174950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31190702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1945219.31178054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
