<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_21_174209</id>
	<title>Why You Can't Pry IE6 Out of Their Cold, Dead Hands</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266776100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:esther@bitranch.com" rel="nofollow">Esther Schindler</a> writes <i>"It's easy for techies to enumerate the reasons that Internet Explorer 6 should die. Although the percentage of users who use IE6 has dropped to about 12\%, many web developers are forced to make sure their websites work with the ancient browser (which presents additional problems, such as <a href="http://itexpertvoice.com/home/the-zombies-on-your-network-ie6-the-browser-that-will-not-die/">keeping their companies from upgrading</a> to newer versions of Windows). But rather than indulge in an emotional rant, in '<a href="http://itexpertvoice.com/ad/why-you-cant-pry-ie6-out-of-their-cold-dead-hands/">Why You Can't Pry IE6 Out Of Their Cold Dead Hands</a>,' I set about to find out why the companies that remain standardized on IE6 haven't upgraded (never mind to <em>what</em>). In short: user and business-owner ignorance and/or disinterest in new technology; being stuck with a critical business app that relies on IE6; finding a budget to update internal IE6 apps that will work the same as they used to; and keeping users away from newer Web 2.0 sites."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Esther Schindler writes " It 's easy for techies to enumerate the reasons that Internet Explorer 6 should die .
Although the percentage of users who use IE6 has dropped to about 12 \ % , many web developers are forced to make sure their websites work with the ancient browser ( which presents additional problems , such as keeping their companies from upgrading to newer versions of Windows ) .
But rather than indulge in an emotional rant , in 'Why You Ca n't Pry IE6 Out Of Their Cold Dead Hands, ' I set about to find out why the companies that remain standardized on IE6 have n't upgraded ( never mind to what ) .
In short : user and business-owner ignorance and/or disinterest in new technology ; being stuck with a critical business app that relies on IE6 ; finding a budget to update internal IE6 apps that will work the same as they used to ; and keeping users away from newer Web 2.0 sites .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Esther Schindler writes "It's easy for techies to enumerate the reasons that Internet Explorer 6 should die.
Although the percentage of users who use IE6 has dropped to about 12\%, many web developers are forced to make sure their websites work with the ancient browser (which presents additional problems, such as keeping their companies from upgrading to newer versions of Windows).
But rather than indulge in an emotional rant, in 'Why You Can't Pry IE6 Out Of Their Cold Dead Hands,' I set about to find out why the companies that remain standardized on IE6 haven't upgraded (never mind to what).
In short: user and business-owner ignorance and/or disinterest in new technology; being stuck with a critical business app that relies on IE6; finding a budget to update internal IE6 apps that will work the same as they used to; and keeping users away from newer Web 2.0 sites.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220904</id>
	<title>Re:Old Standards Never Die</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1266783300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, too bad that story is an urban legend...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , too bad that story is an urban legend.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, too bad that story is an urban legend...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221256</id>
	<title>Why develop for them?</title>
	<author>halfdan the black</author>
	<datestamp>1266785760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they are happy with IE6, that means THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO CHANGE, EVER...
<br> <br>
They do not care about your new app! they just want their old apps forever. I used to work at a company that still had to support Windows 3.1 in 2005!!!
Yes, travel agencies would not give up Windows 3.1, and you know what, no matter what we developed for them, they did not want it, no mater how much better it was. The problem was that anything new is different, and therein lies the rub.
<br> <br>
This is the reason why most users use Windows in general, they don't want to learn anything different.
<br> <br>
So, if they still want their ancient versions of IE, chances are that they will not be very interested in you shiny new app!, and you should not waste your time trying to develop something for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are happy with IE6 , that means THEY DO N'T WANT ANYTHING TO CHANGE , EVER.. . They do not care about your new app !
they just want their old apps forever .
I used to work at a company that still had to support Windows 3.1 in 2005 ! ! !
Yes , travel agencies would not give up Windows 3.1 , and you know what , no matter what we developed for them , they did not want it , no mater how much better it was .
The problem was that anything new is different , and therein lies the rub .
This is the reason why most users use Windows in general , they do n't want to learn anything different .
So , if they still want their ancient versions of IE , chances are that they will not be very interested in you shiny new app ! , and you should not waste your time trying to develop something for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are happy with IE6, that means THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO CHANGE, EVER...
 
They do not care about your new app!
they just want their old apps forever.
I used to work at a company that still had to support Windows 3.1 in 2005!!!
Yes, travel agencies would not give up Windows 3.1, and you know what, no matter what we developed for them, they did not want it, no mater how much better it was.
The problem was that anything new is different, and therein lies the rub.
This is the reason why most users use Windows in general, they don't want to learn anything different.
So, if they still want their ancient versions of IE, chances are that they will not be very interested in you shiny new app!, and you should not waste your time trying to develop something for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220600</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1266781680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could install multiple versions of IE. You could install any other browser and use that instead of IE6 where you can. You could run IE6 in a VM.</p><p>You're only "chained" because you don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could install multiple versions of IE .
You could install any other browser and use that instead of IE6 where you can .
You could run IE6 in a VM.You 're only " chained " because you do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could install multiple versions of IE.
You could install any other browser and use that instead of IE6 where you can.
You could run IE6 in a VM.You're only "chained" because you don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221500</id>
	<title>Re:I Use IE6</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266744300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of IE6 loaded when Windows booted so it's not really faster. It just depends on where the wait is and quite frankly its JavaScript implementation is dog slow.
<br> <br>
I'd much rather wait a whole 1 to 2 seconds for Chrome to load up and know it will work better and won't be slow as hell if a site uses any reasonable amount of JavaScript and the fact it renders pages slower. You're not saving any time at all even if psychologically you think you're loading your software and up and running faster and whether you've been lucky or not, it is less secure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of IE6 loaded when Windows booted so it 's not really faster .
It just depends on where the wait is and quite frankly its JavaScript implementation is dog slow .
I 'd much rather wait a whole 1 to 2 seconds for Chrome to load up and know it will work better and wo n't be slow as hell if a site uses any reasonable amount of JavaScript and the fact it renders pages slower .
You 're not saving any time at all even if psychologically you think you 're loading your software and up and running faster and whether you 've been lucky or not , it is less secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of IE6 loaded when Windows booted so it's not really faster.
It just depends on where the wait is and quite frankly its JavaScript implementation is dog slow.
I'd much rather wait a whole 1 to 2 seconds for Chrome to load up and know it will work better and won't be slow as hell if a site uses any reasonable amount of JavaScript and the fact it renders pages slower.
You're not saving any time at all even if psychologically you think you're loading your software and up and running faster and whether you've been lucky or not, it is less secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452</id>
	<title>Same Reason They Won't Move to Mac OSX...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Managers at less than optimally run companies are too busy putting out brush fires or "doing golf".</p><p>Anyone in his right mind would figure a way to eventually migrate out of a Windows platform by one method or another JUST TO STAY marginally more safe in the Internet Security arena.</p><p>Moving to MacOS X give the opportunity to do work in MacOSX whenever possible and only revert to Windows as needed.  What a gift.</p><p>Been using both Windows and Mac together for over a decade, since Win 3.11 (if I remember).  It just is not that much different to get used to one OS or another or BOTH.</p><p>JUST DO IT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Managers at less than optimally run companies are too busy putting out brush fires or " doing golf " .Anyone in his right mind would figure a way to eventually migrate out of a Windows platform by one method or another JUST TO STAY marginally more safe in the Internet Security arena.Moving to MacOS X give the opportunity to do work in MacOSX whenever possible and only revert to Windows as needed .
What a gift.Been using both Windows and Mac together for over a decade , since Win 3.11 ( if I remember ) .
It just is not that much different to get used to one OS or another or BOTH.JUST DO IT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managers at less than optimally run companies are too busy putting out brush fires or "doing golf".Anyone in his right mind would figure a way to eventually migrate out of a Windows platform by one method or another JUST TO STAY marginally more safe in the Internet Security arena.Moving to MacOS X give the opportunity to do work in MacOSX whenever possible and only revert to Windows as needed.
What a gift.Been using both Windows and Mac together for over a decade, since Win 3.11 (if I remember).
It just is not that much different to get used to one OS or another or BOTH.JUST DO IT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220190</id>
	<title>FIST SPORT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266779760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Frosty piss</a> [goatse.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frosty piss [ goatse.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frosty piss [goatse.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221670</id>
	<title>IE6: Only for Enterprise Applications at Work</title>
	<author>Katyrnyn</author>
	<datestamp>1266745320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can honestly say the only time I used IE6 at home was right after a new install to download {insert you choice of replacement browser of the last decade}.</p><p>At work, the majority of our internal corporate software is "customized" for IE6, and the teams responsible for it (and even the IT folks) seem to be in no hurry to "upgrade" to something that will break the existing system.  What's worse - our remote employees and anyone that needs to access work-related materials from home has to keep a copy of IE6 around.  We can use some of the features of the system on other browsers, but some critical items simply don't work.  [It's outside of my programming responsibilities, else I would've pushed the issue to "fix" and standardize things ages ago.]</p><p>And of course it's a violation of the 11th Commandment to install any other browser on our work boxes.  And traffic outside of our intranet is forbidden by the 12th Commandment, except for those in the corporate "priesthood."  And a few of us Systems Programmers, like me.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can honestly say the only time I used IE6 at home was right after a new install to download { insert you choice of replacement browser of the last decade } .At work , the majority of our internal corporate software is " customized " for IE6 , and the teams responsible for it ( and even the IT folks ) seem to be in no hurry to " upgrade " to something that will break the existing system .
What 's worse - our remote employees and anyone that needs to access work-related materials from home has to keep a copy of IE6 around .
We can use some of the features of the system on other browsers , but some critical items simply do n't work .
[ It 's outside of my programming responsibilities , else I would 've pushed the issue to " fix " and standardize things ages ago .
] And of course it 's a violation of the 11th Commandment to install any other browser on our work boxes .
And traffic outside of our intranet is forbidden by the 12th Commandment , except for those in the corporate " priesthood .
" And a few of us Systems Programmers , like me.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can honestly say the only time I used IE6 at home was right after a new install to download {insert you choice of replacement browser of the last decade}.At work, the majority of our internal corporate software is "customized" for IE6, and the teams responsible for it (and even the IT folks) seem to be in no hurry to "upgrade" to something that will break the existing system.
What's worse - our remote employees and anyone that needs to access work-related materials from home has to keep a copy of IE6 around.
We can use some of the features of the system on other browsers, but some critical items simply don't work.
[It's outside of my programming responsibilities, else I would've pushed the issue to "fix" and standardize things ages ago.
]And of course it's a violation of the 11th Commandment to install any other browser on our work boxes.
And traffic outside of our intranet is forbidden by the 12th Commandment, except for those in the corporate "priesthood.
"  And a few of us Systems Programmers, like me.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225382</id>
	<title>Chill out</title>
	<author>danwesnor</author>
	<datestamp>1266769920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the techies realized how many companies still rely on software that needs a VT/220 emulator to work, they would just give up on the whole IE6 thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the techies realized how many companies still rely on software that needs a VT/220 emulator to work , they would just give up on the whole IE6 thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the techies realized how many companies still rely on software that needs a VT/220 emulator to work, they would just give up on the whole IE6 thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222196</id>
	<title>I really don't understand the problem.</title>
	<author>SlothDead</author>
	<datestamp>1266748920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't these companies just use two browsers, an old one for their intranet and a new one for everything else?</p><p>I mean, neither sticking to an old browser, nor updating your intranet apps makes any sense to me. Why not two browsers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't these companies just use two browsers , an old one for their intranet and a new one for everything else ? I mean , neither sticking to an old browser , nor updating your intranet apps makes any sense to me .
Why not two browsers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't these companies just use two browsers, an old one for their intranet and a new one for everything else?I mean, neither sticking to an old browser, nor updating your intranet apps makes any sense to me.
Why not two browsers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220714</id>
	<title>Just don't use IE6 on the internet</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1266782220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they want to use it internally, that's fine. Just don't use it for general net access. To accomplish that end, web sites should reject attempts to access using IE6 to make it so unworkable as an internet browser that people/companies will at least let their users that should be accessing the internet have an alternate better browser to do so with (never mind <i>what</i> that is). Redirect to a browser upgrade page or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to use it internally , that 's fine .
Just do n't use it for general net access .
To accomplish that end , web sites should reject attempts to access using IE6 to make it so unworkable as an internet browser that people/companies will at least let their users that should be accessing the internet have an alternate better browser to do so with ( never mind what that is ) .
Redirect to a browser upgrade page or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to use it internally, that's fine.
Just don't use it for general net access.
To accomplish that end, web sites should reject attempts to access using IE6 to make it so unworkable as an internet browser that people/companies will at least let their users that should be accessing the internet have an alternate better browser to do so with (never mind what that is).
Redirect to a browser upgrade page or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31228990</id>
	<title>Re:chrome frame</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1266852420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it isn't - websites have to specifically request usage of Chrome Frame, and I have yet to come across one that does...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it is n't - websites have to specifically request usage of Chrome Frame , and I have yet to come across one that does.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it isn't - websites have to specifically request usage of Chrome Frame, and I have yet to come across one that does...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222776</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1266752160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You could run IE6 in a VM.</p><p>You're only "chained" because you don't care.</p></div><p>IE6 runs great in WINE . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could run IE6 in a VM.You 're only " chained " because you do n't care.IE6 runs great in WINE .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You could run IE6 in a VM.You're only "chained" because you don't care.IE6 runs great in WINE .
. .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221432</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266743760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really because in many cases it what not totally their fault.</p><p>Sure they might have made a bit of a short-sighted decision in picking something with an IE tie in, but then again if they could tell the future they would not be an IT manager but rather ruling the world</p><p>In many cases when these decisions were made no one knew which way things were going to go. 7-8 years ago the browser wars were over and there was only one contender left, Microsoft's IE. With its non standard standard's and active X controls where the future*shudders* and all the rest. All the other browsers combined had less than 2\% of market share. If that major internal system was IE dependant, so what? There was no other real choice</p><p>Now move forward 7-10 years, totally different landscape, time to  change/upgrade browsers, fine. what's this? Core application X from major vendor Y does not work on newer browsers? damn, oh but their new version work's on anything? Oh well the free browser upgrade we thought we were getting will cost us millions now, but got to be done I guess. Manager goes off to tell users of said system they are getting upgraded....shortly later he return's...in a bodybag that has a note attached to it saying "over our dead bodies"</p><p>So you end up in a situation where IT have to hold off upgrading the entire company become of that one app/department or they have to start mixing the estate, leaving big gaps in their network due to those IE users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really because in many cases it what not totally their fault.Sure they might have made a bit of a short-sighted decision in picking something with an IE tie in , but then again if they could tell the future they would not be an IT manager but rather ruling the worldIn many cases when these decisions were made no one knew which way things were going to go .
7-8 years ago the browser wars were over and there was only one contender left , Microsoft 's IE .
With its non standard standard 's and active X controls where the future * shudders * and all the rest .
All the other browsers combined had less than 2 \ % of market share .
If that major internal system was IE dependant , so what ?
There was no other real choiceNow move forward 7-10 years , totally different landscape , time to change/upgrade browsers , fine .
what 's this ?
Core application X from major vendor Y does not work on newer browsers ?
damn , oh but their new version work 's on anything ?
Oh well the free browser upgrade we thought we were getting will cost us millions now , but got to be done I guess .
Manager goes off to tell users of said system they are getting upgraded....shortly later he return 's...in a bodybag that has a note attached to it saying " over our dead bodies " So you end up in a situation where IT have to hold off upgrading the entire company become of that one app/department or they have to start mixing the estate , leaving big gaps in their network due to those IE users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really because in many cases it what not totally their fault.Sure they might have made a bit of a short-sighted decision in picking something with an IE tie in, but then again if they could tell the future they would not be an IT manager but rather ruling the worldIn many cases when these decisions were made no one knew which way things were going to go.
7-8 years ago the browser wars were over and there was only one contender left, Microsoft's IE.
With its non standard standard's and active X controls where the future*shudders* and all the rest.
All the other browsers combined had less than 2\% of market share.
If that major internal system was IE dependant, so what?
There was no other real choiceNow move forward 7-10 years, totally different landscape, time to  change/upgrade browsers, fine.
what's this?
Core application X from major vendor Y does not work on newer browsers?
damn, oh but their new version work's on anything?
Oh well the free browser upgrade we thought we were getting will cost us millions now, but got to be done I guess.
Manager goes off to tell users of said system they are getting upgraded....shortly later he return's...in a bodybag that has a note attached to it saying "over our dead bodies"So you end up in a situation where IT have to hold off upgrading the entire company become of that one app/department or they have to start mixing the estate, leaving big gaps in their network due to those IE users</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31227188</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why? Do you have some Java program that would run in 1.4 that won't run in 1.6? I certainly have never run into any.</i></p><p>Cisco was notorious for that. Many of the web-based router management tools required a specific version of Java and wouldn't run with any other version.</p><p>Personally I think it was to force all Cisco admins to use the command line...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Do you have some Java program that would run in 1.4 that wo n't run in 1.6 ?
I certainly have never run into any.Cisco was notorious for that .
Many of the web-based router management tools required a specific version of Java and would n't run with any other version.Personally I think it was to force all Cisco admins to use the command line.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Do you have some Java program that would run in 1.4 that won't run in 1.6?
I certainly have never run into any.Cisco was notorious for that.
Many of the web-based router management tools required a specific version of Java and wouldn't run with any other version.Personally I think it was to force all Cisco admins to use the command line...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224688</id>
	<title>Using IE6 is unethical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266764820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a company that supplies the medical industry, and 68\% of our customers are using IE6. I have no idea what we can do about this. I consider any company that deals with sensitive data and uses IE6 to be highly unethical. I certainly wouldn't want to store my medical data with them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a company that supplies the medical industry , and 68 \ % of our customers are using IE6 .
I have no idea what we can do about this .
I consider any company that deals with sensitive data and uses IE6 to be highly unethical .
I certainly would n't want to store my medical data with them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a company that supplies the medical industry, and 68\% of our customers are using IE6.
I have no idea what we can do about this.
I consider any company that deals with sensitive data and uses IE6 to be highly unethical.
I certainly wouldn't want to store my medical data with them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224894</id>
	<title>One other reason for inaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266766800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of folks did not like the interface changes from IE6 to 7 &amp; 8. I didn't like the changes at all, but gave in after a few months because of security concerns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of folks did not like the interface changes from IE6 to 7 &amp; 8 .
I did n't like the changes at all , but gave in after a few months because of security concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of folks did not like the interface changes from IE6 to 7 &amp; 8.
I didn't like the changes at all, but gave in after a few months because of security concerns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300</id>
	<title>Old Standards Never Die</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1266780300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of this old story of how the design of the Space Shuttle was <a href="http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html" title="astrodigital.org"> influenced by the width of a horses butt</a> [astrodigital.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of this old story of how the design of the Space Shuttle was influenced by the width of a horses butt [ astrodigital.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of this old story of how the design of the Space Shuttle was  influenced by the width of a horses butt [astrodigital.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31253730</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Jaime2</author>
	<datestamp>1266933960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When is the last time you used the browscap.ini file?  In Microsoft land, the file was used in ASP, but ASP.Net has a different detection methodology.  That means that this hasn't been the current way to do it for nine years.  Dot Net framework service packs are actually pretty good about keeping up with third party browser capabilities.  Even back in the bad old ASP days, no one forced anyone to use the BrowserType object, the HTTP\_USER\_AGENT property was fully exposed to do any alternate type of browser checking.<br>
<br>
In my fourteen years of developing applications that run on IIS (IDC --&gt; ASP --&gt; ASP.Net), I've never had a problem supporting non-IE browsers.  I have also never felt compelled to use ActiveX.  I've been tempted by Windows Authentication for Intranet apps, but that was an example of a genuinely useful proprietary feature of IE, so useful that FireFox eventually adopted it.  As for the broken DOM in IE, I suffered through that like everyone else.  My suffering was not lessened by the fact that I was developing on IIS, and IIS offered no help for supporting IE's quirks.  I have used a ton of Microsoft proprietary server-side technology, but most of it was browser agnostic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When is the last time you used the browscap.ini file ?
In Microsoft land , the file was used in ASP , but ASP.Net has a different detection methodology .
That means that this has n't been the current way to do it for nine years .
Dot Net framework service packs are actually pretty good about keeping up with third party browser capabilities .
Even back in the bad old ASP days , no one forced anyone to use the BrowserType object , the HTTP \ _USER \ _AGENT property was fully exposed to do any alternate type of browser checking .
In my fourteen years of developing applications that run on IIS ( IDC -- &gt; ASP -- &gt; ASP.Net ) , I 've never had a problem supporting non-IE browsers .
I have also never felt compelled to use ActiveX .
I 've been tempted by Windows Authentication for Intranet apps , but that was an example of a genuinely useful proprietary feature of IE , so useful that FireFox eventually adopted it .
As for the broken DOM in IE , I suffered through that like everyone else .
My suffering was not lessened by the fact that I was developing on IIS , and IIS offered no help for supporting IE 's quirks .
I have used a ton of Microsoft proprietary server-side technology , but most of it was browser agnostic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is the last time you used the browscap.ini file?
In Microsoft land, the file was used in ASP, but ASP.Net has a different detection methodology.
That means that this hasn't been the current way to do it for nine years.
Dot Net framework service packs are actually pretty good about keeping up with third party browser capabilities.
Even back in the bad old ASP days, no one forced anyone to use the BrowserType object, the HTTP\_USER\_AGENT property was fully exposed to do any alternate type of browser checking.
In my fourteen years of developing applications that run on IIS (IDC --&gt; ASP --&gt; ASP.Net), I've never had a problem supporting non-IE browsers.
I have also never felt compelled to use ActiveX.
I've been tempted by Windows Authentication for Intranet apps, but that was an example of a genuinely useful proprietary feature of IE, so useful that FireFox eventually adopted it.
As for the broken DOM in IE, I suffered through that like everyone else.
My suffering was not lessened by the fact that I was developing on IIS, and IIS offered no help for supporting IE's quirks.
I have used a ton of Microsoft proprietary server-side technology, but most of it was browser agnostic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222442</id>
	<title>This is insightful?</title>
	<author>lseltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1266750180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIS is an HTTP server. It has no ties with IE.</p><p>Any apps that are IE6-specific are certain to be very, very old. At some point you have to lose sympathy for the customers who refuse to update. Unfortunately, <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/20/1910232/Ars-Analysis-Calls-Windows-7-Memory-Usage-Claims-Scaremongering?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">MS is committed to support IE6 well into 2014</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIS is an HTTP server .
It has no ties with IE.Any apps that are IE6-specific are certain to be very , very old .
At some point you have to lose sympathy for the customers who refuse to update .
Unfortunately , MS is committed to support IE6 well into 2014 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIS is an HTTP server.
It has no ties with IE.Any apps that are IE6-specific are certain to be very, very old.
At some point you have to lose sympathy for the customers who refuse to update.
Unfortunately, MS is committed to support IE6 well into 2014 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220310</id>
	<title>Kill Them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the author suggesting that we try to solve the problem by killing anyone who still uses IE6?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the author suggesting that we try to solve the problem by killing anyone who still uses IE6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the author suggesting that we try to solve the problem by killing anyone who still uses IE6?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220668</id>
	<title>Why upgrade?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1266781980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, let's look at this in a business perspective.</p><p>You have technology which works "good enough". Why change? If you change you then have to upgrade to newer versions of software, either vendor supplied or developed in-house. You can end up on the "upgrade treadmill". This means you must rewrite software and upgrade hardware in a cascading manner all across you business.</p><p>Writing software can be a crap shoot and ERP software does not have a good reputation. Why fix what isn't broken? Software rewrites can be very expensive and a business must focus on sales and their products. If the upgrade only gives the same functionality and costs $$$$$$ to upgrade, why do it? Software development can be a big risk. There's no guarantee it will work without lost time and years of fixes.</p><p>Can the IT department assure a very high level of success and cost control? Can their new whiz bang technology work better than what has developed over years, perhaps a decade or more? IT projects like this have a huge possibility of failure, from an empirical POV. Also there is the risk of introducing *more* security risks by deploying untestd software.</p><p>It also is ironic that the consultants which sold the IE6 only apps, now probably long gone, have locked the customer out of upgrades.</p><p>So let's look at site lock out. Most security breaches are *not* done by crackers. They are done by employees either being stupid or malicious. Blocking off social networking sites makes sense. This isn't a bad form of risk control.</p><p>Let's look at ignorance. the reason many people don't know is that they don't have to know. If it doesn't require fixing, then it doesn't exists. Sort of like the old sayings "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "out of sight out of mind.</p><p>Note that many of these reasons are the same reasons there is so much COBOL running around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , let 's look at this in a business perspective.You have technology which works " good enough " .
Why change ?
If you change you then have to upgrade to newer versions of software , either vendor supplied or developed in-house .
You can end up on the " upgrade treadmill " .
This means you must rewrite software and upgrade hardware in a cascading manner all across you business.Writing software can be a crap shoot and ERP software does not have a good reputation .
Why fix what is n't broken ?
Software rewrites can be very expensive and a business must focus on sales and their products .
If the upgrade only gives the same functionality and costs $ $ $ $ $ $ to upgrade , why do it ?
Software development can be a big risk .
There 's no guarantee it will work without lost time and years of fixes.Can the IT department assure a very high level of success and cost control ?
Can their new whiz bang technology work better than what has developed over years , perhaps a decade or more ?
IT projects like this have a huge possibility of failure , from an empirical POV .
Also there is the risk of introducing * more * security risks by deploying untestd software.It also is ironic that the consultants which sold the IE6 only apps , now probably long gone , have locked the customer out of upgrades.So let 's look at site lock out .
Most security breaches are * not * done by crackers .
They are done by employees either being stupid or malicious .
Blocking off social networking sites makes sense .
This is n't a bad form of risk control.Let 's look at ignorance .
the reason many people do n't know is that they do n't have to know .
If it does n't require fixing , then it does n't exists .
Sort of like the old sayings " the squeaky wheel gets the grease " and " out of sight out of mind.Note that many of these reasons are the same reasons there is so much COBOL running around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, let's look at this in a business perspective.You have technology which works "good enough".
Why change?
If you change you then have to upgrade to newer versions of software, either vendor supplied or developed in-house.
You can end up on the "upgrade treadmill".
This means you must rewrite software and upgrade hardware in a cascading manner all across you business.Writing software can be a crap shoot and ERP software does not have a good reputation.
Why fix what isn't broken?
Software rewrites can be very expensive and a business must focus on sales and their products.
If the upgrade only gives the same functionality and costs $$$$$$ to upgrade, why do it?
Software development can be a big risk.
There's no guarantee it will work without lost time and years of fixes.Can the IT department assure a very high level of success and cost control?
Can their new whiz bang technology work better than what has developed over years, perhaps a decade or more?
IT projects like this have a huge possibility of failure, from an empirical POV.
Also there is the risk of introducing *more* security risks by deploying untestd software.It also is ironic that the consultants which sold the IE6 only apps, now probably long gone, have locked the customer out of upgrades.So let's look at site lock out.
Most security breaches are *not* done by crackers.
They are done by employees either being stupid or malicious.
Blocking off social networking sites makes sense.
This isn't a bad form of risk control.Let's look at ignorance.
the reason many people don't know is that they don't have to know.
If it doesn't require fixing, then it doesn't exists.
Sort of like the old sayings "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "out of sight out of mind.Note that many of these reasons are the same reasons there is so much COBOL running around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31368406</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1267779600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You just can't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the "company laptop" (good thing they don't know about "Ubuntu" so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels).</p></div><p>Why, BTW? Because that don't seem sensible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just ca n't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the " company laptop " ( good thing they do n't know about " Ubuntu " so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels ) .Why , BTW ?
Because that do n't seem sensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just can't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the "company laptop" (good thing they don't know about "Ubuntu" so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels).Why, BTW?
Because that don't seem sensible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222062</id>
	<title>Yes, this is news. And this is a possible solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266748200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes, even in the new browsers, non-backward compatible issues occur. For example: many websites break in Firefox 3.6 due to some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.isReadOnly javascript change. Thus holding the sysadmin to upgrade.<br>Browser should, just like IE8 does, have a 'backward engine mode'. This way a user can still use his latest and greatest browser, but still access that vital app.</p><p>I think in 3 of the 4 scenario's above would have been non-issues at all if IE7 and IE8 would have supported a 'do this site in IE6 render' mode. Sysadmins could upgrade without problems, and WebDevelopers could than just always build for the latest version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , even in the new browsers , non-backward compatible issues occur .
For example : many websites break in Firefox 3.6 due to some .isReadOnly javascript change .
Thus holding the sysadmin to upgrade.Browser should , just like IE8 does , have a 'backward engine mode' .
This way a user can still use his latest and greatest browser , but still access that vital app.I think in 3 of the 4 scenario 's above would have been non-issues at all if IE7 and IE8 would have supported a 'do this site in IE6 render ' mode .
Sysadmins could upgrade without problems , and WebDevelopers could than just always build for the latest version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, even in the new browsers, non-backward compatible issues occur.
For example: many websites break in Firefox 3.6 due to some .isReadOnly javascript change.
Thus holding the sysadmin to upgrade.Browser should, just like IE8 does, have a 'backward engine mode'.
This way a user can still use his latest and greatest browser, but still access that vital app.I think in 3 of the 4 scenario's above would have been non-issues at all if IE7 and IE8 would have supported a 'do this site in IE6 render' mode.
Sysadmins could upgrade without problems, and WebDevelopers could than just always build for the latest version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226750</id>
	<title>ie6 is small!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266870420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i keep ie6 on my xp system for using the windows updates webpage, but firefox is my main browser. other than that i have it blocked off from accessing the internet in about 5 different ways. i have no interest in installing ie7 or ie8 because they take up even more hd space and install more files on my system for a browser i don't even use anyway except for updates which ms unfortunately requires. i wish ms made a standalone updating program for xp, then i'd remove ie completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i keep ie6 on my xp system for using the windows updates webpage , but firefox is my main browser .
other than that i have it blocked off from accessing the internet in about 5 different ways .
i have no interest in installing ie7 or ie8 because they take up even more hd space and install more files on my system for a browser i do n't even use anyway except for updates which ms unfortunately requires .
i wish ms made a standalone updating program for xp , then i 'd remove ie completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i keep ie6 on my xp system for using the windows updates webpage, but firefox is my main browser.
other than that i have it blocked off from accessing the internet in about 5 different ways.
i have no interest in installing ie7 or ie8 because they take up even more hd space and install more files on my system for a browser i don't even use anyway except for updates which ms unfortunately requires.
i wish ms made a standalone updating program for xp, then i'd remove ie completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221132</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>mobby\_6kl</author>
	<datestamp>1266784980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm not a spouse to anyone in a F-500 company, I myself work at one which would definitely be on the list if it were US-based. Vista has been rolled out partially, but there are still quite a few XP PCs left. And while the XP image comes with IE6 by default, users are able, and encouraged, to upgrade to IE7. As I said, Vista isn't everywhere yet, and from what I understand (I'm not in IT), further upgrades have been halted in favor of upgrading to Win7 directly.</p><p>I think this is a reasonable approach to take, especially when we started taking cost savings more seriously in light of the overall economic situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm not a spouse to anyone in a F-500 company , I myself work at one which would definitely be on the list if it were US-based .
Vista has been rolled out partially , but there are still quite a few XP PCs left .
And while the XP image comes with IE6 by default , users are able , and encouraged , to upgrade to IE7 .
As I said , Vista is n't everywhere yet , and from what I understand ( I 'm not in IT ) , further upgrades have been halted in favor of upgrading to Win7 directly.I think this is a reasonable approach to take , especially when we started taking cost savings more seriously in light of the overall economic situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm not a spouse to anyone in a F-500 company, I myself work at one which would definitely be on the list if it were US-based.
Vista has been rolled out partially, but there are still quite a few XP PCs left.
And while the XP image comes with IE6 by default, users are able, and encouraged, to upgrade to IE7.
As I said, Vista isn't everywhere yet, and from what I understand (I'm not in IT), further upgrades have been halted in favor of upgrading to Win7 directly.I think this is a reasonable approach to take, especially when we started taking cost savings more seriously in light of the overall economic situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220342</id>
	<title>You Can't Pry IE6 from the Poor, M$ Addicts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>M$ has a hold on the M$ addicts who can't afford a new computer.  M$ has used IIS to further strengthen the addiction to M$ Internet Exploder, M$ Windoze, and all M$ products.  If it were otherwise those who own older computers would use GNU/Linux rather than the M$ Windoze and M$ Internet Exploder.  This is why M$ should be taken apart by the governments of the world, piece by piece.  Afterwards the pieces of M$ should be given to the free software movements so interoperability can be acheived.</p><p>--<br>Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.<br>Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M $ has a hold on the M $ addicts who ca n't afford a new computer .
M $ has used IIS to further strengthen the addiction to M $ Internet Exploder , M $ Windoze , and all M $ products .
If it were otherwise those who own older computers would use GNU/Linux rather than the M $ Windoze and M $ Internet Exploder .
This is why M $ should be taken apart by the governments of the world , piece by piece .
Afterwards the pieces of M $ should be given to the free software movements so interoperability can be acheived.--Friends do n't help friends install M $ junk.Friends do assist M $ addicted friends in committing suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M$ has a hold on the M$ addicts who can't afford a new computer.
M$ has used IIS to further strengthen the addiction to M$ Internet Exploder, M$ Windoze, and all M$ products.
If it were otherwise those who own older computers would use GNU/Linux rather than the M$ Windoze and M$ Internet Exploder.
This is why M$ should be taken apart by the governments of the world, piece by piece.
Afterwards the pieces of M$ should be given to the free software movements so interoperability can be acheived.--Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221078</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266784560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The economic excuse is just bullshit. It's all deductible anyway. They might lose several million already again tonight because their systems are shit in terms of security. Then don't want to upgrade because they're stupid and lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The economic excuse is just bullshit .
It 's all deductible anyway .
They might lose several million already again tonight because their systems are shit in terms of security .
Then do n't want to upgrade because they 're stupid and lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The economic excuse is just bullshit.
It's all deductible anyway.
They might lose several million already again tonight because their systems are shit in terms of security.
Then don't want to upgrade because they're stupid and lame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221604</id>
	<title>It's not all about you</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1266744960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other. The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary. Active-X was a tool to this end. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Dude, have you ever heard of Hanlon's law? If ActiveX was designed to create lock-in, why did Microsoft abandon it?</p><p>Imputing collective motives to a company as disorganized and political as MS is like imputing malice to a cockroach infestation. Yes, they often use underhanded methods to screw over their competition. But that's marketing, not engineering. The engineering side of MS has this bit-twiddler's love of doing things its own way. People mostly notice this when they introduce some incompatible technology that screws over the rest of the computing industry. But in fact, this BS often has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html" title="nytimes.com">one group in MS screwing over the rest of the company</a> [nytimes.com].</p><p>Have you ever worked on a poorly managed engineering team where one or more engineers keeps insisting on doing things a certain way, even if it screws over  the project as a whole? It's always been obvious to me that most of the people who work at Microsoft are like that. IE is a mess because the company that produced it is a mess &mdash; too much of a mess to carry out the complicated conspiracies everyone likes to believe in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other .
The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary .
Active-X was a tool to this end .
Dude , have you ever heard of Hanlon 's law ?
If ActiveX was designed to create lock-in , why did Microsoft abandon it ? Imputing collective motives to a company as disorganized and political as MS is like imputing malice to a cockroach infestation .
Yes , they often use underhanded methods to screw over their competition .
But that 's marketing , not engineering .
The engineering side of MS has this bit-twiddler 's love of doing things its own way .
People mostly notice this when they introduce some incompatible technology that screws over the rest of the computing industry .
But in fact , this BS often has one group in MS screwing over the rest of the company [ nytimes.com ] .Have you ever worked on a poorly managed engineering team where one or more engineers keeps insisting on doing things a certain way , even if it screws over the project as a whole ?
It 's always been obvious to me that most of the people who work at Microsoft are like that .
IE is a mess because the company that produced it is a mess    too much of a mess to carry out the complicated conspiracies everyone likes to believe in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other.
The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary.
Active-X was a tool to this end.
Dude, have you ever heard of Hanlon's law?
If ActiveX was designed to create lock-in, why did Microsoft abandon it?Imputing collective motives to a company as disorganized and political as MS is like imputing malice to a cockroach infestation.
Yes, they often use underhanded methods to screw over their competition.
But that's marketing, not engineering.
The engineering side of MS has this bit-twiddler's love of doing things its own way.
People mostly notice this when they introduce some incompatible technology that screws over the rest of the computing industry.
But in fact, this BS often has one group in MS screwing over the rest of the company [nytimes.com].Have you ever worked on a poorly managed engineering team where one or more engineers keeps insisting on doing things a certain way, even if it screws over  the project as a whole?
It's always been obvious to me that most of the people who work at Microsoft are like that.
IE is a mess because the company that produced it is a mess — too much of a mess to carry out the complicated conspiracies everyone likes to believe in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221570</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1266744780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ia Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one)</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>"Which car company do you work for?" "A major one"</p></div></blockquote><p>Let me guess... next you want me to hit you as hard as I can?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ia Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless ( but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it 's a big one ) " Which car company do you work for ?
" " A major one " Let me guess... next you want me to hit you as hard as I can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ia Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one)"Which car company do you work for?
" "A major one"Let me guess... next you want me to hit you as hard as I can?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221166</id>
	<title>bill gates' corporate handjob department</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266785160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You fucking idiotic corporate I.T. wankers.</p><p>This is all your fault.  It's no wonder the world if failing.  It's run but idiotic corporate executives that don't know shit from their next gourmet corporate meal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You fucking idiotic corporate I.T .
wankers.This is all your fault .
It 's no wonder the world if failing .
It 's run but idiotic corporate executives that do n't know shit from their next gourmet corporate meal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fucking idiotic corporate I.T.
wankers.This is all your fault.
It's no wonder the world if failing.
It's run but idiotic corporate executives that don't know shit from their next gourmet corporate meal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220592</id>
	<title>Costs on the long run?</title>
	<author>fysdt</author>
	<datestamp>1266781620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Upgrading IE6 could cost a lot of money which is probably why a lot of companies aren't upgrading it (e.g. applications that depend on it).

Wouldn't IE6 cost a lot of money on the long run?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrading IE6 could cost a lot of money which is probably why a lot of companies are n't upgrading it ( e.g .
applications that depend on it ) .
Would n't IE6 cost a lot of money on the long run ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrading IE6 could cost a lot of money which is probably why a lot of companies aren't upgrading it (e.g.
applications that depend on it).
Wouldn't IE6 cost a lot of money on the long run?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225732</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266772620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other.</p></div><p>In what way are IE and IIS "designed to complement each other"? Do you have any specific examples of IE working better with IIS than other web servers, or IIS serving content better to IE than other browsers?</p><p>I'm not sure how ActiveX is relevant to all this, anyway. IIS is entirely unrelated to ActiveX. As for IE, it still doesn't make sense in the context of this story, as IE8 still supports ActiveX, so it's not the reason why people can't upgrade. If anything, a pure ActiveX application (with no HTML/JS/CSS bits) is the one that will not have any trouble running in IE8...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can. Because that won't be hard to get rid of.</p></div><p>Well, SP has official Firefox and Safari support out of the box today, even though it's "second tier". In the upcoming SP2010, it's significantly improved, and is pretty much on par with IE. So, no, it won't be the next ActiveX. There is lock-in on server side, for sure, but that's a very different story.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other.In what way are IE and IIS " designed to complement each other " ?
Do you have any specific examples of IE working better with IIS than other web servers , or IIS serving content better to IE than other browsers ? I 'm not sure how ActiveX is relevant to all this , anyway .
IIS is entirely unrelated to ActiveX .
As for IE , it still does n't make sense in the context of this story , as IE8 still supports ActiveX , so it 's not the reason why people ca n't upgrade .
If anything , a pure ActiveX application ( with no HTML/JS/CSS bits ) is the one that will not have any trouble running in IE8...And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can .
Because that wo n't be hard to get rid of.Well , SP has official Firefox and Safari support out of the box today , even though it 's " second tier " .
In the upcoming SP2010 , it 's significantly improved , and is pretty much on par with IE .
So , no , it wo n't be the next ActiveX .
There is lock-in on server side , for sure , but that 's a very different story .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other.In what way are IE and IIS "designed to complement each other"?
Do you have any specific examples of IE working better with IIS than other web servers, or IIS serving content better to IE than other browsers?I'm not sure how ActiveX is relevant to all this, anyway.
IIS is entirely unrelated to ActiveX.
As for IE, it still doesn't make sense in the context of this story, as IE8 still supports ActiveX, so it's not the reason why people can't upgrade.
If anything, a pure ActiveX application (with no HTML/JS/CSS bits) is the one that will not have any trouble running in IE8...And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can.
Because that won't be hard to get rid of.Well, SP has official Firefox and Safari support out of the box today, even though it's "second tier".
In the upcoming SP2010, it's significantly improved, and is pretty much on par with IE.
So, no, it won't be the next ActiveX.
There is lock-in on server side, for sure, but that's a very different story.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221242</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1266785640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired? Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.</i></p><p>Chances are they might have already left. Now you are left with people who just need to keep the system going and don't dare do anything to break it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is , will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired ?
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move , and one that should have consequences.Chances are they might have already left .
Now you are left with people who just need to keep the system going and do n't dare do anything to break it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired?
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.Chances are they might have already left.
Now you are left with people who just need to keep the system going and don't dare do anything to break it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221934</id>
	<title>Windows 98</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1266747180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't underestimate the impact of Windows 95/98.  It still runs on old hardware, is compatible-enough it can still run most applications businesses need, etc.  IE6 is the newest browser available.</p><p>If anyone has any suggestion for a full-featured browser that still runs on Windows 98, I could probably reduce the count of IE6 users by a few thousand.  Don't bother mentioning Firefox.  Mozilla.org gave-up Windows 9x compatibility with v3, so you're still left with an unsupported browser.  That "EX"-something-or-other (to run XP apps on 9x) sounds clever, but is an overwhelming no-go in a business.</p><p>And suggesting hardware upgrades for everyone, when their needs are absolutely trivial, and already met, will similarly get met with extreme resistance in the "more frugal" (read: cheap as hell) organizations, such as mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't underestimate the impact of Windows 95/98 .
It still runs on old hardware , is compatible-enough it can still run most applications businesses need , etc .
IE6 is the newest browser available.If anyone has any suggestion for a full-featured browser that still runs on Windows 98 , I could probably reduce the count of IE6 users by a few thousand .
Do n't bother mentioning Firefox .
Mozilla.org gave-up Windows 9x compatibility with v3 , so you 're still left with an unsupported browser .
That " EX " -something-or-other ( to run XP apps on 9x ) sounds clever , but is an overwhelming no-go in a business.And suggesting hardware upgrades for everyone , when their needs are absolutely trivial , and already met , will similarly get met with extreme resistance in the " more frugal " ( read : cheap as hell ) organizations , such as mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't underestimate the impact of Windows 95/98.
It still runs on old hardware, is compatible-enough it can still run most applications businesses need, etc.
IE6 is the newest browser available.If anyone has any suggestion for a full-featured browser that still runs on Windows 98, I could probably reduce the count of IE6 users by a few thousand.
Don't bother mentioning Firefox.
Mozilla.org gave-up Windows 9x compatibility with v3, so you're still left with an unsupported browser.
That "EX"-something-or-other (to run XP apps on 9x) sounds clever, but is an overwhelming no-go in a business.And suggesting hardware upgrades for everyone, when their needs are absolutely trivial, and already met, will similarly get met with extreme resistance in the "more frugal" (read: cheap as hell) organizations, such as mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222038</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266747960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you really haven't done any development using IIS. You should look at the browsercap.ini file in IIS. As delivered by Microsoft, it treated Firefox as a very inferior browser compared to IE. You had to perform some serious hacking to this file in order to bring up the capablities to something reasonable. And even then IIS didn't treat Firefox the same.  Let's face it, using IIS basically forced IE on the client. Plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you really have n't done any development using IIS .
You should look at the browsercap.ini file in IIS .
As delivered by Microsoft , it treated Firefox as a very inferior browser compared to IE .
You had to perform some serious hacking to this file in order to bring up the capablities to something reasonable .
And even then IIS did n't treat Firefox the same .
Let 's face it , using IIS basically forced IE on the client .
Plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you really haven't done any development using IIS.
You should look at the browsercap.ini file in IIS.
As delivered by Microsoft, it treated Firefox as a very inferior browser compared to IE.
You had to perform some serious hacking to this file in order to bring up the capablities to something reasonable.
And even then IIS didn't treat Firefox the same.
Let's face it, using IIS basically forced IE on the client.
Plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221358</id>
	<title>TFA doesn't display in Chrome</title>
	<author>Froobly</author>
	<datestamp>1266743220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone else find it ironic that an article on standards compliance doesn't display in Google Chrome?  As soon as the page finishes loading, the entire screen turns white.  I had to open IE in order to read it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else find it ironic that an article on standards compliance does n't display in Google Chrome ?
As soon as the page finishes loading , the entire screen turns white .
I had to open IE in order to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else find it ironic that an article on standards compliance doesn't display in Google Chrome?
As soon as the page finishes loading, the entire screen turns white.
I had to open IE in order to read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222102</id>
	<title>Re:I Use IE6</title>
	<author>duffbeer703</author>
	<datestamp>1266748380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Likewise, I still use Netscape Navigator 2, because these uppity websites keep throwing these images at me, and newfangled browsers don't let you refuse images. If I want to look at pretty pictures, I'll take out my photo albums!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , I still use Netscape Navigator 2 , because these uppity websites keep throwing these images at me , and newfangled browsers do n't let you refuse images .
If I want to look at pretty pictures , I 'll take out my photo albums !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise, I still use Netscape Navigator 2, because these uppity websites keep throwing these images at me, and newfangled browsers don't let you refuse images.
If I want to look at pretty pictures, I'll take out my photo albums!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224560</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1266763920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>However sometimes improvements are nice.. I work in an environment where I have to run multiple web apps (about 9 on average).. tabbed browsing would be mighty handy, but were stuck with IE6.. sure everything for the most part works, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However sometimes improvements are nice.. I work in an environment where I have to run multiple web apps ( about 9 on average ) .. tabbed browsing would be mighty handy , but were stuck with IE6.. sure everything for the most part works , but that does n't mean it could n't be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However sometimes improvements are nice.. I work in an environment where I have to run multiple web apps (about 9 on average).. tabbed browsing would be mighty handy, but were stuck with IE6.. sure everything for the most part works, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222048</id>
	<title>IE 6 Still OEM</title>
	<author>ElusiveMind</author>
	<datestamp>1266748020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just got a brand new Netbook (Dell Inspirion 10) as part of a deal with my TV provider (got it for free) and out of the box it had Windows XP and IE 6.<br> <br>

Perhaps once Microsoft decides to stop distributing it as part of their OEM package, it can be sure of a faster death.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a brand new Netbook ( Dell Inspirion 10 ) as part of a deal with my TV provider ( got it for free ) and out of the box it had Windows XP and IE 6 .
Perhaps once Microsoft decides to stop distributing it as part of their OEM package , it can be sure of a faster death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a brand new Netbook (Dell Inspirion 10) as part of a deal with my TV provider (got it for free) and out of the box it had Windows XP and IE 6.
Perhaps once Microsoft decides to stop distributing it as part of their OEM package, it can be sure of a faster death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226658</id>
	<title>IE6 legacy on Terminal Server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266868980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an idea that might solve some headaches - maintaining compatibility with legacy internal applications, and enabling newer browsers to view the actual WWW at the same time...</p><p>Why don't we use Terminal Server to use those sites that require IE6, and install a better browser for everything else?  Corporates are using those legacy web sites more as "applications" anyway - so it's pretty natural to double-click on the relevant icon on the Desktop and have a Terminal Server session start up with just that application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea that might solve some headaches - maintaining compatibility with legacy internal applications , and enabling newer browsers to view the actual WWW at the same time...Why do n't we use Terminal Server to use those sites that require IE6 , and install a better browser for everything else ?
Corporates are using those legacy web sites more as " applications " anyway - so it 's pretty natural to double-click on the relevant icon on the Desktop and have a Terminal Server session start up with just that application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea that might solve some headaches - maintaining compatibility with legacy internal applications, and enabling newer browsers to view the actual WWW at the same time...Why don't we use Terminal Server to use those sites that require IE6, and install a better browser for everything else?
Corporates are using those legacy web sites more as "applications" anyway - so it's pretty natural to double-click on the relevant icon on the Desktop and have a Terminal Server session start up with just that application.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220634</id>
	<title>Re:Same Reason They Won't Move to Mac OSX...</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1266781800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so I'm out of my mind.  Thanks for letting me know.</p><p>It's a good point you make though, everyone knows that Apple has a fantastic track record when it comes to security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so I 'm out of my mind .
Thanks for letting me know.It 's a good point you make though , everyone knows that Apple has a fantastic track record when it comes to security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so I'm out of my mind.
Thanks for letting me know.It's a good point you make though, everyone knows that Apple has a fantastic track record when it comes to security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220910</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Grand Facade</author>
	<datestamp>1266783360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one ever gets fired for buying IBM....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one ever gets fired for buying IBM... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one ever gets fired for buying IBM....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221342</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1266743040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>not to mention the fact that you have to have Java 1.4, Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 installed in parallel and switch to the right one for each machine</p></div></blockquote><p>Why?  Do you have some Java program that would run in 1.4 that won't run in 1.6?  I certainly have never run into any.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not to mention the fact that you have to have Java 1.4 , Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 installed in parallel and switch to the right one for each machineWhy ?
Do you have some Java program that would run in 1.4 that wo n't run in 1.6 ?
I certainly have never run into any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to mention the fact that you have to have Java 1.4, Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 installed in parallel and switch to the right one for each machineWhy?
Do you have some Java program that would run in 1.4 that won't run in 1.6?
I certainly have never run into any.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221520</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1266744480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt many of these companies knew they were locking themselves into IE6.  Who could predict what Microsoft would do when they came out with subsequent releases?  Code gets written, it works under IE6, often with some bug that doesn't manifest itself under IE6 or uses an evolving browser function, and then IE7 (or 8, or Firefox) comes out and processes the code more literally or in a different way  or maybe the way a browser function call operates changes, and things go Boom.  Just like unexpected compatibility issues between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

This is a problem that extends well  beyond web browsers.  We've seen it happen when operating systems change, network servers change (Novel vs. Microsoft vs Lantastic, Invisible Lan, and all those other P2P networks that were out there), and even drive formats (Fat12 vs Fat16 or 32, or NTFS).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt many of these companies knew they were locking themselves into IE6 .
Who could predict what Microsoft would do when they came out with subsequent releases ?
Code gets written , it works under IE6 , often with some bug that does n't manifest itself under IE6 or uses an evolving browser function , and then IE7 ( or 8 , or Firefox ) comes out and processes the code more literally or in a different way or maybe the way a browser function call operates changes , and things go Boom .
Just like unexpected compatibility issues between Windows 2000 and Windows XP .
This is a problem that extends well beyond web browsers .
We 've seen it happen when operating systems change , network servers change ( Novel vs. Microsoft vs Lantastic , Invisible Lan , and all those other P2P networks that were out there ) , and even drive formats ( Fat12 vs Fat16 or 32 , or NTFS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt many of these companies knew they were locking themselves into IE6.
Who could predict what Microsoft would do when they came out with subsequent releases?
Code gets written, it works under IE6, often with some bug that doesn't manifest itself under IE6 or uses an evolving browser function, and then IE7 (or 8, or Firefox) comes out and processes the code more literally or in a different way  or maybe the way a browser function call operates changes, and things go Boom.
Just like unexpected compatibility issues between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
This is a problem that extends well  beyond web browsers.
We've seen it happen when operating systems change, network servers change (Novel vs. Microsoft vs Lantastic, Invisible Lan, and all those other P2P networks that were out there), and even drive formats (Fat12 vs Fat16 or 32, or NTFS).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222682</id>
	<title>I find your conditions... acceptable.</title>
	<author>Xenographic</author>
	<datestamp>1266751560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't remember what movie it's from, but whenever I hear things like "You'll have to pry IE6 from our cold, dead hands," all I can think of is:</p><p>"I find your conditions... acceptable."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember what movie it 's from , but whenever I hear things like " You 'll have to pry IE6 from our cold , dead hands , " all I can think of is : " I find your conditions.. .
acceptable. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember what movie it's from, but whenever I hear things like "You'll have to pry IE6 from our cold, dead hands," all I can think of is:"I find your conditions...
acceptable."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223936</id>
	<title>Embedded XP Hardware with IE6</title>
	<author>WimBo</author>
	<datestamp>1266759900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got some HP slim client devices that I use for RDP / Web terminals.  They are fine for most web sessions, and have a real advantage in that they don't store user data on their local file system, so are pretty impervious to what a user may do.  The disadvantage is that it's hard to upgrade a web browser without looking at the entire system, and usually easier to just take what the manufacturer issues as an update. Because of the age, flash size, and memory in some of these systems there are no updates to the latest and greatest web browser.</p><p>Wim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got some HP slim client devices that I use for RDP / Web terminals .
They are fine for most web sessions , and have a real advantage in that they do n't store user data on their local file system , so are pretty impervious to what a user may do .
The disadvantage is that it 's hard to upgrade a web browser without looking at the entire system , and usually easier to just take what the manufacturer issues as an update .
Because of the age , flash size , and memory in some of these systems there are no updates to the latest and greatest web browser.Wim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got some HP slim client devices that I use for RDP / Web terminals.
They are fine for most web sessions, and have a real advantage in that they don't store user data on their local file system, so are pretty impervious to what a user may do.
The disadvantage is that it's hard to upgrade a web browser without looking at the entire system, and usually easier to just take what the manufacturer issues as an update.
Because of the age, flash size, and memory in some of these systems there are no updates to the latest and greatest web browser.Wim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220870</id>
	<title>IE6 compatability is *not* a valid excuse</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1266783120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company I work for creates web based software used by large (by UK standards) banks and I can tell you that the vast majority of their userbase is stuck on IE6. The usual reason for this is compatability with old apps, and IE6 is not as backwards as they get - one of the mortgage processing/calculating apps used when I was sorting the paperwork for my flat was DOS based.</p><p>But compatability is *not* a valid excuse for not installing something newer. It *is* a reason for not installing IE8 (you can't run IE8 and IE6 on the same machine without virtualisation of some completely unsupported hack), but it doesn't stop them putting on Firefox/Chrome/Opera/... alongside IE6 and just letting IE6 live for as long as the older apps live (which may be some time given my witnessing of a DOS based app in business-as-usual use two-ana-half years ago).</p><p>They will not upgrade from "IE6 and only IE6" until the cost of doing so (design/testing/roll-out of new desktop builds, extra support time needed because if they go for the two browser stop-gap it will confuse many of their should-sacked-from-jobs-that-are-well-documented-to-require-computer-competence-for-not-being-able-understanding-such-things staff, paying for old software to be fixed/upgraded, and so on) is outweighed by the cost of staying where they are (those costs basically amounting to not being able to use certain software/sites (but they are big enough that saying "we'll consider your app if you support IE6" neatly sorts that) and looking like neanderthals (but the general public will never know and is doesn't really matter to them what us techies-in-the-know think)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company I work for creates web based software used by large ( by UK standards ) banks and I can tell you that the vast majority of their userbase is stuck on IE6 .
The usual reason for this is compatability with old apps , and IE6 is not as backwards as they get - one of the mortgage processing/calculating apps used when I was sorting the paperwork for my flat was DOS based.But compatability is * not * a valid excuse for not installing something newer .
It * is * a reason for not installing IE8 ( you ca n't run IE8 and IE6 on the same machine without virtualisation of some completely unsupported hack ) , but it does n't stop them putting on Firefox/Chrome/Opera/... alongside IE6 and just letting IE6 live for as long as the older apps live ( which may be some time given my witnessing of a DOS based app in business-as-usual use two-ana-half years ago ) .They will not upgrade from " IE6 and only IE6 " until the cost of doing so ( design/testing/roll-out of new desktop builds , extra support time needed because if they go for the two browser stop-gap it will confuse many of their should-sacked-from-jobs-that-are-well-documented-to-require-computer-competence-for-not-being-able-understanding-such-things staff , paying for old software to be fixed/upgraded , and so on ) is outweighed by the cost of staying where they are ( those costs basically amounting to not being able to use certain software/sites ( but they are big enough that saying " we 'll consider your app if you support IE6 " neatly sorts that ) and looking like neanderthals ( but the general public will never know and is does n't really matter to them what us techies-in-the-know think ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company I work for creates web based software used by large (by UK standards) banks and I can tell you that the vast majority of their userbase is stuck on IE6.
The usual reason for this is compatability with old apps, and IE6 is not as backwards as they get - one of the mortgage processing/calculating apps used when I was sorting the paperwork for my flat was DOS based.But compatability is *not* a valid excuse for not installing something newer.
It *is* a reason for not installing IE8 (you can't run IE8 and IE6 on the same machine without virtualisation of some completely unsupported hack), but it doesn't stop them putting on Firefox/Chrome/Opera/... alongside IE6 and just letting IE6 live for as long as the older apps live (which may be some time given my witnessing of a DOS based app in business-as-usual use two-ana-half years ago).They will not upgrade from "IE6 and only IE6" until the cost of doing so (design/testing/roll-out of new desktop builds, extra support time needed because if they go for the two browser stop-gap it will confuse many of their should-sacked-from-jobs-that-are-well-documented-to-require-computer-competence-for-not-being-able-understanding-such-things staff, paying for old software to be fixed/upgraded, and so on) is outweighed by the cost of staying where they are (those costs basically amounting to not being able to use certain software/sites (but they are big enough that saying "we'll consider your app if you support IE6" neatly sorts that) and looking like neanderthals (but the general public will never know and is doesn't really matter to them what us techies-in-the-know think)).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31230494</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the whole problem that the managers don't see, that IT sees... is that it works now.  Will it work in 2 years?  Sure, most likely.  Will it work in 10?  There's a possibility, or it can be fanangled to work.</p><p>But the more you keep holding it back because "it works", the harder it will be to upgrade it when it NO LONGER DOES.  Y'see, it will NOT WORK FOREVER.  Managers are looking at the present.  IT is looking at the future.  Sure, you don't have to upgrade to every new thing that comes along, but don't hold yourself back for a decade.  Because if you upgrade slowly along the way, you replace parts as needed.  If you wait until the absolute last possible minute before it's absolutely impossible to keep going on ancient technology, then you have to suck up the cost of upgrading EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE all at the exact same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the whole problem that the managers do n't see , that IT sees... is that it works now .
Will it work in 2 years ?
Sure , most likely .
Will it work in 10 ?
There 's a possibility , or it can be fanangled to work.But the more you keep holding it back because " it works " , the harder it will be to upgrade it when it NO LONGER DOES .
Y'see , it will NOT WORK FOREVER .
Managers are looking at the present .
IT is looking at the future .
Sure , you do n't have to upgrade to every new thing that comes along , but do n't hold yourself back for a decade .
Because if you upgrade slowly along the way , you replace parts as needed .
If you wait until the absolute last possible minute before it 's absolutely impossible to keep going on ancient technology , then you have to suck up the cost of upgrading EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE all at the exact same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the whole problem that the managers don't see, that IT sees... is that it works now.
Will it work in 2 years?
Sure, most likely.
Will it work in 10?
There's a possibility, or it can be fanangled to work.But the more you keep holding it back because "it works", the harder it will be to upgrade it when it NO LONGER DOES.
Y'see, it will NOT WORK FOREVER.
Managers are looking at the present.
IT is looking at the future.
Sure, you don't have to upgrade to every new thing that comes along, but don't hold yourself back for a decade.
Because if you upgrade slowly along the way, you replace parts as needed.
If you wait until the absolute last possible minute before it's absolutely impossible to keep going on ancient technology, then you have to suck up the cost of upgrading EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE all at the exact same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222964</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266753240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, Microsoft's OS hasn't changed much in the last decade. Almost everything runs under Windows 2000</p></div><p>That just means the Win32 Subsystem has remained insanely backwards compatible as MS promised they would do. The NT kernel has evolved quite a bit.</p><p>To be fair, you do seem like a non-technical user so I suppose the explanations would be a waste on you when you just want to foam at the mouth with anti-ms hate.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical\_features\_new\_to\_Windows\_Vista" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical\_features\_new\_to\_Windows\_Vista</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features\_new\_to\_Windows\_7#Core\_operating\_system" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features\_new\_to\_Windows\_7#Core\_operating\_system</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/XP\_kernel.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/XP\_kernel.mspx</a> [microsoft.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Most of this "upgrading" is planned obsolescence, not progress.</p></div><p>First you say Win2000 isn't obsolete by telling us how all new software runs on it, then you claim MS is "forcing" people to upgrade by obsoleting earlier OSs. You're really dumb. I'd come to expect a certain level of intelligence in trolls atleast on slashdot. What the hell guys?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , Microsoft 's OS has n't changed much in the last decade .
Almost everything runs under Windows 2000That just means the Win32 Subsystem has remained insanely backwards compatible as MS promised they would do .
The NT kernel has evolved quite a bit.To be fair , you do seem like a non-technical user so I suppose the explanations would be a waste on you when you just want to foam at the mouth with anti-ms hate.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical \ _features \ _new \ _to \ _Windows \ _Vista [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features \ _new \ _to \ _Windows \ _7 # Core \ _operating \ _system [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/XP \ _kernel.mspx [ microsoft.com ] Most of this " upgrading " is planned obsolescence , not progress.First you say Win2000 is n't obsolete by telling us how all new software runs on it , then you claim MS is " forcing " people to upgrade by obsoleting earlier OSs .
You 're really dumb .
I 'd come to expect a certain level of intelligence in trolls atleast on slashdot .
What the hell guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, Microsoft's OS hasn't changed much in the last decade.
Almost everything runs under Windows 2000That just means the Win32 Subsystem has remained insanely backwards compatible as MS promised they would do.
The NT kernel has evolved quite a bit.To be fair, you do seem like a non-technical user so I suppose the explanations would be a waste on you when you just want to foam at the mouth with anti-ms hate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical\_features\_new\_to\_Windows\_Vista [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features\_new\_to\_Windows\_7#Core\_operating\_system [wikipedia.org]http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/XP\_kernel.mspx [microsoft.com] Most of this "upgrading" is planned obsolescence, not progress.First you say Win2000 isn't obsolete by telling us how all new software runs on it, then you claim MS is "forcing" people to upgrade by obsoleting earlier OSs.
You're really dumb.
I'd come to expect a certain level of intelligence in trolls atleast on slashdot.
What the hell guys?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31229212</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>BigSes</author>
	<datestamp>1266853860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one.  </p></div><p>It's Microsoft, isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless ( but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it 's a big one .
It 's Microsoft , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one.
It's Microsoft, isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31273310</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>MoonBuggy</author>
	<datestamp>1267119600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brilliant!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220822</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1266782820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No - because the current server/client combination works just fine thank you - as far as they are concerned. That's one of the points made in the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No - because the current server/client combination works just fine thank you - as far as they are concerned .
That 's one of the points made in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No - because the current server/client combination works just fine thank you - as far as they are concerned.
That's one of the points made in the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226082</id>
	<title>Dude, you missed the backstory.</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1266775560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a long and sordid history.  <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">Start here</a> [groklaw.net] Or if you prefer the short story, <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">here.</a> [groklaw.net]  Hanlon's razor does not apply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a long and sordid history .
Start here [ groklaw.net ] Or if you prefer the short story , here .
[ groklaw.net ] Hanlon 's razor does not apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a long and sordid history.
Start here [groklaw.net] Or if you prefer the short story, here.
[groklaw.net]  Hanlon's razor does not apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221408</id>
	<title>Re:One big valid reason</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266743580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There will be a time they have to upgrade and what is the point of waiting the last minute and possibly making the situation more costly or time consuming? it's just idiotic and possibly not offering any savings at all in the long run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be a time they have to upgrade and what is the point of waiting the last minute and possibly making the situation more costly or time consuming ?
it 's just idiotic and possibly not offering any savings at all in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be a time they have to upgrade and what is the point of waiting the last minute and possibly making the situation more costly or time consuming?
it's just idiotic and possibly not offering any savings at all in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560</id>
	<title>I Use IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266781500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still use IE6 on my personal desktop (Win2000) at home. I've tried others, and keep coming back to IE6 for a few reasons:</p><p>(1) It starts instantaneously, while any other browser takes a distractingly long time to start up.<br>(2) It's the only browser I can get to put all the toolbars I need (including address bar) on one single row under the title bar.<br>(3) Any other browser insists on throwing tabbed-browsing in my face at some point.</p><p>I've never had a virus as long as I've been running it. I understand that it's not standards-compliant, and I'm highly sympathetic to those who need to deal with that pain, but I personally don't. Sites that stop working with IE6 I just go "eh", and stop visiting. It's lightweight and snappy-responsive, and I can't bring myself to let go of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still use IE6 on my personal desktop ( Win2000 ) at home .
I 've tried others , and keep coming back to IE6 for a few reasons : ( 1 ) It starts instantaneously , while any other browser takes a distractingly long time to start up .
( 2 ) It 's the only browser I can get to put all the toolbars I need ( including address bar ) on one single row under the title bar .
( 3 ) Any other browser insists on throwing tabbed-browsing in my face at some point.I 've never had a virus as long as I 've been running it .
I understand that it 's not standards-compliant , and I 'm highly sympathetic to those who need to deal with that pain , but I personally do n't .
Sites that stop working with IE6 I just go " eh " , and stop visiting .
It 's lightweight and snappy-responsive , and I ca n't bring myself to let go of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still use IE6 on my personal desktop (Win2000) at home.
I've tried others, and keep coming back to IE6 for a few reasons:(1) It starts instantaneously, while any other browser takes a distractingly long time to start up.
(2) It's the only browser I can get to put all the toolbars I need (including address bar) on one single row under the title bar.
(3) Any other browser insists on throwing tabbed-browsing in my face at some point.I've never had a virus as long as I've been running it.
I understand that it's not standards-compliant, and I'm highly sympathetic to those who need to deal with that pain, but I personally don't.
Sites that stop working with IE6 I just go "eh", and stop visiting.
It's lightweight and snappy-responsive, and I can't bring myself to let go of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</id>
	<title>This is news?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1266779880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other.  The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary.  Active-X was a tool to this end.
</p><p>And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can.  Because that won't be hard to get rid of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other .
The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary .
Active-X was a tool to this end .
And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can .
Because that wo n't be hard to get rid of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other.
The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary.
Active-X was a tool to this end.
And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can.
Because that won't be hard to get rid of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220598</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266781620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>Use VirtualPC or VirtualBox to create an environment for legacy web applications. Then you're free to upgrade your OS and browser as you wish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx ? FamilyId = 21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF [ microsoft.com ] Use VirtualPC or VirtualBox to create an environment for legacy web applications .
Then you 're free to upgrade your OS and browser as you wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF [microsoft.com]Use VirtualPC or VirtualBox to create an environment for legacy web applications.
Then you're free to upgrade your OS and browser as you wish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221248</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Gonoff</author>
	<datestamp>1266785700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT departments did not generally want Windows either.  That would mean replacing their nice mainframes etc with uncontrolled PCs.  The idea of allowing any end user physical access to even these "toy computers" was actually popular with senior management because it put power into their hands and took it away from people they didn't understand or like.</p><p>Those managers have gone on and some will have moved much further up.  I have met some who still see that move to Windows as a liberation.  They see any move from certain things as a move back to the Bad Old Days!</p><p>Do not blame the IT from then.  It wasn't their idea.  Some were for it - some weren't.  The managers were seen by MS as the way in as IT departments were not cooperative.  It was just a seriously good business strategy by MS to promote themselves to the people at the top, rather than to those who actually recognised them for what they were!</p><p>But they did put a computer on every desk.  It is now up to us to get those computers working right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT departments did not generally want Windows either .
That would mean replacing their nice mainframes etc with uncontrolled PCs .
The idea of allowing any end user physical access to even these " toy computers " was actually popular with senior management because it put power into their hands and took it away from people they did n't understand or like.Those managers have gone on and some will have moved much further up .
I have met some who still see that move to Windows as a liberation .
They see any move from certain things as a move back to the Bad Old Days ! Do not blame the IT from then .
It was n't their idea .
Some were for it - some were n't .
The managers were seen by MS as the way in as IT departments were not cooperative .
It was just a seriously good business strategy by MS to promote themselves to the people at the top , rather than to those who actually recognised them for what they were ! But they did put a computer on every desk .
It is now up to us to get those computers working right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT departments did not generally want Windows either.
That would mean replacing their nice mainframes etc with uncontrolled PCs.
The idea of allowing any end user physical access to even these "toy computers" was actually popular with senior management because it put power into their hands and took it away from people they didn't understand or like.Those managers have gone on and some will have moved much further up.
I have met some who still see that move to Windows as a liberation.
They see any move from certain things as a move back to the Bad Old Days!Do not blame the IT from then.
It wasn't their idea.
Some were for it - some weren't.
The managers were seen by MS as the way in as IT departments were not cooperative.
It was just a seriously good business strategy by MS to promote themselves to the people at the top, rather than to those who actually recognised them for what they were!But they did put a computer on every desk.
It is now up to us to get those computers working right...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225862</id>
	<title>That's easy ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266773820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Lots of our internal web pages don't work in Safari (or Firefox)<br>2) I don't like tabs<br>3) If you disable tabs in IE7 or IE8, you lose the ability to specify what happens when a link is clicked on in another app (replace the contents of the current window or open a new window)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Lots of our internal web pages do n't work in Safari ( or Firefox ) 2 ) I do n't like tabs3 ) If you disable tabs in IE7 or IE8 , you lose the ability to specify what happens when a link is clicked on in another app ( replace the contents of the current window or open a new window )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Lots of our internal web pages don't work in Safari (or Firefox)2) I don't like tabs3) If you disable tabs in IE7 or IE8, you lose the ability to specify what happens when a link is clicked on in another app (replace the contents of the current window or open a new window)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226138</id>
	<title>Sun Tzu has explained this</title>
	<author>Demonoid-Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1266776160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Partially quoted (without permission) from <a href="http://www.ranum.com/security/computer\_security/editorials/master-tzu/" title="ranum.com" rel="nofollow">Marcus J. Ranum</a> [ranum.com] <p><div class="quote"><p>The Tale of Wise Master Sun and the Production Network</p><p>
Master Sun was visiting with his friend Willow Blossom, who ran a mission critical network for a large E-commerce site. Blossom complained, "I hate software these days; I cannot trust that my system will work from one day to the next because code is so buggy. I am losing sleep, and my hair is falling out." Master Sun opined that this was tragic because Willow Blossom's hair was a gorgeous cascade of deep black - as black and shiny and deep as a null device on a spring morning. He bowed and excused himself, and asked for an audience with Prince Ciao (pronounced "Cee Eye Oh") who was lord of Willow Blossom's castle. He took a brush, and on the floor of the audience chamber wrote in ink:</p><p>
1) Set up the production systems</p><p>
2) Make them work</p><p>
3) Test them</p><p>
4) While true; do</p><p>
If they are working; Continue; Endif</p><p>
If they are not working; GOTO 2; Endif</p><p>
5) Done</p><p>
Prince Ciao studied Master Sun's writing for weeks even to the point of missing his golf games, and was finally enlightened. He summoned Willow Blossom and explained Tzu's wisdom, then had her head and its beautiful hair mounted on a stick in the NOC as an example to the others, even though it was his own policy that Willow install patches as fast as they came from the vendors. The next time Master Sun was invited to the castle, he politely declined.
</p><p>
During the 90's we were assaulted with a welter of products, the majority of which were half-assed and largely useless. And during that time, because Prince Ciao read all the marketing literature and WIRED magazine, network and system administrators were forced or "encouraged" to field beta-test code at an absolutely insane rate. The mainframe programmers of the 70's and 80's used to write of a practice called "Change Control" - in which production systems were managed with care and forethought. During the late 90's the last of the Change Control believers were taken out and shot, and their cubicles were given to the consultants who were there to mark everything up in XML in order to make everything better in some manner nobody understands yet. During that time, security practitioners were forced to repeatedly bend over and grip their ankles by business units that had already spent good money on bad products so by golly they were going to field them because otherwise Prince Ciao would have their heads. Of course nobody wanted to admit that. In 2000 I was Prince Ciao for a small start-up. Our sales VP went over my head to the CEO and bought the company Seibel's sales/customer management tool at the incredibly low price of only $500,000. Of course, it required 3 consultants working for 9 months to learn that it actually needed 5 consultants working for 12 months to make it work. I began to sharpen my stake. The icing on the cake was the discovery that Seibel required the use of Internet Explorer in order to function properly. Guess what happened? Explorer went in, of course. Where was Master Sun when I needed him?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Partially quoted ( without permission ) from Marcus J. Ranum [ ranum.com ] The Tale of Wise Master Sun and the Production Network Master Sun was visiting with his friend Willow Blossom , who ran a mission critical network for a large E-commerce site .
Blossom complained , " I hate software these days ; I can not trust that my system will work from one day to the next because code is so buggy .
I am losing sleep , and my hair is falling out .
" Master Sun opined that this was tragic because Willow Blossom 's hair was a gorgeous cascade of deep black - as black and shiny and deep as a null device on a spring morning .
He bowed and excused himself , and asked for an audience with Prince Ciao ( pronounced " Cee Eye Oh " ) who was lord of Willow Blossom 's castle .
He took a brush , and on the floor of the audience chamber wrote in ink : 1 ) Set up the production systems 2 ) Make them work 3 ) Test them 4 ) While true ; do If they are working ; Continue ; Endif If they are not working ; GOTO 2 ; Endif 5 ) Done Prince Ciao studied Master Sun 's writing for weeks even to the point of missing his golf games , and was finally enlightened .
He summoned Willow Blossom and explained Tzu 's wisdom , then had her head and its beautiful hair mounted on a stick in the NOC as an example to the others , even though it was his own policy that Willow install patches as fast as they came from the vendors .
The next time Master Sun was invited to the castle , he politely declined .
During the 90 's we were assaulted with a welter of products , the majority of which were half-assed and largely useless .
And during that time , because Prince Ciao read all the marketing literature and WIRED magazine , network and system administrators were forced or " encouraged " to field beta-test code at an absolutely insane rate .
The mainframe programmers of the 70 's and 80 's used to write of a practice called " Change Control " - in which production systems were managed with care and forethought .
During the late 90 's the last of the Change Control believers were taken out and shot , and their cubicles were given to the consultants who were there to mark everything up in XML in order to make everything better in some manner nobody understands yet .
During that time , security practitioners were forced to repeatedly bend over and grip their ankles by business units that had already spent good money on bad products so by golly they were going to field them because otherwise Prince Ciao would have their heads .
Of course nobody wanted to admit that .
In 2000 I was Prince Ciao for a small start-up .
Our sales VP went over my head to the CEO and bought the company Seibel 's sales/customer management tool at the incredibly low price of only $ 500,000 .
Of course , it required 3 consultants working for 9 months to learn that it actually needed 5 consultants working for 12 months to make it work .
I began to sharpen my stake .
The icing on the cake was the discovery that Seibel required the use of Internet Explorer in order to function properly .
Guess what happened ?
Explorer went in , of course .
Where was Master Sun when I needed him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partially quoted (without permission) from Marcus J. Ranum [ranum.com] The Tale of Wise Master Sun and the Production Network
Master Sun was visiting with his friend Willow Blossom, who ran a mission critical network for a large E-commerce site.
Blossom complained, "I hate software these days; I cannot trust that my system will work from one day to the next because code is so buggy.
I am losing sleep, and my hair is falling out.
" Master Sun opined that this was tragic because Willow Blossom's hair was a gorgeous cascade of deep black - as black and shiny and deep as a null device on a spring morning.
He bowed and excused himself, and asked for an audience with Prince Ciao (pronounced "Cee Eye Oh") who was lord of Willow Blossom's castle.
He took a brush, and on the floor of the audience chamber wrote in ink:
1) Set up the production systems
2) Make them work
3) Test them
4) While true; do
If they are working; Continue; Endif
If they are not working; GOTO 2; Endif
5) Done
Prince Ciao studied Master Sun's writing for weeks even to the point of missing his golf games, and was finally enlightened.
He summoned Willow Blossom and explained Tzu's wisdom, then had her head and its beautiful hair mounted on a stick in the NOC as an example to the others, even though it was his own policy that Willow install patches as fast as they came from the vendors.
The next time Master Sun was invited to the castle, he politely declined.
During the 90's we were assaulted with a welter of products, the majority of which were half-assed and largely useless.
And during that time, because Prince Ciao read all the marketing literature and WIRED magazine, network and system administrators were forced or "encouraged" to field beta-test code at an absolutely insane rate.
The mainframe programmers of the 70's and 80's used to write of a practice called "Change Control" - in which production systems were managed with care and forethought.
During the late 90's the last of the Change Control believers were taken out and shot, and their cubicles were given to the consultants who were there to mark everything up in XML in order to make everything better in some manner nobody understands yet.
During that time, security practitioners were forced to repeatedly bend over and grip their ankles by business units that had already spent good money on bad products so by golly they were going to field them because otherwise Prince Ciao would have their heads.
Of course nobody wanted to admit that.
In 2000 I was Prince Ciao for a small start-up.
Our sales VP went over my head to the CEO and bought the company Seibel's sales/customer management tool at the incredibly low price of only $500,000.
Of course, it required 3 consultants working for 9 months to learn that it actually needed 5 consultants working for 12 months to make it work.
I began to sharpen my stake.
The icing on the cake was the discovery that Seibel required the use of Internet Explorer in order to function properly.
Guess what happened?
Explorer went in, of course.
Where was Master Sun when I needed him?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221234</id>
	<title>My local friendly corporate failures</title>
	<author>bbtom</author>
	<datestamp>1266785640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've built and maintained a web app for use in enterprise. Fortunately, all my users access the app using decent browsers. In the last month, we have only had ONE visitor who uses IE6, even though the majority of users are on Windows XP. I still build in IE6 compatibility using the IE8.js script, but don't go out of my way to support IE6. If someone has a problem, my general line of advice is to upgrade to Firefox or a later IE version.</p><p>The browser is the least of the corporate IT failures I see though. Complete incompetence with e-mail seems the main failing. I recently had to patiently explain that if you want to keep e-mail in sync between two laptops and an iPhone, POP3 is not suitable. You'd think that if you had Exchange server, you'd actually let it use the Exchange ActiveSync protocol. Of course not. No ActiveSync. No IMAP. Just POP3. When management were interrogated about this, the problem of keeping three e-mail clients in sync using POP3 didn't arise: they read their e-mail and then just delete them. When they need to read an e-mail that they have deleted, they phone up one of the people who is trying to juggle their three clients who forwards it on.</p><p>The persistence of IE6 is only one of many, many ways corporate IT can suck. Unfortunately, it is one which has the negative externality of making the lives of web developers suck. Once IE6 disappears, corporate IT will still suck. It'll go back to being comedy rather than tragedy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've built and maintained a web app for use in enterprise .
Fortunately , all my users access the app using decent browsers .
In the last month , we have only had ONE visitor who uses IE6 , even though the majority of users are on Windows XP .
I still build in IE6 compatibility using the IE8.js script , but do n't go out of my way to support IE6 .
If someone has a problem , my general line of advice is to upgrade to Firefox or a later IE version.The browser is the least of the corporate IT failures I see though .
Complete incompetence with e-mail seems the main failing .
I recently had to patiently explain that if you want to keep e-mail in sync between two laptops and an iPhone , POP3 is not suitable .
You 'd think that if you had Exchange server , you 'd actually let it use the Exchange ActiveSync protocol .
Of course not .
No ActiveSync .
No IMAP .
Just POP3 .
When management were interrogated about this , the problem of keeping three e-mail clients in sync using POP3 did n't arise : they read their e-mail and then just delete them .
When they need to read an e-mail that they have deleted , they phone up one of the people who is trying to juggle their three clients who forwards it on.The persistence of IE6 is only one of many , many ways corporate IT can suck .
Unfortunately , it is one which has the negative externality of making the lives of web developers suck .
Once IE6 disappears , corporate IT will still suck .
It 'll go back to being comedy rather than tragedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've built and maintained a web app for use in enterprise.
Fortunately, all my users access the app using decent browsers.
In the last month, we have only had ONE visitor who uses IE6, even though the majority of users are on Windows XP.
I still build in IE6 compatibility using the IE8.js script, but don't go out of my way to support IE6.
If someone has a problem, my general line of advice is to upgrade to Firefox or a later IE version.The browser is the least of the corporate IT failures I see though.
Complete incompetence with e-mail seems the main failing.
I recently had to patiently explain that if you want to keep e-mail in sync between two laptops and an iPhone, POP3 is not suitable.
You'd think that if you had Exchange server, you'd actually let it use the Exchange ActiveSync protocol.
Of course not.
No ActiveSync.
No IMAP.
Just POP3.
When management were interrogated about this, the problem of keeping three e-mail clients in sync using POP3 didn't arise: they read their e-mail and then just delete them.
When they need to read an e-mail that they have deleted, they phone up one of the people who is trying to juggle their three clients who forwards it on.The persistence of IE6 is only one of many, many ways corporate IT can suck.
Unfortunately, it is one which has the negative externality of making the lives of web developers suck.
Once IE6 disappears, corporate IT will still suck.
It'll go back to being comedy rather than tragedy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186</id>
	<title>chrome frame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266779760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>install chrome frame and problem is solved until such businesses get their head out of their collective asses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>install chrome frame and problem is solved until such businesses get their head out of their collective asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>install chrome frame and problem is solved until such businesses get their head out of their collective asses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221382</id>
	<title>Re:Old Standards Never Die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266743460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Snopes says false on that one: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp" title="snopes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp</a> [snopes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Snopes says false on that one : http : //www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp [ snopes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Snopes says false on that one: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp [snopes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225978</id>
	<title>Re:IE6</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266774840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want something that feels fast, and for some reason you feel uneasy about Chrome, try Opera. It's feature-bloated unlike Chrome (it comes with everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink - email, IRC, torrents, adblocking...), but it still manages to be faster than Firefox in day-to-day use (rather than artificial JS number-crunching benchmarks).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want something that feels fast , and for some reason you feel uneasy about Chrome , try Opera .
It 's feature-bloated unlike Chrome ( it comes with everything , including the proverbial kitchen sink - email , IRC , torrents , adblocking... ) , but it still manages to be faster than Firefox in day-to-day use ( rather than artificial JS number-crunching benchmarks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want something that feels fast, and for some reason you feel uneasy about Chrome, try Opera.
It's feature-bloated unlike Chrome (it comes with everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink - email, IRC, torrents, adblocking...), but it still manages to be faster than Firefox in day-to-day use (rather than artificial JS number-crunching benchmarks).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225906</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They need more CPU and more RAM to do the same thing.</p></div><p>That's when I stopped listening to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need more CPU and more RAM to do the same thing.That 's when I stopped listening to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need more CPU and more RAM to do the same thing.That's when I stopped listening to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220852</id>
	<title>And what would OS X accomplish?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266783000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>migrate out of a Windows platform by one method or another JUST TO STAY marginally more safe in the Internet Security arena.</p></div><p>From what I've seen out of Apple and Microsoft lately, I don't see conclusive evidence that OS X is any more secure than Windows. At best, you'd get a short reprieve until the malware writers figure out there's a ton more Macs now, and start attacking them.</p><p>And in the meantime, you're dealing with a company which has way more lock-in and higher costs than Microsoft.</p><p>Why wouldn't they move to something actually better, like Linux? Or Solaris, or FreeBSD, or...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Moving to MacOS X give the opportunity to do work in MacOSX whenever possible and only revert to Windows as needed. What a gift.</p></div><p>Sure, if you happen to like OS X. I know plenty of people who actually prefer Windows.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Been using both Windows and Mac together for over a decade, since Win 3.11 (if I remember). It just is not that much different to get used to one OS or another or BOTH.</p></div><p>You're not in a position to really say much about that, then. I've been using Windows, Mac, and Linux on and off for years now. It's easy for <i>me</i> to get used to multiple OSes.</p><p>But most users are used to learning things by rote, and learning all the fiddly little details of what they use. I've seen users completely disoriented because their emails weren't <i>colored</i> correctly, because we upgraded them from one version of Outlook to another, or switched them to Thunderbird. I've seen my English professor have trouble launching a PowerPoint in OpenOffice, because she couldn't find the SlideShow button where she expected it -- she didn't think to look under the "SlideShow" menu, at the first item, called "SlideShow".</p><p>Companies look at these, and basically have to weigh the costs of firing a bunch of otherwise-useful employees who simply refuse to improve their computer skills to what we'd expect, or paying to retrain them on a new system, or continuing to throw money at the old system.</p><p>Frankly, I think they should just bite the bullet and upgrade, and pay attention to how technologically-adept new hires are in <i>any</i> field. I don't care if your job isn't to <i>program</i> the computer -- your job is to <i>use</i> the computer, so you should be good at that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>migrate out of a Windows platform by one method or another JUST TO STAY marginally more safe in the Internet Security arena.From what I 've seen out of Apple and Microsoft lately , I do n't see conclusive evidence that OS X is any more secure than Windows .
At best , you 'd get a short reprieve until the malware writers figure out there 's a ton more Macs now , and start attacking them.And in the meantime , you 're dealing with a company which has way more lock-in and higher costs than Microsoft.Why would n't they move to something actually better , like Linux ?
Or Solaris , or FreeBSD , or...Moving to MacOS X give the opportunity to do work in MacOSX whenever possible and only revert to Windows as needed .
What a gift.Sure , if you happen to like OS X. I know plenty of people who actually prefer Windows.Been using both Windows and Mac together for over a decade , since Win 3.11 ( if I remember ) .
It just is not that much different to get used to one OS or another or BOTH.You 're not in a position to really say much about that , then .
I 've been using Windows , Mac , and Linux on and off for years now .
It 's easy for me to get used to multiple OSes.But most users are used to learning things by rote , and learning all the fiddly little details of what they use .
I 've seen users completely disoriented because their emails were n't colored correctly , because we upgraded them from one version of Outlook to another , or switched them to Thunderbird .
I 've seen my English professor have trouble launching a PowerPoint in OpenOffice , because she could n't find the SlideShow button where she expected it -- she did n't think to look under the " SlideShow " menu , at the first item , called " SlideShow " .Companies look at these , and basically have to weigh the costs of firing a bunch of otherwise-useful employees who simply refuse to improve their computer skills to what we 'd expect , or paying to retrain them on a new system , or continuing to throw money at the old system.Frankly , I think they should just bite the bullet and upgrade , and pay attention to how technologically-adept new hires are in any field .
I do n't care if your job is n't to program the computer -- your job is to use the computer , so you should be good at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>migrate out of a Windows platform by one method or another JUST TO STAY marginally more safe in the Internet Security arena.From what I've seen out of Apple and Microsoft lately, I don't see conclusive evidence that OS X is any more secure than Windows.
At best, you'd get a short reprieve until the malware writers figure out there's a ton more Macs now, and start attacking them.And in the meantime, you're dealing with a company which has way more lock-in and higher costs than Microsoft.Why wouldn't they move to something actually better, like Linux?
Or Solaris, or FreeBSD, or...Moving to MacOS X give the opportunity to do work in MacOSX whenever possible and only revert to Windows as needed.
What a gift.Sure, if you happen to like OS X. I know plenty of people who actually prefer Windows.Been using both Windows and Mac together for over a decade, since Win 3.11 (if I remember).
It just is not that much different to get used to one OS or another or BOTH.You're not in a position to really say much about that, then.
I've been using Windows, Mac, and Linux on and off for years now.
It's easy for me to get used to multiple OSes.But most users are used to learning things by rote, and learning all the fiddly little details of what they use.
I've seen users completely disoriented because their emails weren't colored correctly, because we upgraded them from one version of Outlook to another, or switched them to Thunderbird.
I've seen my English professor have trouble launching a PowerPoint in OpenOffice, because she couldn't find the SlideShow button where she expected it -- she didn't think to look under the "SlideShow" menu, at the first item, called "SlideShow".Companies look at these, and basically have to weigh the costs of firing a bunch of otherwise-useful employees who simply refuse to improve their computer skills to what we'd expect, or paying to retrain them on a new system, or continuing to throw money at the old system.Frankly, I think they should just bite the bullet and upgrade, and pay attention to how technologically-adept new hires are in any field.
I don't care if your job isn't to program the computer -- your job is to use the computer, so you should be good at that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221324</id>
	<title>I still use IE6 - willingly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266742920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really simple: I still use IE6 because I'm using Windows 2000 - which means no upgrade to IE7/8.  Firefox leaks memory like a bastard (and has done since FF1).  I can't get the W2K hack to work in order to install Chrome (and believe me, I've tried, oh how I've tried).  Far and away the best contender to replace IE6 is Opera - except there are a few sites which plain don't work properly under Opera (for some reason, you can't click on the links).  So, I use IE6.  A lot.</p><p>As for why I'm still using Windows 2000, well that's another kettle of fish...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really simple : I still use IE6 because I 'm using Windows 2000 - which means no upgrade to IE7/8 .
Firefox leaks memory like a bastard ( and has done since FF1 ) .
I ca n't get the W2K hack to work in order to install Chrome ( and believe me , I 've tried , oh how I 've tried ) .
Far and away the best contender to replace IE6 is Opera - except there are a few sites which plain do n't work properly under Opera ( for some reason , you ca n't click on the links ) .
So , I use IE6 .
A lot.As for why I 'm still using Windows 2000 , well that 's another kettle of fish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really simple: I still use IE6 because I'm using Windows 2000 - which means no upgrade to IE7/8.
Firefox leaks memory like a bastard (and has done since FF1).
I can't get the W2K hack to work in order to install Chrome (and believe me, I've tried, oh how I've tried).
Far and away the best contender to replace IE6 is Opera - except there are a few sites which plain don't work properly under Opera (for some reason, you can't click on the links).
So, I use IE6.
A lot.As for why I'm still using Windows 2000, well that's another kettle of fish...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221060</id>
	<title>My client STILL USES AOL you insensitive clod</title>
	<author>Besjon</author>
	<datestamp>1266784500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kid you not, I have been building a new website for a customer that demanded lots of bells and whistles and eye candy (Interactive dynamic Flash pulling photos and images) - so I did it the best way I could with proper XHTML/CSS.  I tested the site along the way to ensure cross browser compatibility from IE6 to IE8, Safari, Chrome, and Firefox and on PC and Mac platforms before asking him to try it out last week.  He called back saying some of the dynamic content wasn't loading.  After a long time of talking to him on the phone where we seemed to be having two different conversations I finally realized he was using AOL and I suspect the AOL proxies or tweaked browser are messing up the caching for the dynamic content.</p><p>AOL in 2010!!!  He has a fiber internet connection and the latest greatest computer but refuses to let go of AOL as that is what he equates with the Internet!  ARGHHHHHHH</p><p>I talked to his office tech guy who says he would be willing to upgrade his boss to a newer version of AOL, but getting the top man to switch browsers was impossible.  I'm still recovering from that incident.</p><p>So, yeah - I'm a little bothered, and at least in this instance, would have been fine with the known aggravations that a regular IE6 browser would bring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kid you not , I have been building a new website for a customer that demanded lots of bells and whistles and eye candy ( Interactive dynamic Flash pulling photos and images ) - so I did it the best way I could with proper XHTML/CSS .
I tested the site along the way to ensure cross browser compatibility from IE6 to IE8 , Safari , Chrome , and Firefox and on PC and Mac platforms before asking him to try it out last week .
He called back saying some of the dynamic content was n't loading .
After a long time of talking to him on the phone where we seemed to be having two different conversations I finally realized he was using AOL and I suspect the AOL proxies or tweaked browser are messing up the caching for the dynamic content.AOL in 2010 ! ! !
He has a fiber internet connection and the latest greatest computer but refuses to let go of AOL as that is what he equates with the Internet !
ARGHHHHHHHI talked to his office tech guy who says he would be willing to upgrade his boss to a newer version of AOL , but getting the top man to switch browsers was impossible .
I 'm still recovering from that incident.So , yeah - I 'm a little bothered , and at least in this instance , would have been fine with the known aggravations that a regular IE6 browser would bring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kid you not, I have been building a new website for a customer that demanded lots of bells and whistles and eye candy (Interactive dynamic Flash pulling photos and images) - so I did it the best way I could with proper XHTML/CSS.
I tested the site along the way to ensure cross browser compatibility from IE6 to IE8, Safari, Chrome, and Firefox and on PC and Mac platforms before asking him to try it out last week.
He called back saying some of the dynamic content wasn't loading.
After a long time of talking to him on the phone where we seemed to be having two different conversations I finally realized he was using AOL and I suspect the AOL proxies or tweaked browser are messing up the caching for the dynamic content.AOL in 2010!!!
He has a fiber internet connection and the latest greatest computer but refuses to let go of AOL as that is what he equates with the Internet!
ARGHHHHHHHI talked to his office tech guy who says he would be willing to upgrade his boss to a newer version of AOL, but getting the top man to switch browsers was impossible.
I'm still recovering from that incident.So, yeah - I'm a little bothered, and at least in this instance, would have been fine with the known aggravations that a regular IE6 browser would bring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222730</id>
	<title>Why</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1266751800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you install a shitty browser like chrome to watch blotware 2.0 pages? Page functionality is supposed to happen on the server NOT in the client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you install a shitty browser like chrome to watch blotware 2.0 pages ?
Page functionality is supposed to happen on the server NOT in the client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you install a shitty browser like chrome to watch blotware 2.0 pages?
Page functionality is supposed to happen on the server NOT in the client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223170</id>
	<title>Re:They have IE6 apps, you see it everywhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266754440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft succeeded in forking the Web</p></div><p>Would misreading this sentence be considered a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian\_slip" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">freudian</a> [wikipedia.org] slip?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft succeeded in forking the WebWould misreading this sentence be considered a freudian [ wikipedia.org ] slip ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft succeeded in forking the WebWould misreading this sentence be considered a freudian [wikipedia.org] slip?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220670</id>
	<title>IE6</title>
	<author>suzieque</author>
	<datestamp>1266782040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it me or has Firefox got clunky lately? I used to use IE6 for my sins and converted over to FF but that is now heavy... Thought about Chrome but don't like giving the big G too much data or power than it already has..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me or has Firefox got clunky lately ?
I used to use IE6 for my sins and converted over to FF but that is now heavy... Thought about Chrome but do n't like giving the big G too much data or power than it already has. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it me or has Firefox got clunky lately?
I used to use IE6 for my sins and converted over to FF but that is now heavy... Thought about Chrome but don't like giving the big G too much data or power than it already has..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220798</id>
	<title>Re:chrome frame</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1266782700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My company is blocking any Google Chrome site for that reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company is blocking any Google Chrome site for that reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company is blocking any Google Chrome site for that reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222198</id>
	<title>UHHHH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266748980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet explorer? What is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet explorer ?
What is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet explorer?
What is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221070</id>
	<title>Re:chrome frame</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1266784560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just use Firefox Portable with <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419" title="mozilla.org">IETab</a> [mozilla.org] for the internal POS (not talking about point of sale folks) applications that won't work in anything but internet exploder. Oh and <a href="http://hidetab.com/" title="hidetab.com">Hidetab</a> [hidetab.com] comes in handy from time to time too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just use Firefox Portable with IETab [ mozilla.org ] for the internal POS ( not talking about point of sale folks ) applications that wo n't work in anything but internet exploder .
Oh and Hidetab [ hidetab.com ] comes in handy from time to time too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just use Firefox Portable with IETab [mozilla.org] for the internal POS (not talking about point of sale folks) applications that won't work in anything but internet exploder.
Oh and Hidetab [hidetab.com] comes in handy from time to time too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222618</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1266751200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired? Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.<br></i></p><p>Clearly you're not a web developer or haven't been one for around ten years.  There was a several year period (between when Netscape turned to utter shit and the rise of Firefox) where IE was the only reasonable choice for a graphical free (as in beer) web browser.</p><p>It doesn't take an idiot to make an app that only works in one browser when there only is one browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is , will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired ?
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move , and one that should have consequences.Clearly you 're not a web developer or have n't been one for around ten years .
There was a several year period ( between when Netscape turned to utter shit and the rise of Firefox ) where IE was the only reasonable choice for a graphical free ( as in beer ) web browser.It does n't take an idiot to make an app that only works in one browser when there only is one browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired?
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.Clearly you're not a web developer or haven't been one for around ten years.
There was a several year period (between when Netscape turned to utter shit and the rise of Firefox) where IE was the only reasonable choice for a graphical free (as in beer) web browser.It doesn't take an idiot to make an app that only works in one browser when there only is one browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220994</id>
	<title>Twitter's Ghost</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266784020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>M$ Internet Exploder, M$ Windoze, and all M$ products.<br>M$ should be taken apart by the governments of the world, piece by piece. Afterwards the pieces of M$ should be given to the free software movements.<br>Friends don't help friends install M$ junk. Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</i> </p><p>None of this plays well to anyone in management - or to anyone over the age of consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M $ Internet Exploder , M $ Windoze , and all M $ products.M $ should be taken apart by the governments of the world , piece by piece .
Afterwards the pieces of M $ should be given to the free software movements.Friends do n't help friends install M $ junk .
Friends do assist M $ addicted friends in committing suicide .
None of this plays well to anyone in management - or to anyone over the age of consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M$ Internet Exploder, M$ Windoze, and all M$ products.M$ should be taken apart by the governments of the world, piece by piece.
Afterwards the pieces of M$ should be given to the free software movements.Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.
None of this plays well to anyone in management - or to anyone over the age of consent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31241892</id>
	<title>IE6 is ubiquitous in Republic of Korea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266915660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know, I would at least 50\% of Korea is still on IE6.  The online cafes, social networking sites, government sites, et al., all use the old technology.</p><p>it's terribly frustrating.  i carry around portable apps suite on a USB drive to insure i can fully access my own web sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know , I would at least 50 \ % of Korea is still on IE6 .
The online cafes , social networking sites , government sites , et al. , all use the old technology.it 's terribly frustrating .
i carry around portable apps suite on a USB drive to insure i can fully access my own web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know, I would at least 50\% of Korea is still on IE6.
The online cafes, social networking sites, government sites, et al., all use the old technology.it's terribly frustrating.
i carry around portable apps suite on a USB drive to insure i can fully access my own web sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222366</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1266749820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually where is the problem? Web site owners do not have to support IE6 anymore.</p><p>If people want to use IE6, fine for them. It is easy for them to change that provided there is an incentive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually where is the problem ?
Web site owners do not have to support IE6 anymore.If people want to use IE6 , fine for them .
It is easy for them to change that provided there is an incentive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually where is the problem?
Web site owners do not have to support IE6 anymore.If people want to use IE6, fine for them.
It is easy for them to change that provided there is an incentive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221546</id>
	<title>Re:As a home user....</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266744660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone saying that Netscape/Firefox isn't support used developers that are MS fanboys that used MS specific stuff and rather than supporting multiple browsers, would rather tell everyone else their browser sucks. So quite rightly the thing to do is turn the tables and tell IE6 users that now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone saying that Netscape/Firefox is n't support used developers that are MS fanboys that used MS specific stuff and rather than supporting multiple browsers , would rather tell everyone else their browser sucks .
So quite rightly the thing to do is turn the tables and tell IE6 users that now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone saying that Netscape/Firefox isn't support used developers that are MS fanboys that used MS specific stuff and rather than supporting multiple browsers, would rather tell everyone else their browser sucks.
So quite rightly the thing to do is turn the tables and tell IE6 users that now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220302</id>
	<title>Why You Can't Pry IE6 Out of Their Cold Dead Hands</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1266780300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's because they aren't dead yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because they are n't dead yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because they aren't dead yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226004</id>
	<title>Blame the IT experts</title>
	<author>Demonoid-Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1266774960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until such time as salespeople are refused the title of "IT experts" the problem will continue.<p>
My experience (SOE engineering) in corporate environments - is that whenever we argue that the applications that the SOE have to support should be brought into the modern day are over-ruled by the client. The client prefers to listen to their developers (read AB**E/B*S) who, apparently have the "bigger picture".</p><p>Which, at the very least, should make the shareholders question the value of ITIL training and Security models.</p><p>In several instances I can trace the verbatim refutations of management to "word for word" requoting of "supportive" emails sent to the clients developers.</p><p>The developers are not actual employees of the client (read government departments) but rather, coders for hire employed by Sph*r**n (formerly Computer Training *nst*tute, formerly etc etc).</p><p>When we (the support, administrators, and engineers) argue that the SLAs are unsupportable (I used the words "nailing snot to the wall" in one memo) we are told that "the experts don't agree", "that's what the client wants", "if we don't do it we'll lose the contract"</p><p>
Damn <a href="http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#moenslaw-bicycles" title="linuxmafia.com" rel="nofollow">Moens Law of Bicycles</a> [linuxmafia.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until such time as salespeople are refused the title of " IT experts " the problem will continue .
My experience ( SOE engineering ) in corporate environments - is that whenever we argue that the applications that the SOE have to support should be brought into the modern day are over-ruled by the client .
The client prefers to listen to their developers ( read AB * * E/B * S ) who , apparently have the " bigger picture " .Which , at the very least , should make the shareholders question the value of ITIL training and Security models.In several instances I can trace the verbatim refutations of management to " word for word " requoting of " supportive " emails sent to the clients developers.The developers are not actual employees of the client ( read government departments ) but rather , coders for hire employed by Sph * r * * n ( formerly Computer Training * nst * tute , formerly etc etc ) .When we ( the support , administrators , and engineers ) argue that the SLAs are unsupportable ( I used the words " nailing snot to the wall " in one memo ) we are told that " the experts do n't agree " , " that 's what the client wants " , " if we do n't do it we 'll lose the contract " Damn Moens Law of Bicycles [ linuxmafia.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until such time as salespeople are refused the title of "IT experts" the problem will continue.
My experience (SOE engineering) in corporate environments - is that whenever we argue that the applications that the SOE have to support should be brought into the modern day are over-ruled by the client.
The client prefers to listen to their developers (read AB**E/B*S) who, apparently have the "bigger picture".Which, at the very least, should make the shareholders question the value of ITIL training and Security models.In several instances I can trace the verbatim refutations of management to "word for word" requoting of "supportive" emails sent to the clients developers.The developers are not actual employees of the client (read government departments) but rather, coders for hire employed by Sph*r**n (formerly Computer Training *nst*tute, formerly etc etc).When we (the support, administrators, and engineers) argue that the SLAs are unsupportable (I used the words "nailing snot to the wall" in one memo) we are told that "the experts don't agree", "that's what the client wants", "if we don't do it we'll lose the contract"
Damn Moens Law of Bicycles [linuxmafia.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224172</id>
	<title>Re:Kill Them?</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1266761280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the M$ DOS scripts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the M $ DOS scripts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the M$ DOS scripts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221354</id>
	<title>Stop developing for IE6 already!</title>
	<author>fedxone-v86</author>
	<datestamp>1266743160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several comments here that suggest developers are \_forced\_ to support IE6 because of their company or clients.

</p><p>And you call yourselves professionals?

</p><p>Am I the only one who quit his job over IE6 and MS junkie mgmt!? I can't be the only one. There have to be other people who take their profession seriously.

</p><p>With my knowledge and expertise I create efficient computer systems for my clients. With my help, their lives become easier, their jobs become more productive.

</p><p>This is what I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several comments here that suggest developers are \ _forced \ _ to support IE6 because of their company or clients .
And you call yourselves professionals ?
Am I the only one who quit his job over IE6 and MS junkie mgmt ! ?
I ca n't be the only one .
There have to be other people who take their profession seriously .
With my knowledge and expertise I create efficient computer systems for my clients .
With my help , their lives become easier , their jobs become more productive .
This is what I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several comments here that suggest developers are \_forced\_ to support IE6 because of their company or clients.
And you call yourselves professionals?
Am I the only one who quit his job over IE6 and MS junkie mgmt!?
I can't be the only one.
There have to be other people who take their profession seriously.
With my knowledge and expertise I create efficient computer systems for my clients.
With my help, their lives become easier, their jobs become more productive.
This is what I do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224102</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266760800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod up<br>same thing office - for 99\% of users, no improvement since office 2000</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod upsame thing office - for 99 \ % of users , no improvement since office 2000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod upsame thing office - for 99\% of users, no improvement since office 2000</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221204</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1266785460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I called it the <em>corporate</em> laptop, because there I can't (officially at least).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I called it the corporate laptop , because there I ca n't ( officially at least ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I called it the corporate laptop, because there I can't (officially at least).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220482</id>
	<title>Keeping users away from newer Web 2.0 sites</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1266781080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well there's nothing wrong with that really, Web 2.0 sucks. It invades your privacy and is a huge waste of bandwidth/CPU</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there 's nothing wrong with that really , Web 2.0 sucks .
It invades your privacy and is a huge waste of bandwidth/CPU</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there's nothing wrong with that really, Web 2.0 sucks.
It invades your privacy and is a huge waste of bandwidth/CPU</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224580</id>
	<title>The Shack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266764100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>has their POS based on IE6, and some even more ancient software.  LOL, for a "high tech" company you'd think that they'd be a little more up to date.  Uhh, could I interest you in a cell phone??</htmltext>
<tokenext>has their POS based on IE6 , and some even more ancient software .
LOL , for a " high tech " company you 'd think that they 'd be a little more up to date .
Uhh , could I interest you in a cell phone ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has their POS based on IE6, and some even more ancient software.
LOL, for a "high tech" company you'd think that they'd be a little more up to date.
Uhh, could I interest you in a cell phone?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Chris Lawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1266781200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired?  Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is , will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired ?
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move , and one that should have consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired?
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221282</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266785940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless</i></p><p>Using IE6?  Only if you don't count their eventual moniker, "those guys whose files all got deleted by script kiddies", as a name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a Fortune 500 company which will remain namelessUsing IE6 ?
Only if you do n't count their eventual moniker , " those guys whose files all got deleted by script kiddies " , as a name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a Fortune 500 company which will remain namelessUsing IE6?
Only if you don't count their eventual moniker, "those guys whose files all got deleted by script kiddies", as a name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221056</id>
	<title>IE 6 is going away slowly</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266784500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for a Fortune 500 company that migrated from IE 6 to IE 7 about a year and a half ago.   The migration was done in a very heavy-handed way, and most internal sites were fixed to work with IE 7.  Some sites still have problems with IE 7, but oddly work with Firefox which is the other supported browser.</p><p>I also worked recently for a medium-sized Canadian bank that was very conservative with technology but was still slowly moving toward IE 7, installing it on any workstation optionally for any developer who wasn't doing web development for their important intranet sites.</p><p>So, in my experience, companies that are conservative but still well run are able to see the writing on the wall with regard to IE 6.   IE still seems to be the corporate browser of choice because Microsoft is the browser vendor that's apparently most sensitive to enterprise needs (not sure if this is true, but that's the explanation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a Fortune 500 company that migrated from IE 6 to IE 7 about a year and a half ago .
The migration was done in a very heavy-handed way , and most internal sites were fixed to work with IE 7 .
Some sites still have problems with IE 7 , but oddly work with Firefox which is the other supported browser.I also worked recently for a medium-sized Canadian bank that was very conservative with technology but was still slowly moving toward IE 7 , installing it on any workstation optionally for any developer who was n't doing web development for their important intranet sites.So , in my experience , companies that are conservative but still well run are able to see the writing on the wall with regard to IE 6 .
IE still seems to be the corporate browser of choice because Microsoft is the browser vendor that 's apparently most sensitive to enterprise needs ( not sure if this is true , but that 's the explanation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a Fortune 500 company that migrated from IE 6 to IE 7 about a year and a half ago.
The migration was done in a very heavy-handed way, and most internal sites were fixed to work with IE 7.
Some sites still have problems with IE 7, but oddly work with Firefox which is the other supported browser.I also worked recently for a medium-sized Canadian bank that was very conservative with technology but was still slowly moving toward IE 7, installing it on any workstation optionally for any developer who wasn't doing web development for their important intranet sites.So, in my experience, companies that are conservative but still well run are able to see the writing on the wall with regard to IE 6.
IE still seems to be the corporate browser of choice because Microsoft is the browser vendor that's apparently most sensitive to enterprise needs (not sure if this is true, but that's the explanation).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220836</id>
	<title>Primavera Expedition</title>
	<author>rAiNsT0rm</author>
	<datestamp>1266782880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to ditch IE6, but we can't because of this one app. Our version is outdated, yes, but with the buyout by Oracle it's a mess and the costs and upgrade almost impossible. Our hands are tied. Large sweeping generalized comments always sound simple, but the reality is that we are not alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to ditch IE6 , but we ca n't because of this one app .
Our version is outdated , yes , but with the buyout by Oracle it 's a mess and the costs and upgrade almost impossible .
Our hands are tied .
Large sweeping generalized comments always sound simple , but the reality is that we are not alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to ditch IE6, but we can't because of this one app.
Our version is outdated, yes, but with the buyout by Oracle it's a mess and the costs and upgrade almost impossible.
Our hands are tied.
Large sweeping generalized comments always sound simple, but the reality is that we are not alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222232</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266749160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired".</p><p>Er no, because that would be *stupid*. In many cases, the person making the choice would not have known they would get locked in. The lockin might have been down to a development budget that got slashed, a vendor that went bust, a vendor that told lies (many do) or any other number of reasons. Or maybe the person making the choice was inexperienced, but they have now learned from experience and would make a better decision this time around. Oh what the hell, why not just fire him (or her) anyway? Typical "insightful" Slashdot comment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What I want to know is , will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired " .Er no , because that would be * stupid * .
In many cases , the person making the choice would not have known they would get locked in .
The lockin might have been down to a development budget that got slashed , a vendor that went bust , a vendor that told lies ( many do ) or any other number of reasons .
Or maybe the person making the choice was inexperienced , but they have now learned from experience and would make a better decision this time around .
Oh what the hell , why not just fire him ( or her ) anyway ?
Typical " insightful " Slashdot comment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired".Er no, because that would be *stupid*.
In many cases, the person making the choice would not have known they would get locked in.
The lockin might have been down to a development budget that got slashed, a vendor that went bust, a vendor that told lies (many do) or any other number of reasons.
Or maybe the person making the choice was inexperienced, but they have now learned from experience and would make a better decision this time around.
Oh what the hell, why not just fire him (or her) anyway?
Typical "insightful" Slashdot comment...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221120</id>
	<title>My experience</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1266784860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My old high school, North Middlesex district high school, in Canade, Ontario<br>
Only has IE6 installed on all the computers, the reason why: The others including IE7/8 make the machines unstable.<br>
Having watched many tech decisions come to pass over my years their, in my opinion, they are just unwilling to learn anything new and prefer working with outdated methods and software. Not that the rest of the board are any better in their respective fields.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My old high school , North Middlesex district high school , in Canade , Ontario Only has IE6 installed on all the computers , the reason why : The others including IE7/8 make the machines unstable .
Having watched many tech decisions come to pass over my years their , in my opinion , they are just unwilling to learn anything new and prefer working with outdated methods and software .
Not that the rest of the board are any better in their respective fields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My old high school, North Middlesex district high school, in Canade, Ontario
Only has IE6 installed on all the computers, the reason why: The others including IE7/8 make the machines unstable.
Having watched many tech decisions come to pass over my years their, in my opinion, they are just unwilling to learn anything new and prefer working with outdated methods and software.
Not that the rest of the board are any better in their respective fields.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222348</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1266749640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while most of Windows hasn't changed much in the last 10 years, I think you'll find there are more and more stuff that doesn't run on W2k. The current 'baseline' is XP SP2 (or 3) that has the APIs that most apps require.</p><p>Shame really, W2k was a really good OS, and on a modern box would fly faster than you could keep up with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while most of Windows has n't changed much in the last 10 years , I think you 'll find there are more and more stuff that does n't run on W2k .
The current 'baseline ' is XP SP2 ( or 3 ) that has the APIs that most apps require.Shame really , W2k was a really good OS , and on a modern box would fly faster than you could keep up with : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while most of Windows hasn't changed much in the last 10 years, I think you'll find there are more and more stuff that doesn't run on W2k.
The current 'baseline' is XP SP2 (or 3) that has the APIs that most apps require.Shame really, W2k was a really good OS, and on a modern box would fly faster than you could keep up with :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223484</id>
	<title>Oldie but Goldie</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1266756360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because it is old tech to you doesn't make it useless.<br>Upgrading to new stuff often wastes precious time and attention.<br>Vendors need to take responsibility for forward and backward compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because it is old tech to you does n't make it useless.Upgrading to new stuff often wastes precious time and attention.Vendors need to take responsibility for forward and backward compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because it is old tech to you doesn't make it useless.Upgrading to new stuff often wastes precious time and attention.Vendors need to take responsibility for forward and backward compatibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224326</id>
	<title>No IE6 support = lost revenue for ecom companies</title>
	<author>AcerbusNoir</author>
	<datestamp>1266762360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a senior web developer for an ecommerce company, we're required to ensure anything we develop will work with IE6. While &lt; 10\% of our visitors use IE6, those are still potential customers. Should they upgrade? Of course they should. Do I like having to test and tweak my code to ensure IE6 compatibility? It's definitely not the highlight of my day... but if it helps the company in the long run then it's worth a little extra hassle on my part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a senior web developer for an ecommerce company , we 're required to ensure anything we develop will work with IE6 .
While &lt; 10 \ % of our visitors use IE6 , those are still potential customers .
Should they upgrade ?
Of course they should .
Do I like having to test and tweak my code to ensure IE6 compatibility ?
It 's definitely not the highlight of my day... but if it helps the company in the long run then it 's worth a little extra hassle on my part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a senior web developer for an ecommerce company, we're required to ensure anything we develop will work with IE6.
While &lt; 10\% of our visitors use IE6, those are still potential customers.
Should they upgrade?
Of course they should.
Do I like having to test and tweak my code to ensure IE6 compatibility?
It's definitely not the highlight of my day... but if it helps the company in the long run then it's worth a little extra hassle on my part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220594</id>
	<title>Re:Why You Can't Pry IE6 Out of Their Cold Dead Ha</title>
	<author>Razalhague</author>
	<datestamp>1266781620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's because they've always been both cold and dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's because they 've always been both cold and dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's because they've always been both cold and dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221438</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1266743820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's fine until somebody uses an exploit in IE to steal millions of sales records. The problem really isn't so much IE6 as the failure of the government and courts to come down hard on companies that behave in such an irresponsible fashion. Sure no platform is perfect, but some are known to be insecure to the point where it shouldn't be used at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fine until somebody uses an exploit in IE to steal millions of sales records .
The problem really is n't so much IE6 as the failure of the government and courts to come down hard on companies that behave in such an irresponsible fashion .
Sure no platform is perfect , but some are known to be insecure to the point where it should n't be used at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fine until somebody uses an exploit in IE to steal millions of sales records.
The problem really isn't so much IE6 as the failure of the government and courts to come down hard on companies that behave in such an irresponsible fashion.
Sure no platform is perfect, but some are known to be insecure to the point where it shouldn't be used at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31281196</id>
	<title>Re:They have IE6 apps, you see it everywhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267115520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...none of the rich text editors I've experienced online have used HTML5 or ActiveX. They tend to use contentEditable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...none of the rich text editors I 've experienced online have used HTML5 or ActiveX .
They tend to use contentEditable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...none of the rich text editors I've experienced online have used HTML5 or ActiveX.
They tend to use contentEditable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220464</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1266781020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My corporate laptop runs Windows 7 and XP Mode. From time to time, i need to use IE6. That's when i use XP mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My corporate laptop runs Windows 7 and XP Mode .
From time to time , i need to use IE6 .
That 's when i use XP mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My corporate laptop runs Windows 7 and XP Mode.
From time to time, i need to use IE6.
That's when i use XP mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221254</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266785760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIS and IE have nothing to do with each other.  The two show up in the same conversations only due to correlation -- software that attempts lock-in to IE will of course be written on a Microsoft platform and will therefore almost always run on IIS.  However, most IE lock-in technologies, like the incompatible DOM and CSS quirks, can be served from any server-side platform.  IE was targeted at Netscape and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net was supposed to be the "Java killer" (there was Microsoft J++ before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, but nobody ever used it)<br>
<br>
ActiveX was an attempt by the Windows team at Microsoft to subvert the entire transition to web based applications by introducing a way to create Windows applications that seemed to be web applications.  The IE team has just as much reason to hate ActiveX as the Firefox or Safari guys do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIS and IE have nothing to do with each other .
The two show up in the same conversations only due to correlation -- software that attempts lock-in to IE will of course be written on a Microsoft platform and will therefore almost always run on IIS .
However , most IE lock-in technologies , like the incompatible DOM and CSS quirks , can be served from any server-side platform .
IE was targeted at Netscape and .Net was supposed to be the " Java killer " ( there was Microsoft J + + before .Net , but nobody ever used it ) ActiveX was an attempt by the Windows team at Microsoft to subvert the entire transition to web based applications by introducing a way to create Windows applications that seemed to be web applications .
The IE team has just as much reason to hate ActiveX as the Firefox or Safari guys do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIS and IE have nothing to do with each other.
The two show up in the same conversations only due to correlation -- software that attempts lock-in to IE will of course be written on a Microsoft platform and will therefore almost always run on IIS.
However, most IE lock-in technologies, like the incompatible DOM and CSS quirks, can be served from any server-side platform.
IE was targeted at Netscape and .Net was supposed to be the "Java killer" (there was Microsoft J++ before .Net, but nobody ever used it)

ActiveX was an attempt by the Windows team at Microsoft to subvert the entire transition to web based applications by introducing a way to create Windows applications that seemed to be web applications.
The IE team has just as much reason to hate ActiveX as the Firefox or Safari guys do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221320</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266742920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course, active-x is also part of the never-ending curse where Microsoft hands control of the Internet to the Russian mob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course , active-x is also part of the never-ending curse where Microsoft hands control of the Internet to the Russian mob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course, active-x is also part of the never-ending curse where Microsoft hands control of the Internet to the Russian mob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220622</id>
	<title>Re:When should FOSS projects stop supporting IE6?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266781740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Microsoft releases IE7 with its better standards support. Which happened in 2006.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Microsoft releases IE7 with its better standards support .
Which happened in 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Microsoft releases IE7 with its better standards support.
Which happened in 2006.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222308</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266749520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, IIS and IE don't particularly compliment each other more than any other web server and web browser.  ActiveX doesn't tie IE to IIS, and to be honest, your statement is pretty much sure ignorance.  Now there are plenty of applications that run on IIS (only) that were tweaked to run better on IE, but there is a very limited set from MS itself (Outlook Web being the most prominent example).  I would suggest that you not look at the past through rose colored glasses.  When IE6 came out, it was pretty far ahead of the competition, and ActiveX did allow for a lot of things that would otherwise have taken Java (much slower option at the time) or, well.. that's about it.  Flash didn't really become a competitor in the application space until a couple years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , IIS and IE do n't particularly compliment each other more than any other web server and web browser .
ActiveX does n't tie IE to IIS , and to be honest , your statement is pretty much sure ignorance .
Now there are plenty of applications that run on IIS ( only ) that were tweaked to run better on IE , but there is a very limited set from MS itself ( Outlook Web being the most prominent example ) .
I would suggest that you not look at the past through rose colored glasses .
When IE6 came out , it was pretty far ahead of the competition , and ActiveX did allow for a lot of things that would otherwise have taken Java ( much slower option at the time ) or , well.. that 's about it .
Flash did n't really become a competitor in the application space until a couple years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, IIS and IE don't particularly compliment each other more than any other web server and web browser.
ActiveX doesn't tie IE to IIS, and to be honest, your statement is pretty much sure ignorance.
Now there are plenty of applications that run on IIS (only) that were tweaked to run better on IE, but there is a very limited set from MS itself (Outlook Web being the most prominent example).
I would suggest that you not look at the past through rose colored glasses.
When IE6 came out, it was pretty far ahead of the competition, and ActiveX did allow for a lot of things that would otherwise have taken Java (much slower option at the time) or, well.. that's about it.
Flash didn't really become a competitor in the application space until a couple years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226646</id>
	<title>Re:Start putting this on your web pages</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1266868800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the public web gets flooded with these, the PHBs are going to believe their jobs are on the line if they don't insist on an upgrade:</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

No,<br> <br>

The PHB's will just insist that IT makes the problem go away without affecting them. In this case it's quite easy as you just get the proxy server to mangle the user agent string into whatever doesn't set off the warning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the public web gets flooded with these , the PHBs are going to believe their jobs are on the line if they do n't insist on an upgrade : No , The PHB 's will just insist that IT makes the problem go away without affecting them .
In this case it 's quite easy as you just get the proxy server to mangle the user agent string into whatever does n't set off the warning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the public web gets flooded with these, the PHBs are going to believe their jobs are on the line if they don't insist on an upgrade:


No, 

The PHB's will just insist that IT makes the problem go away without affecting them.
In this case it's quite easy as you just get the proxy server to mangle the user agent string into whatever doesn't set off the warning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221522</id>
	<title>convenience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266744480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.</p></div><p>No, it was not completely "stupid", just very convenient to use these technologies--at least in the short term.</p><p>Jon Udell once remarked (ages ago) that Windows gets you from 0-60 quicker than Unix, but you need need Unix to get from 60-100 (at least at the time, mid-1990s). Some people only need to get to 60 (or less) and then just move onto other things without considering things more closely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move , and one that should have consequences.No , it was not completely " stupid " , just very convenient to use these technologies--at least in the short term.Jon Udell once remarked ( ages ago ) that Windows gets you from 0-60 quicker than Unix , but you need need Unix to get from 60-100 ( at least at the time , mid-1990s ) .
Some people only need to get to 60 ( or less ) and then just move onto other things without considering things more closely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.No, it was not completely "stupid", just very convenient to use these technologies--at least in the short term.Jon Udell once remarked (ages ago) that Windows gets you from 0-60 quicker than Unix, but you need need Unix to get from 60-100 (at least at the time, mid-1990s).
Some people only need to get to 60 (or less) and then just move onto other things without considering things more closely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221196</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>drooling-dog</author>
	<datestamp>1266785400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.</p></div><p>It should, but the truth is that it doesn't as long as the rest of the herd is doing it, too. Operating systems and office suites get chosen the same way. The only acceptable options are the ones you see advertised on teevee...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move , and one that should have consequences.It should , but the truth is that it does n't as long as the rest of the herd is doing it , too .
Operating systems and office suites get chosen the same way .
The only acceptable options are the ones you see advertised on teevee.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.It should, but the truth is that it doesn't as long as the rest of the herd is doing it, too.
Operating systems and office suites get chosen the same way.
The only acceptable options are the ones you see advertised on teevee...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31227806</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266842280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the company does not require any changes to the software they utilize, I agree with you.  However, many businesses must adapt and beat their competition to stay in business.  <b>That requires changes in their business</b>.  That usually invokes a trickle-down effect which requires a change in their software.  You are welcome to continue using business processes / software dated 5-10 years back, and not incur change / upgrading as a cost to your business.</p><p>However, <b>don't expect to remain in business much longer</b> / support on that software if you need it.  And, good luck beating your competition, who is utilizing newer business processes / software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the company does not require any changes to the software they utilize , I agree with you .
However , many businesses must adapt and beat their competition to stay in business .
That requires changes in their business .
That usually invokes a trickle-down effect which requires a change in their software .
You are welcome to continue using business processes / software dated 5-10 years back , and not incur change / upgrading as a cost to your business.However , do n't expect to remain in business much longer / support on that software if you need it .
And , good luck beating your competition , who is utilizing newer business processes / software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the company does not require any changes to the software they utilize, I agree with you.
However, many businesses must adapt and beat their competition to stay in business.
That requires changes in their business.
That usually invokes a trickle-down effect which requires a change in their software.
You are welcome to continue using business processes / software dated 5-10 years back, and not incur change / upgrading as a cost to your business.However, don't expect to remain in business much longer / support on that software if you need it.
And, good luck beating your competition, who is utilizing newer business processes / software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258</id>
	<title>Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My corporate laptop is chained to IE6 because lots of the systems I administer have Java and JavaScript based configuration interfaces which only works with IE6. It fails on alternate browsers and even IE8 has issues (not to mention the fact that you have to have Java 1.4, Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 installed in parallel and switch to the right one for each machine).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My corporate laptop is chained to IE6 because lots of the systems I administer have Java and JavaScript based configuration interfaces which only works with IE6 .
It fails on alternate browsers and even IE8 has issues ( not to mention the fact that you have to have Java 1.4 , Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 installed in parallel and switch to the right one for each machine ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My corporate laptop is chained to IE6 because lots of the systems I administer have Java and JavaScript based configuration interfaces which only works with IE6.
It fails on alternate browsers and even IE8 has issues (not to mention the fact that you have to have Java 1.4, Java 1.5 and Java 1.6 installed in parallel and switch to the right one for each machine).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221530</id>
	<title>Give it a year</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1266744540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The past two big corporations that I worked for still deploy standard workstation images based on WinXP + IE6.  They generally have their IT sh*t together, but it still takes them about a year to create and test and deploy images throughout the company.  And since Vista was broadly decried as "skippable", that's exactly what they did.  Now that Win7 is finally out and has better acceptance, I'd say it'll take about a year to get everything packaged and tested and documented and deployed.</p><p>Also, both companies had plenty of intranet timecard and expense and training systems that required IE6.  Yes, they didn't adhere to standards back in the day, and they're paying for it now.  But that's sort of the price of being on the bleeding edge of technology most of the time...  you get locked into immature tech.  Heck, Boeing even still uses a mainframe for all its employee timecards!  The current web-based front-end is merely a thin front-end to the old mainframe timekeeping terminal.  But it works... even despite managers griping about not being able to submit timecards from their blackberries.</p><p>I don't think they'll be under much pressure to fix all their old legacy "IE6-only" webapps, since win7 should include the old XP-compatiblity mode that will hopefully allow them to still run their old but tested crap under IE6.  So at least their's a way forward, even though it's not ideal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The past two big corporations that I worked for still deploy standard workstation images based on WinXP + IE6 .
They generally have their IT sh * t together , but it still takes them about a year to create and test and deploy images throughout the company .
And since Vista was broadly decried as " skippable " , that 's exactly what they did .
Now that Win7 is finally out and has better acceptance , I 'd say it 'll take about a year to get everything packaged and tested and documented and deployed.Also , both companies had plenty of intranet timecard and expense and training systems that required IE6 .
Yes , they did n't adhere to standards back in the day , and they 're paying for it now .
But that 's sort of the price of being on the bleeding edge of technology most of the time... you get locked into immature tech .
Heck , Boeing even still uses a mainframe for all its employee timecards !
The current web-based front-end is merely a thin front-end to the old mainframe timekeeping terminal .
But it works... even despite managers griping about not being able to submit timecards from their blackberries.I do n't think they 'll be under much pressure to fix all their old legacy " IE6-only " webapps , since win7 should include the old XP-compatiblity mode that will hopefully allow them to still run their old but tested crap under IE6 .
So at least their 's a way forward , even though it 's not ideal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The past two big corporations that I worked for still deploy standard workstation images based on WinXP + IE6.
They generally have their IT sh*t together, but it still takes them about a year to create and test and deploy images throughout the company.
And since Vista was broadly decried as "skippable", that's exactly what they did.
Now that Win7 is finally out and has better acceptance, I'd say it'll take about a year to get everything packaged and tested and documented and deployed.Also, both companies had plenty of intranet timecard and expense and training systems that required IE6.
Yes, they didn't adhere to standards back in the day, and they're paying for it now.
But that's sort of the price of being on the bleeding edge of technology most of the time...  you get locked into immature tech.
Heck, Boeing even still uses a mainframe for all its employee timecards!
The current web-based front-end is merely a thin front-end to the old mainframe timekeeping terminal.
But it works... even despite managers griping about not being able to submit timecards from their blackberries.I don't think they'll be under much pressure to fix all their old legacy "IE6-only" webapps, since win7 should include the old XP-compatiblity mode that will hopefully allow them to still run their old but tested crap under IE6.
So at least their's a way forward, even though it's not ideal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221034</id>
	<title>As a home user....</title>
	<author>saturndude</author>
	<datestamp>1266784260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For quite a while, IE 6 was Microsoft's flagship browser.  We knew it was insecure.  Somebody (Secunia?) even recommended that we *\_strongly\_* consider switching away from IE6 to *\_any\_* other browser.<br><br>But important sites like my bank standardized on it.  Several years after Firefox came out and Netscape became SeaMonkey, I still got warning pages that "Netscape is not really supported on our site" or similar.  Did my bank's web developers fall asleep and miss the name change?  Did AOL give the outdated Netscape broswer to their users and this warning was directed at them?<br><br>Then Microsoft came out with IE7.  Even larger and more complicated (just like the bug-fixes that MS had to follow up with).  Then IE 8.  More of the same.  Microsoft talked about the improved customer experience, but I was more interested in the security settings, and after years of Netscape/Firefox, I barely understand some of them ("medium-high" security, "third-party" cookies, "zones" and so forth).<br><br>I don't visit questionable sites, I use the hosts file at hosts-file.net and I don't click on every random e-mail attachment (open it first in linux to verify the audio/video/pdf or whatever), and I use Firefox 99 percent of the time in XP (and 100 percent in linux).  And banks don't *\_require\_* MSIE anymore.<br><br>Now, add the usual Microsoft bashing on slashdot ("Seven is just as insecure as Vista", "MS played a role in the SCO affair", "IE is still insecure", "activation/WGA is a hassle", "security features are easily defeated").<br><br>Why don't I upgrade?  I don't see a reason or a need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For quite a while , IE 6 was Microsoft 's flagship browser .
We knew it was insecure .
Somebody ( Secunia ?
) even recommended that we * \ _strongly \ _ * consider switching away from IE6 to * \ _any \ _ * other browser.But important sites like my bank standardized on it .
Several years after Firefox came out and Netscape became SeaMonkey , I still got warning pages that " Netscape is not really supported on our site " or similar .
Did my bank 's web developers fall asleep and miss the name change ?
Did AOL give the outdated Netscape broswer to their users and this warning was directed at them ? Then Microsoft came out with IE7 .
Even larger and more complicated ( just like the bug-fixes that MS had to follow up with ) .
Then IE 8 .
More of the same .
Microsoft talked about the improved customer experience , but I was more interested in the security settings , and after years of Netscape/Firefox , I barely understand some of them ( " medium-high " security , " third-party " cookies , " zones " and so forth ) .I do n't visit questionable sites , I use the hosts file at hosts-file.net and I do n't click on every random e-mail attachment ( open it first in linux to verify the audio/video/pdf or whatever ) , and I use Firefox 99 percent of the time in XP ( and 100 percent in linux ) .
And banks do n't * \ _require \ _ * MSIE anymore.Now , add the usual Microsoft bashing on slashdot ( " Seven is just as insecure as Vista " , " MS played a role in the SCO affair " , " IE is still insecure " , " activation/WGA is a hassle " , " security features are easily defeated " ) .Why do n't I upgrade ?
I do n't see a reason or a need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For quite a while, IE 6 was Microsoft's flagship browser.
We knew it was insecure.
Somebody (Secunia?
) even recommended that we *\_strongly\_* consider switching away from IE6 to *\_any\_* other browser.But important sites like my bank standardized on it.
Several years after Firefox came out and Netscape became SeaMonkey, I still got warning pages that "Netscape is not really supported on our site" or similar.
Did my bank's web developers fall asleep and miss the name change?
Did AOL give the outdated Netscape broswer to their users and this warning was directed at them?Then Microsoft came out with IE7.
Even larger and more complicated (just like the bug-fixes that MS had to follow up with).
Then IE 8.
More of the same.
Microsoft talked about the improved customer experience, but I was more interested in the security settings, and after years of Netscape/Firefox, I barely understand some of them ("medium-high" security, "third-party" cookies, "zones" and so forth).I don't visit questionable sites, I use the hosts file at hosts-file.net and I don't click on every random e-mail attachment (open it first in linux to verify the audio/video/pdf or whatever), and I use Firefox 99 percent of the time in XP (and 100 percent in linux).
And banks don't *\_require\_* MSIE anymore.Now, add the usual Microsoft bashing on slashdot ("Seven is just as insecure as Vista", "MS played a role in the SCO affair", "IE is still insecure", "activation/WGA is a hassle", "security features are easily defeated").Why don't I upgrade?
I don't see a reason or a need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224750</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266765360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is odd that a Fight Club reference is modded insightful.  I love the movie, but "insightful"???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is odd that a Fight Club reference is modded insightful .
I love the movie , but " insightful " ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is odd that a Fight Club reference is modded insightful.
I love the movie, but "insightful"??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223638</id>
	<title>Re:They have IE6 apps, you see it everywhere</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1266757560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly right... My company is in this boat. We've got dozens of shit webapps that will not work outside of IE6. It would cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to rewrite them all and most of the people involved in the originals are long gone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right... My company is in this boat .
We 've got dozens of shit webapps that will not work outside of IE6 .
It would cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to rewrite them all and most of the people involved in the originals are long gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right... My company is in this boat.
We've got dozens of shit webapps that will not work outside of IE6.
It would cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to rewrite them all and most of the people involved in the originals are long gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220492</id>
	<title>Move on, they have other options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266781140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the ubiquitous availability of virtualization, even those who are locked into a legacy web application can upgrade the OS and the browser. A stripped-down OS image with just IE6 can be used to access the legacy app. Nobody can claim they have no way away from IE6, so it is time to end support for it. The burden of supporting an environment for IE6 only software must shift from the web developers to the people who made the mistake of allowing themselves to get locked into that ancient platform. Their complacency can not be our concern any longer. If we don't move on, they never will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the ubiquitous availability of virtualization , even those who are locked into a legacy web application can upgrade the OS and the browser .
A stripped-down OS image with just IE6 can be used to access the legacy app .
Nobody can claim they have no way away from IE6 , so it is time to end support for it .
The burden of supporting an environment for IE6 only software must shift from the web developers to the people who made the mistake of allowing themselves to get locked into that ancient platform .
Their complacency can not be our concern any longer .
If we do n't move on , they never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the ubiquitous availability of virtualization, even those who are locked into a legacy web application can upgrade the OS and the browser.
A stripped-down OS image with just IE6 can be used to access the legacy app.
Nobody can claim they have no way away from IE6, so it is time to end support for it.
The burden of supporting an environment for IE6 only software must shift from the web developers to the people who made the mistake of allowing themselves to get locked into that ancient platform.
Their complacency can not be our concern any longer.
If we don't move on, they never will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221236</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>shirai</author>
	<datestamp>1266785640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'll like this song. It's about the problems MSIE developers have because of the lock in:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTTzwJsHpU8" title="youtube.com">IE is being mean to me song</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Full Disclosure: One of my employees, Scott, wrote this song (and I recorded it). The inspiration came from one of our dev teams that was constantly complaining about the problems the browser gave them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll like this song .
It 's about the problems MSIE developers have because of the lock in : IE is being mean to me song [ youtube.com ] Full Disclosure : One of my employees , Scott , wrote this song ( and I recorded it ) .
The inspiration came from one of our dev teams that was constantly complaining about the problems the browser gave them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll like this song.
It's about the problems MSIE developers have because of the lock in:IE is being mean to me song [youtube.com]Full Disclosure: One of my employees, Scott, wrote this song (and I recorded it).
The inspiration came from one of our dev teams that was constantly complaining about the problems the browser gave them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226196</id>
	<title>Re:Chained to IE6</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1266776700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, a lot of financial reporting type apps. I used to have an accountant that had to have 1.5+ for the tax office and 1.3.4 for the corporate reporting software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , a lot of financial reporting type apps .
I used to have an accountant that had to have 1.5 + for the tax office and 1.3.4 for the corporate reporting software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, a lot of financial reporting type apps.
I used to have an accountant that had to have 1.5+ for the tax office and 1.3.4 for the corporate reporting software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221890</id>
	<title>Sadly, using FireFox at work can mean being fired</title>
	<author>Ka D'Argo</author>
	<datestamp>1266746940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work tech support for a phone company who shall remain unnamed. The primary "software" we use is all web apps that are run on their local intranet.
<p>
And the worst part being, all these web apps were written for IE6. Some will function in Firefox/Chrome/Opera/etc but the primary ones we use the most every day, don't.
</p><p>
AND, they will never update it. Why? The hired a third party programmer to write the primary web app we use, and it was basically contract work. He wrote it, gave X amount of troubleshooting help with it, and that was it. If we need major fixes to it or additions to it, we can't. And if this software goes down, which it does on a weekly basis, we end up having to schedule a ton of call backs with customers we're speaking with on the phone since we can't help them without this piece of software generally.
</p><p>
Now, we all have personal directories on a virtual server we can use for storage of work related files (guides for routers, phone manuals, etc) and most people do in fact install Portable FireFox here and use it for their casual browsing of the internet between calls. Even our supervisors and managers do this as well as us peons. BUT, it is technically against company policy to install outside software of any kind and use it.. even if it is by far more secure and easier to use than what they offer. No one has gotten fired for it but my point being that there was grounds for it, compared to using the shitacular IE6. And trust me, you should see the spyware scan logs of the massive network of user pc's we have.. It just amazes me a company is so cheap it won't pay to have its software updated to accomodate security. It'd hate to be in the actual IT department at this place, their entire day must be spyware/virus removal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work tech support for a phone company who shall remain unnamed .
The primary " software " we use is all web apps that are run on their local intranet .
And the worst part being , all these web apps were written for IE6 .
Some will function in Firefox/Chrome/Opera/etc but the primary ones we use the most every day , do n't .
AND , they will never update it .
Why ? The hired a third party programmer to write the primary web app we use , and it was basically contract work .
He wrote it , gave X amount of troubleshooting help with it , and that was it .
If we need major fixes to it or additions to it , we ca n't .
And if this software goes down , which it does on a weekly basis , we end up having to schedule a ton of call backs with customers we 're speaking with on the phone since we ca n't help them without this piece of software generally .
Now , we all have personal directories on a virtual server we can use for storage of work related files ( guides for routers , phone manuals , etc ) and most people do in fact install Portable FireFox here and use it for their casual browsing of the internet between calls .
Even our supervisors and managers do this as well as us peons .
BUT , it is technically against company policy to install outside software of any kind and use it.. even if it is by far more secure and easier to use than what they offer .
No one has gotten fired for it but my point being that there was grounds for it , compared to using the shitacular IE6 .
And trust me , you should see the spyware scan logs of the massive network of user pc 's we have.. It just amazes me a company is so cheap it wo n't pay to have its software updated to accomodate security .
It 'd hate to be in the actual IT department at this place , their entire day must be spyware/virus removal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work tech support for a phone company who shall remain unnamed.
The primary "software" we use is all web apps that are run on their local intranet.
And the worst part being, all these web apps were written for IE6.
Some will function in Firefox/Chrome/Opera/etc but the primary ones we use the most every day, don't.
AND, they will never update it.
Why? The hired a third party programmer to write the primary web app we use, and it was basically contract work.
He wrote it, gave X amount of troubleshooting help with it, and that was it.
If we need major fixes to it or additions to it, we can't.
And if this software goes down, which it does on a weekly basis, we end up having to schedule a ton of call backs with customers we're speaking with on the phone since we can't help them without this piece of software generally.
Now, we all have personal directories on a virtual server we can use for storage of work related files (guides for routers, phone manuals, etc) and most people do in fact install Portable FireFox here and use it for their casual browsing of the internet between calls.
Even our supervisors and managers do this as well as us peons.
BUT, it is technically against company policy to install outside software of any kind and use it.. even if it is by far more secure and easier to use than what they offer.
No one has gotten fired for it but my point being that there was grounds for it, compared to using the shitacular IE6.
And trust me, you should see the spyware scan logs of the massive network of user pc's we have.. It just amazes me a company is so cheap it won't pay to have its software updated to accomodate security.
It'd hate to be in the actual IT department at this place, their entire day must be spyware/virus removal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221588</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1266744900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE8, I can take it or leave it. And though I've never personally deployed Sharepoint, though it does look interesting and useful, it does come with all the tools you need to get the data back out. It's just a SQL Server database. I mean, no matter who you go with for document management you're going to end up putting data in a system and then having to change it to put it in some other system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 , I can take it or leave it .
And though I 've never personally deployed Sharepoint , though it does look interesting and useful , it does come with all the tools you need to get the data back out .
It 's just a SQL Server database .
I mean , no matter who you go with for document management you 're going to end up putting data in a system and then having to change it to put it in some other system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8, I can take it or leave it.
And though I've never personally deployed Sharepoint, though it does look interesting and useful, it does come with all the tools you need to get the data back out.
It's just a SQL Server database.
I mean, no matter who you go with for document management you're going to end up putting data in a system and then having to change it to put it in some other system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222936</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1266753060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you really understand the cycle of windows development.  Windows 2000 was NT based (from 4.0 and 3.51 etc), Windows 2000 was never a viable option for anything graphically intensive as the APIs were obscured from the underlying system.  Windows XP's biggest changes were with DirectX support to the underlying hardware.  While slightly less stable than Kernel safety, it was strongly needed for hardware performance for Gaming.  In XP all DOS applications are virtualized away from actual hardware, and many things did and did not work properly.  Vista was essentially released too early, and Windows 7 can be thought of as a more complete modern OS.</p><p>As to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net and Direct-X Windows 2000 will emphatically *NOT* run most of the applications in that space.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net really didn't begin to find acceptance until the 2.0 release (iirc, unsupported by Win3K).  And Direct-X under win2k is virtualized, and doesn't support versions &gt;= 9 which is where most applications targetting Direct-X are written (More DX9 than anything else).</p><p>As to open-source, you are correct a lot of it is supported.  However I haven't seen XP or Windows 7 require much more in terms of resources over Windows 2000.  I held out for a long time on upgrading to XP, and only ran Vista for a very short time.  I'm pretty happy with Windows 7 though.  As to phoning home constantly, it's called checking for updates.  Though, you'd probably rather have people running older versions without updating so they can be readily exploited into botnet nodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you really understand the cycle of windows development .
Windows 2000 was NT based ( from 4.0 and 3.51 etc ) , Windows 2000 was never a viable option for anything graphically intensive as the APIs were obscured from the underlying system .
Windows XP 's biggest changes were with DirectX support to the underlying hardware .
While slightly less stable than Kernel safety , it was strongly needed for hardware performance for Gaming .
In XP all DOS applications are virtualized away from actual hardware , and many things did and did not work properly .
Vista was essentially released too early , and Windows 7 can be thought of as a more complete modern OS.As to .Net and Direct-X Windows 2000 will emphatically * NOT * run most of the applications in that space .
.Net really did n't begin to find acceptance until the 2.0 release ( iirc , unsupported by Win3K ) .
And Direct-X under win2k is virtualized , and does n't support versions &gt; = 9 which is where most applications targetting Direct-X are written ( More DX9 than anything else ) .As to open-source , you are correct a lot of it is supported .
However I have n't seen XP or Windows 7 require much more in terms of resources over Windows 2000 .
I held out for a long time on upgrading to XP , and only ran Vista for a very short time .
I 'm pretty happy with Windows 7 though .
As to phoning home constantly , it 's called checking for updates .
Though , you 'd probably rather have people running older versions without updating so they can be readily exploited into botnet nodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you really understand the cycle of windows development.
Windows 2000 was NT based (from 4.0 and 3.51 etc), Windows 2000 was never a viable option for anything graphically intensive as the APIs were obscured from the underlying system.
Windows XP's biggest changes were with DirectX support to the underlying hardware.
While slightly less stable than Kernel safety, it was strongly needed for hardware performance for Gaming.
In XP all DOS applications are virtualized away from actual hardware, and many things did and did not work properly.
Vista was essentially released too early, and Windows 7 can be thought of as a more complete modern OS.As to .Net and Direct-X Windows 2000 will emphatically *NOT* run most of the applications in that space.
.Net really didn't begin to find acceptance until the 2.0 release (iirc, unsupported by Win3K).
And Direct-X under win2k is virtualized, and doesn't support versions &gt;= 9 which is where most applications targetting Direct-X are written (More DX9 than anything else).As to open-source, you are correct a lot of it is supported.
However I haven't seen XP or Windows 7 require much more in terms of resources over Windows 2000.
I held out for a long time on upgrading to XP, and only ran Vista for a very short time.
I'm pretty happy with Windows 7 though.
As to phoning home constantly, it's called checking for updates.
Though, you'd probably rather have people running older versions without updating so they can be readily exploited into botnet nodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221062</id>
	<title>Re:old chainmails never die.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266784500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats an internet myth. Look it up.</p><p>http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats an internet myth .
Look it up.http : //www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats an internet myth.
Look it up.http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220468</id>
	<title>"Well, it still works....why should I upgrade?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266781080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop supporting it.  Problem solved.  Some people have all day to catch the train.  They'll figure it out as sites start rendering incorrectly and giving them a notification to upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop supporting it .
Problem solved .
Some people have all day to catch the train .
They 'll figure it out as sites start rendering incorrectly and giving them a notification to upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop supporting it.
Problem solved.
Some people have all day to catch the train.
They'll figure it out as sites start rendering incorrectly and giving them a notification to upgrade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221072</id>
	<title>Re:I Use IE6</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1266784560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> It starts instantaneously</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, technically it starts when your computer does. Any browser can create a window as fast as IE if it is already running. The cost of doing it like IE does is a slower boot up time and wasted memory when you are not using it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It starts instantaneouslyWell , technically it starts when your computer does .
Any browser can create a window as fast as IE if it is already running .
The cost of doing it like IE does is a slower boot up time and wasted memory when you are not using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It starts instantaneouslyWell, technically it starts when your computer does.
Any browser can create a window as fast as IE if it is already running.
The cost of doing it like IE does is a slower boot up time and wasted memory when you are not using it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220972</id>
	<title>Re:Same Reason They Won't Move to Mac OSX...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266783840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I believe that reason is that the hardware costs 3 times as much. Most businesses I've worked for spend less than $500 per seat on new machines. You simply can't get a Mac for that. Sure, you can get a mini, but it's not going to come with a display, and it's not going to have the greatest hardware under the hood either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I believe that reason is that the hardware costs 3 times as much .
Most businesses I 've worked for spend less than $ 500 per seat on new machines .
You simply ca n't get a Mac for that .
Sure , you can get a mini , but it 's not going to come with a display , and it 's not going to have the greatest hardware under the hood either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I believe that reason is that the hardware costs 3 times as much.
Most businesses I've worked for spend less than $500 per seat on new machines.
You simply can't get a Mac for that.
Sure, you can get a mini, but it's not going to come with a display, and it's not going to have the greatest hardware under the hood either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</id>
	<title>Speaking as</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one) I have noticed that they still use Windows XP and IE 6. Although my better half isn't in the IT department I have made this observation to her and the apparent reason is that IT is "waiting" to upgrade to Windows 7 (ie, they skipped Vista entirely) and they plan on doing "all the upgrades at the same time". The internet browser is not the key feature for their staff anyway (what really gets used is office and outlook 2007 plus a custom "IM" program). In fact, large chunks of the internet are blacklisted by the IT department. You just can't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the "company laptop" (good thing they don't know about "Ubuntu" so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels).</p><p>My understand is that it's not "ignorance" that is holding back the switch - rather the economic problems set back upgrades of company hardware that were planned for last year and have been pushed forwards to 2011 and the tech boys decided that if they're going to upgrade they'll do everything at once, including the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless ( but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it 's a big one ) I have noticed that they still use Windows XP and IE 6 .
Although my better half is n't in the IT department I have made this observation to her and the apparent reason is that IT is " waiting " to upgrade to Windows 7 ( ie , they skipped Vista entirely ) and they plan on doing " all the upgrades at the same time " .
The internet browser is not the key feature for their staff anyway ( what really gets used is office and outlook 2007 plus a custom " IM " program ) .
In fact , large chunks of the internet are blacklisted by the IT department .
You just ca n't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the " company laptop " ( good thing they do n't know about " Ubuntu " so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels ) .My understand is that it 's not " ignorance " that is holding back the switch - rather the economic problems set back upgrades of company hardware that were planned for last year and have been pushed forwards to 2011 and the tech boys decided that if they 're going to upgrade they 'll do everything at once , including the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one) I have noticed that they still use Windows XP and IE 6.
Although my better half isn't in the IT department I have made this observation to her and the apparent reason is that IT is "waiting" to upgrade to Windows 7 (ie, they skipped Vista entirely) and they plan on doing "all the upgrades at the same time".
The internet browser is not the key feature for their staff anyway (what really gets used is office and outlook 2007 plus a custom "IM" program).
In fact, large chunks of the internet are blacklisted by the IT department.
You just can't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the "company laptop" (good thing they don't know about "Ubuntu" so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels).My understand is that it's not "ignorance" that is holding back the switch - rather the economic problems set back upgrades of company hardware that were planned for last year and have been pushed forwards to 2011 and the tech boys decided that if they're going to upgrade they'll do everything at once, including the browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016</id>
	<title>They have IE6 apps, you see it everywhere</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1266784140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many custom corporate apps built between 2002-2006 were called "Web apps" but were really "IE6 apps". In the late 90's they would have been Windows apps built with Visual Basic. Companies thought they were modernizing to the Web but really just got a different kind of Windows app.</p><p>It continues with IE7 and IE8<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... these browsers are so incapable that, for example, a rich text editor for them is done as ActiveX instead of as HTML5, so you can't run the app anywhere but IE. Now that these companies are often running multiple platforms (Windows XP, Windows Vista/7, Mac OS, iPhone, Blackberry) they are getting bitten on the ass. It's like Y2K in that the future was never supposed to happen.</p><p>Microsoft succeeded in forking the Web. This is the aftermath. That's why HTML5 compatibility is so important, the focus on browser vendors in the spec means that Apple WebKit and Mozilla Gecko engineers do a lot of work to make their browsers compatible with each other. You have WebKit redoing canvas in the standard way, redoing Gears in the standard way. If you're locked into any one browser or one hardware that is not the Web, it is by definition only what's completely universal. If it's not universal (IE, Flash) it's not part of the Web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many custom corporate apps built between 2002-2006 were called " Web apps " but were really " IE6 apps " .
In the late 90 's they would have been Windows apps built with Visual Basic .
Companies thought they were modernizing to the Web but really just got a different kind of Windows app.It continues with IE7 and IE8 ... these browsers are so incapable that , for example , a rich text editor for them is done as ActiveX instead of as HTML5 , so you ca n't run the app anywhere but IE .
Now that these companies are often running multiple platforms ( Windows XP , Windows Vista/7 , Mac OS , iPhone , Blackberry ) they are getting bitten on the ass .
It 's like Y2K in that the future was never supposed to happen.Microsoft succeeded in forking the Web .
This is the aftermath .
That 's why HTML5 compatibility is so important , the focus on browser vendors in the spec means that Apple WebKit and Mozilla Gecko engineers do a lot of work to make their browsers compatible with each other .
You have WebKit redoing canvas in the standard way , redoing Gears in the standard way .
If you 're locked into any one browser or one hardware that is not the Web , it is by definition only what 's completely universal .
If it 's not universal ( IE , Flash ) it 's not part of the Web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many custom corporate apps built between 2002-2006 were called "Web apps" but were really "IE6 apps".
In the late 90's they would have been Windows apps built with Visual Basic.
Companies thought they were modernizing to the Web but really just got a different kind of Windows app.It continues with IE7 and IE8 ... these browsers are so incapable that, for example, a rich text editor for them is done as ActiveX instead of as HTML5, so you can't run the app anywhere but IE.
Now that these companies are often running multiple platforms (Windows XP, Windows Vista/7, Mac OS, iPhone, Blackberry) they are getting bitten on the ass.
It's like Y2K in that the future was never supposed to happen.Microsoft succeeded in forking the Web.
This is the aftermath.
That's why HTML5 compatibility is so important, the focus on browser vendors in the spec means that Apple WebKit and Mozilla Gecko engineers do a lot of work to make their browsers compatible with each other.
You have WebKit redoing canvas in the standard way, redoing Gears in the standard way.
If you're locked into any one browser or one hardware that is not the Web, it is by definition only what's completely universal.
If it's not universal (IE, Flash) it's not part of the Web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</id>
	<title>Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266781380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why should businesses keep "upgrading"?  Really, Microsoft's OS hasn't changed much in the last decade. Almost everything runs under Windows 2000.  Even ".NET" and Direct-X applications tend to work, and all the major open-source applications do.
Why pay Microsoft more money? Most of this "upgrading" is planned obsolescence, not progress.
</p><p>
It was different in the 1990s.  In the 1990s, Microsoft went from Windows 3.0/DOS, which was awful, to Windows 2000, which was a good OS.  Desktop computing made great strides in the 1990s.  But by 2000, the problems were solved.  In Windows 2000, networking worked, 3D graphics worked, and the system was stable after the first service packs.
For most businesses, that was good enough.
</p><p>
In the last decade, Microsoft went through Windows 2000, XP (which was really to pull the Win 95/98/ME crowd onto a decent platform), Vista (enough said), and now Windows 7 (the new, improved Vista.)  At the end of this, we have an OS which offers essentially the same API as ten years ago.  Not much has really changed.
</p><p>Most commercial and open source applications work on Windows 2000, and almost all work on Windows XP.
Load up the latest Firefox, and all the "Web 2.0" stuff works on Windows 2000.
If you don't get too cute with tricky HTML and Javascript, the same code works on IE6 and later browsers.
</p><p>
Worse, Microsoft's newer OSs are oinkers.  They need more CPU and more RAM to do the same thing.  They phone home to Redmond constantly. They have activation problems. They're constantly getting updates, some of which make things worse.  Why should companies pay for this? Where's the return on investment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should businesses keep " upgrading " ?
Really , Microsoft 's OS has n't changed much in the last decade .
Almost everything runs under Windows 2000 .
Even " .NET " and Direct-X applications tend to work , and all the major open-source applications do .
Why pay Microsoft more money ?
Most of this " upgrading " is planned obsolescence , not progress .
It was different in the 1990s .
In the 1990s , Microsoft went from Windows 3.0/DOS , which was awful , to Windows 2000 , which was a good OS .
Desktop computing made great strides in the 1990s .
But by 2000 , the problems were solved .
In Windows 2000 , networking worked , 3D graphics worked , and the system was stable after the first service packs .
For most businesses , that was good enough .
In the last decade , Microsoft went through Windows 2000 , XP ( which was really to pull the Win 95/98/ME crowd onto a decent platform ) , Vista ( enough said ) , and now Windows 7 ( the new , improved Vista .
) At the end of this , we have an OS which offers essentially the same API as ten years ago .
Not much has really changed .
Most commercial and open source applications work on Windows 2000 , and almost all work on Windows XP .
Load up the latest Firefox , and all the " Web 2.0 " stuff works on Windows 2000 .
If you do n't get too cute with tricky HTML and Javascript , the same code works on IE6 and later browsers .
Worse , Microsoft 's newer OSs are oinkers .
They need more CPU and more RAM to do the same thing .
They phone home to Redmond constantly .
They have activation problems .
They 're constantly getting updates , some of which make things worse .
Why should companies pay for this ?
Where 's the return on investment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why should businesses keep "upgrading"?
Really, Microsoft's OS hasn't changed much in the last decade.
Almost everything runs under Windows 2000.
Even ".NET" and Direct-X applications tend to work, and all the major open-source applications do.
Why pay Microsoft more money?
Most of this "upgrading" is planned obsolescence, not progress.
It was different in the 1990s.
In the 1990s, Microsoft went from Windows 3.0/DOS, which was awful, to Windows 2000, which was a good OS.
Desktop computing made great strides in the 1990s.
But by 2000, the problems were solved.
In Windows 2000, networking worked, 3D graphics worked, and the system was stable after the first service packs.
For most businesses, that was good enough.
In the last decade, Microsoft went through Windows 2000, XP (which was really to pull the Win 95/98/ME crowd onto a decent platform), Vista (enough said), and now Windows 7 (the new, improved Vista.
)  At the end of this, we have an OS which offers essentially the same API as ten years ago.
Not much has really changed.
Most commercial and open source applications work on Windows 2000, and almost all work on Windows XP.
Load up the latest Firefox, and all the "Web 2.0" stuff works on Windows 2000.
If you don't get too cute with tricky HTML and Javascript, the same code works on IE6 and later browsers.
Worse, Microsoft's newer OSs are oinkers.
They need more CPU and more RAM to do the same thing.
They phone home to Redmond constantly.
They have activation problems.
They're constantly getting updates, some of which make things worse.
Why should companies pay for this?
Where's the return on investment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222012</id>
	<title>If you knowingly use a known insecure browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266747780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you knowingly use a known insecure browser,and there are far more browsers that are secure,secure known vulnerabilities, don't they run the risk of being sued if a client looses money or whatever because of using a know security risk?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you knowingly use a known insecure browser,and there are far more browsers that are secure,secure known vulnerabilities , do n't they run the risk of being sued if a client looses money or whatever because of using a know security risk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you knowingly use a known insecure browser,and there are far more browsers that are secure,secure known vulnerabilities, don't they run the risk of being sued if a client looses money or whatever because of using a know security risk?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220374</id>
	<title>When should FOSS projects stop supporting IE6?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trend of companies/sites dropping IE6 support seems to be gaining momentum.  From various Norwegian sites to Google/YouTube.</p><p>A few years ago, the feasibility threshold for supporting FireFox (nee standards) seemed to be about 10\%; is the reverse true for dropping IE6?  Every outdated browser before it seemed to go away much more quietly.  When should the FOSS community help to pull this trigger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trend of companies/sites dropping IE6 support seems to be gaining momentum .
From various Norwegian sites to Google/YouTube.A few years ago , the feasibility threshold for supporting FireFox ( nee standards ) seemed to be about 10 \ % ; is the reverse true for dropping IE6 ?
Every outdated browser before it seemed to go away much more quietly .
When should the FOSS community help to pull this trigger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trend of companies/sites dropping IE6 support seems to be gaining momentum.
From various Norwegian sites to Google/YouTube.A few years ago, the feasibility threshold for supporting FireFox (nee standards) seemed to be about 10\%; is the reverse true for dropping IE6?
Every outdated browser before it seemed to go away much more quietly.
When should the FOSS community help to pull this trigger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223124</id>
	<title>MSIs and GPOs</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1266754200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, I love Firefox (and to a lesser extent Opera, Safari &amp; Chrome), but until they come distributed as MSIs with support for (or even provided with) ADMX templates for Group Policy you're simply not going to see widespread adoption in Windows-based corporate environments. I hate MSIs as much as the next guy (really, you need the installer to uninstall, why exactly?), but that's how it is.</p><p>I work in a medium sized organisation (3,000ish machines) and if our support team was willing to make the effort to figure out how to push out Firefox to every machine we manage and set it as the default browser it would result in an epic cluster fuck. Half the users wouldn't be able to access the internet because they wouldn't have the right proxy settings and the other half would be whinging about how none of the "web" apps they use work any more (3rd party, out of our control - we've been trying for 2 years to get vaguely modern support for any of them but nobody seems to care).</p><p>I'll say it again, however much you might dislike it, if you want to make inroads into Windows-based corporate environments you have to support MSIs and GPOs - no excuses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , I love Firefox ( and to a lesser extent Opera , Safari &amp; Chrome ) , but until they come distributed as MSIs with support for ( or even provided with ) ADMX templates for Group Policy you 're simply not going to see widespread adoption in Windows-based corporate environments .
I hate MSIs as much as the next guy ( really , you need the installer to uninstall , why exactly ?
) , but that 's how it is.I work in a medium sized organisation ( 3,000ish machines ) and if our support team was willing to make the effort to figure out how to push out Firefox to every machine we manage and set it as the default browser it would result in an epic cluster fuck .
Half the users would n't be able to access the internet because they would n't have the right proxy settings and the other half would be whinging about how none of the " web " apps they use work any more ( 3rd party , out of our control - we 've been trying for 2 years to get vaguely modern support for any of them but nobody seems to care ) .I 'll say it again , however much you might dislike it , if you want to make inroads into Windows-based corporate environments you have to support MSIs and GPOs - no excuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, I love Firefox (and to a lesser extent Opera, Safari &amp; Chrome), but until they come distributed as MSIs with support for (or even provided with) ADMX templates for Group Policy you're simply not going to see widespread adoption in Windows-based corporate environments.
I hate MSIs as much as the next guy (really, you need the installer to uninstall, why exactly?
), but that's how it is.I work in a medium sized organisation (3,000ish machines) and if our support team was willing to make the effort to figure out how to push out Firefox to every machine we manage and set it as the default browser it would result in an epic cluster fuck.
Half the users wouldn't be able to access the internet because they wouldn't have the right proxy settings and the other half would be whinging about how none of the "web" apps they use work any more (3rd party, out of our control - we've been trying for 2 years to get vaguely modern support for any of them but nobody seems to care).I'll say it again, however much you might dislike it, if you want to make inroads into Windows-based corporate environments you have to support MSIs and GPOs - no excuses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31233414</id>
	<title>Re:Old Standards Never Die</title>
	<author>samwichse</author>
	<datestamp>1266869220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because the story is apocryphal doesn't mean it can't contain wisdom.</p><p>Truth: old standards never die.</p><p>*goes out and paces transects in chains and rods* = yes, I do this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the story is apocryphal does n't mean it ca n't contain wisdom.Truth : old standards never die .
* goes out and paces transects in chains and rods * = yes , I do this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the story is apocryphal doesn't mean it can't contain wisdom.Truth: old standards never die.
*goes out and paces transects in chains and rods* = yes, I do this</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220544</id>
	<title>One big valid reason</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1266781380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plenty of stuff is still done on Windows 2000. If your business-critical stuff works just fine on Win2K, and you don't NEED a newer machine, then why spend the money to replace the box?</p><p>And the fact that your employees can't waste their time goofing off on Web 2.0 sites is just a bonus. Although I do feel sorry for the 1-2 people at my office to whom IT gave a Win2K box instead of XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of stuff is still done on Windows 2000 .
If your business-critical stuff works just fine on Win2K , and you do n't NEED a newer machine , then why spend the money to replace the box ? And the fact that your employees ca n't waste their time goofing off on Web 2.0 sites is just a bonus .
Although I do feel sorry for the 1-2 people at my office to whom IT gave a Win2K box instead of XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of stuff is still done on Windows 2000.
If your business-critical stuff works just fine on Win2K, and you don't NEED a newer machine, then why spend the money to replace the box?And the fact that your employees can't waste their time goofing off on Web 2.0 sites is just a bonus.
Although I do feel sorry for the 1-2 people at my office to whom IT gave a Win2K box instead of XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220554</id>
	<title>Because apparently we're "SAFE"!?</title>
	<author>skaarj</author>
	<datestamp>1266781440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that was the absurd reason that my company decided they would send out to us all the other day. Whilst I'm sure that our company systems have reasonable defences they're not bullet proof or immune to 0-day attacks.</p><p>Plus I expect that CSC (who manage our systems) would love to charge us a fortune for updating to IE[78]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that was the absurd reason that my company decided they would send out to us all the other day .
Whilst I 'm sure that our company systems have reasonable defences they 're not bullet proof or immune to 0-day attacks.Plus I expect that CSC ( who manage our systems ) would love to charge us a fortune for updating to IE [ 78 ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that was the absurd reason that my company decided they would send out to us all the other day.
Whilst I'm sure that our company systems have reasonable defences they're not bullet proof or immune to 0-day attacks.Plus I expect that CSC (who manage our systems) would love to charge us a fortune for updating to IE[78]...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221966</id>
	<title>Why ? because it's impossible to use IE7 on W2K</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266747480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, it's not a joke...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , it 's not a joke.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, it's not a joke...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222988</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266753360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have wondered why microsoft don't provide  a way of running IE6 in an application virtualized environment easily, so that IE6 and later browsers can co-exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have wondered why microsoft do n't provide a way of running IE6 in an application virtualized environment easily , so that IE6 and later browsers can co-exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have wondered why microsoft don't provide  a way of running IE6 in an application virtualized environment easily, so that IE6 and later browsers can co-exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220348</id>
	<title>IE6 still exists because Microsoft wanted it too</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1266780480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft designed IE6 with all sorts of cool interfaces for corporate developers. They then unleashed a wave of evangelists to encourage people to exploit those non-standard extensions, and encourage them to exploit the non-standard quirks.  It was a deliberate strategy to gain and hold market share.
</p><p> <b>It worked.  IE6 is unstoppable, even by Microsoft.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft designed IE6 with all sorts of cool interfaces for corporate developers .
They then unleashed a wave of evangelists to encourage people to exploit those non-standard extensions , and encourage them to exploit the non-standard quirks .
It was a deliberate strategy to gain and hold market share .
It worked .
IE6 is unstoppable , even by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft designed IE6 with all sorts of cool interfaces for corporate developers.
They then unleashed a wave of evangelists to encourage people to exploit those non-standard extensions, and encourage them to exploit the non-standard quirks.
It was a deliberate strategy to gain and hold market share.
It worked.
IE6 is unstoppable, even by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224672</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1266764760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; They have computers. The computers do what is<br>&gt; needed. They perceive that the IT industry is<br>&gt; creating expensive and poorly crafted junk that<br>&gt; is little, if any, better than what they have.<br>&gt; Change for the sake of change.<br> <br>That's all well and good, as long as they don't need to use the internet.  Hey, if the eight-year-old intranet thing still works, as long as that's all they need the web browser for, no problem.  Heck, they can use an intranet thingy based on IE4, threed.vbx, and Windows 95 OSR2.  If it's all about an internal company intranet, what do I care?<br> <br>But if you need your employees to be able to use the world wide web, then you're going to have to maintain compatibility with the world wide web.  That's going to mean upgrades.  The web changes over time.  (Have you tried to browse the web with IE5 lately, or Netscape 4?  Seriously, whip out a VM and try it.  It's good for a couple of laughs.)<br> <br>Increasingly many webmasters are dropping support for IE6 (after, in most cases, years of wanting to and finally working up the courage to actually do it).<br> <br>Even big companies like Google, who can afford to spend a lot more hours on backward-compatibility than the small guys, are now starting to drop full IE6 support, and this is a trend that isn't going to go away.  On the contrary, when somebody as big as Google makes such a move, it emboldens others.  Some smaller sites, like the public library where I work, started dropping full support for IE6 a couple of years ago.  (Heck, at this point I don't test in IE7 anymore, either.)  A lot of the sites that haven't actually dropped IE6 yet have *wanted* to for several years, and more and more of them are going to get tired of waiting and just go ahead and do it.  Hey, Google dropped IE6, so why can't we?  It's going to reach critical mass at some point, and my guess is soon, probably in the next few months.<br> <br>So like I said, if you only need a web browser for your intranet, fine, use whatever you had when your intranet was deployed, even if it's NCSA Mosaic.<br> <br>But if you need to actually browse the web, and you've been using IE6 until now, you're going to have to get serious about an upgrade.  Soon.<br> <br>Note, too, that it's possible to keep IE6 *and* also use a newer browser.  Actually, it's pretty easy, as long as the newer browser isn't IE.  Deploying two versions of IE at once is also theoretically possible, but it's significantly more work, and that's work you don't need to do.  IE6 for the intranet and Opera 10 or Firefox 3.6 for the web is so easy to set up, you can practically do it before breakfast.<br> <br>My recommendation, for security reasons, is to configure the security settings in IE6 so that your intranet is the only thing it trusts, and everything else gets no javascript, no plugins, no whistles, no bells...  Heck, why not just go the whole way and lock it down?  Have it refuse to load any other site at all.  Put your intranet in the trusted zone, and the rest of the world in the no-way-Jose zone.  Make the IE shortcut on the desktop say "FooCorp Intranet DooHickey", and then create a the "The Internet" shortcut that fires up a more modern browser, preferably one that was last updated some time *after* the discovery of the transistor.<br> <br>Eventually you'll run into a problem where modern browsers won't run on an OS old enough to also run IE6.  For the time being, however, new browsers are still supporting Windows XP, so you're okay for now.  Actually, you can (tentatively) expect this situation to probably continue most likely until circa 2014 (when XP stops getting security updates from MS), and even then you'll have a few months to do something about it.  I mean, a browser that's new in 2014 probably isn't going to stop working in 2014, is it?  Also, by then, assuming Moore's Law continues to do more or less what it's been doing to prices and performance (and yes, I know it's technically transistor density, but that has implications), a "gently used" three-year-old off-lease computer</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They have computers .
The computers do what is &gt; needed .
They perceive that the IT industry is &gt; creating expensive and poorly crafted junk that &gt; is little , if any , better than what they have. &gt; Change for the sake of change .
That 's all well and good , as long as they do n't need to use the internet .
Hey , if the eight-year-old intranet thing still works , as long as that 's all they need the web browser for , no problem .
Heck , they can use an intranet thingy based on IE4 , threed.vbx , and Windows 95 OSR2 .
If it 's all about an internal company intranet , what do I care ?
But if you need your employees to be able to use the world wide web , then you 're going to have to maintain compatibility with the world wide web .
That 's going to mean upgrades .
The web changes over time .
( Have you tried to browse the web with IE5 lately , or Netscape 4 ?
Seriously , whip out a VM and try it .
It 's good for a couple of laughs .
) Increasingly many webmasters are dropping support for IE6 ( after , in most cases , years of wanting to and finally working up the courage to actually do it ) .
Even big companies like Google , who can afford to spend a lot more hours on backward-compatibility than the small guys , are now starting to drop full IE6 support , and this is a trend that is n't going to go away .
On the contrary , when somebody as big as Google makes such a move , it emboldens others .
Some smaller sites , like the public library where I work , started dropping full support for IE6 a couple of years ago .
( Heck , at this point I do n't test in IE7 anymore , either .
) A lot of the sites that have n't actually dropped IE6 yet have * wanted * to for several years , and more and more of them are going to get tired of waiting and just go ahead and do it .
Hey , Google dropped IE6 , so why ca n't we ?
It 's going to reach critical mass at some point , and my guess is soon , probably in the next few months .
So like I said , if you only need a web browser for your intranet , fine , use whatever you had when your intranet was deployed , even if it 's NCSA Mosaic .
But if you need to actually browse the web , and you 've been using IE6 until now , you 're going to have to get serious about an upgrade .
Soon. Note , too , that it 's possible to keep IE6 * and * also use a newer browser .
Actually , it 's pretty easy , as long as the newer browser is n't IE .
Deploying two versions of IE at once is also theoretically possible , but it 's significantly more work , and that 's work you do n't need to do .
IE6 for the intranet and Opera 10 or Firefox 3.6 for the web is so easy to set up , you can practically do it before breakfast .
My recommendation , for security reasons , is to configure the security settings in IE6 so that your intranet is the only thing it trusts , and everything else gets no javascript , no plugins , no whistles , no bells... Heck , why not just go the whole way and lock it down ?
Have it refuse to load any other site at all .
Put your intranet in the trusted zone , and the rest of the world in the no-way-Jose zone .
Make the IE shortcut on the desktop say " FooCorp Intranet DooHickey " , and then create a the " The Internet " shortcut that fires up a more modern browser , preferably one that was last updated some time * after * the discovery of the transistor .
Eventually you 'll run into a problem where modern browsers wo n't run on an OS old enough to also run IE6 .
For the time being , however , new browsers are still supporting Windows XP , so you 're okay for now .
Actually , you can ( tentatively ) expect this situation to probably continue most likely until circa 2014 ( when XP stops getting security updates from MS ) , and even then you 'll have a few months to do something about it .
I mean , a browser that 's new in 2014 probably is n't going to stop working in 2014 , is it ?
Also , by then , assuming Moore 's Law continues to do more or less what it 's been doing to prices and performance ( and yes , I know it 's technically transistor density , but that has implications ) , a " gently used " three-year-old off-lease computer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They have computers.
The computers do what is&gt; needed.
They perceive that the IT industry is&gt; creating expensive and poorly crafted junk that&gt; is little, if any, better than what they have.&gt; Change for the sake of change.
That's all well and good, as long as they don't need to use the internet.
Hey, if the eight-year-old intranet thing still works, as long as that's all they need the web browser for, no problem.
Heck, they can use an intranet thingy based on IE4, threed.vbx, and Windows 95 OSR2.
If it's all about an internal company intranet, what do I care?
But if you need your employees to be able to use the world wide web, then you're going to have to maintain compatibility with the world wide web.
That's going to mean upgrades.
The web changes over time.
(Have you tried to browse the web with IE5 lately, or Netscape 4?
Seriously, whip out a VM and try it.
It's good for a couple of laughs.
) Increasingly many webmasters are dropping support for IE6 (after, in most cases, years of wanting to and finally working up the courage to actually do it).
Even big companies like Google, who can afford to spend a lot more hours on backward-compatibility than the small guys, are now starting to drop full IE6 support, and this is a trend that isn't going to go away.
On the contrary, when somebody as big as Google makes such a move, it emboldens others.
Some smaller sites, like the public library where I work, started dropping full support for IE6 a couple of years ago.
(Heck, at this point I don't test in IE7 anymore, either.
)  A lot of the sites that haven't actually dropped IE6 yet have *wanted* to for several years, and more and more of them are going to get tired of waiting and just go ahead and do it.
Hey, Google dropped IE6, so why can't we?
It's going to reach critical mass at some point, and my guess is soon, probably in the next few months.
So like I said, if you only need a web browser for your intranet, fine, use whatever you had when your intranet was deployed, even if it's NCSA Mosaic.
But if you need to actually browse the web, and you've been using IE6 until now, you're going to have to get serious about an upgrade.
Soon. Note, too, that it's possible to keep IE6 *and* also use a newer browser.
Actually, it's pretty easy, as long as the newer browser isn't IE.
Deploying two versions of IE at once is also theoretically possible, but it's significantly more work, and that's work you don't need to do.
IE6 for the intranet and Opera 10 or Firefox 3.6 for the web is so easy to set up, you can practically do it before breakfast.
My recommendation, for security reasons, is to configure the security settings in IE6 so that your intranet is the only thing it trusts, and everything else gets no javascript, no plugins, no whistles, no bells...  Heck, why not just go the whole way and lock it down?
Have it refuse to load any other site at all.
Put your intranet in the trusted zone, and the rest of the world in the no-way-Jose zone.
Make the IE shortcut on the desktop say "FooCorp Intranet DooHickey", and then create a the "The Internet" shortcut that fires up a more modern browser, preferably one that was last updated some time *after* the discovery of the transistor.
Eventually you'll run into a problem where modern browsers won't run on an OS old enough to also run IE6.
For the time being, however, new browsers are still supporting Windows XP, so you're okay for now.
Actually, you can (tentatively) expect this situation to probably continue most likely until circa 2014 (when XP stops getting security updates from MS), and even then you'll have a few months to do something about it.
I mean, a browser that's new in 2014 probably isn't going to stop working in 2014, is it?
Also, by then, assuming Moore's Law continues to do more or less what it's been doing to prices and performance (and yes, I know it's technically transistor density, but that has implications), a "gently used" three-year-old off-lease computer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221794</id>
	<title>So - what to use for an embedded IE6 app?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266746280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for moving off IE6, however several bits of equipment I use have embedded HTML control panels that only work with IE6 and/or ActiveX.</p><p>If I don't leave IE6 on the machine, how can I use these control panels? There is zero chance of upgrading them without replacing lots of expensive specialist hardware.</p><p>Is there an IE6 emulator? Would I need a VM just for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for moving off IE6 , however several bits of equipment I use have embedded HTML control panels that only work with IE6 and/or ActiveX.If I do n't leave IE6 on the machine , how can I use these control panels ?
There is zero chance of upgrading them without replacing lots of expensive specialist hardware.Is there an IE6 emulator ?
Would I need a VM just for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for moving off IE6, however several bits of equipment I use have embedded HTML control panels that only work with IE6 and/or ActiveX.If I don't leave IE6 on the machine, how can I use these control panels?
There is zero chance of upgrading them without replacing lots of expensive specialist hardware.Is there an IE6 emulator?
Would I need a VM just for this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221298</id>
	<title>Re:I Use IE6</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1266742800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not move to Netscape 4? It's even lighter on the resource requirements, and was designed to work on small screens. Imagine how it would fly on a newer desktop! And if a website doesn't support it, well that's their problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not move to Netscape 4 ?
It 's even lighter on the resource requirements , and was designed to work on small screens .
Imagine how it would fly on a newer desktop !
And if a website does n't support it , well that 's their problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not move to Netscape 4?
It's even lighter on the resource requirements, and was designed to work on small screens.
Imagine how it would fly on a newer desktop!
And if a website doesn't support it, well that's their problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220654</id>
	<title>Re:When should FOSS projects stop supporting IE6?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1266781920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are F/OSS projects supporting IE at all?  Presumably because some proportion of their userbase wants to and is willing to contribute time or money to make this support happen.  When should F/OSS projects stop supporting IE6?  When no one is willing to contribute the time or money required to support IE6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are F/OSS projects supporting IE at all ?
Presumably because some proportion of their userbase wants to and is willing to contribute time or money to make this support happen .
When should F/OSS projects stop supporting IE6 ?
When no one is willing to contribute the time or money required to support IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are F/OSS projects supporting IE at all?
Presumably because some proportion of their userbase wants to and is willing to contribute time or money to make this support happen.
When should F/OSS projects stop supporting IE6?
When no one is willing to contribute the time or money required to support IE6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222418</id>
	<title>Start putting this on your web pages</title>
	<author>Ped Xing</author>
	<datestamp>1266750060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the problem is that the PHBs don't see a need to upgrade. This is a perception problem. We can fix this.<br><br>Let's start adding this to the top of every web page we have access to. If the public web gets flooded with these, the PHBs are going to believe their jobs are on the line if they don't insist on an upgrade:<br><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;!--[if lt IE 7]&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;div id="ie6message"&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;p id="ie6warning"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warning!&lt;/strong&gt; The browser you are running is insecure and is putting your computer and network at risk. For more details, see &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_Explorer\_6#Security\_issues"&gt;this reference&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;p id="ie6replacements"&gt;We strongly recommend upgrading to &lt;a href="http://www.getfirefox.com/"&gt;Firefox&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.opera.com/"&gt;Opera&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.apple.com/safari/"&gt;Safari&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.google.com/chrome"&gt;Google Chrome&lt;/a&gt;, or a more recent version of &lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/ie/getitnow.mspx"&gt;Internet Explorer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;/div&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;![endif]--&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the problem is that the PHBs do n't see a need to upgrade .
This is a perception problem .
We can fix this.Let 's start adding this to the top of every web page we have access to .
If the public web gets flooded with these , the PHBs are going to believe their jobs are on the line if they do n't insist on an upgrade :                         Warning !
The browser you are running is insecure and is putting your computer and network at risk .
For more details , see this reference .
            We strongly recommend upgrading to Firefox , Opera , Safari , Google Chrome , or a more recent version of Internet Explorer .
           </tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the problem is that the PHBs don't see a need to upgrade.
This is a perception problem.
We can fix this.Let's start adding this to the top of every web page we have access to.
If the public web gets flooded with these, the PHBs are going to believe their jobs are on the line if they don't insist on an upgrade:
    
        
            Warning!
The browser you are running is insecure and is putting your computer and network at risk.
For more details, see this reference.
            We strongly recommend upgrading to Firefox, Opera, Safari, Google Chrome, or a more recent version of Internet Explorer.
        
    </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31236930</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>Carra</author>
	<datestamp>1266836580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.NET 3.5 is not supported on Windows 2000 however. This sadly means that the management forbids us to upgrade our application from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0 to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 3.5 because one customer still has about ten windows 2000 pcs...</htmltext>
<tokenext>.NET 3.5 is not supported on Windows 2000 however .
This sadly means that the management forbids us to upgrade our application from .NET 2.0 to .NET 3.5 because one customer still has about ten windows 2000 pcs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.NET 3.5 is not supported on Windows 2000 however.
This sadly means that the management forbids us to upgrade our application from .NET 2.0 to .NET 3.5 because one customer still has about ten windows 2000 pcs...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221642</id>
	<title>Linksys/Cisco SRW switches REQURIRE IE6</title>
	<author>lanner</author>
	<datestamp>1266745140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this...</p><p>I seem to remember that Linksys/Cisco SRW series switches REQUIRE MSIE v6 for management.  Anyone else have more info on this?  Yes, Cisco is still selling these today.  This isn't an old product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this...I seem to remember that Linksys/Cisco SRW series switches REQUIRE MSIE v6 for management .
Anyone else have more info on this ?
Yes , Cisco is still selling these today .
This is n't an old product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this...I seem to remember that Linksys/Cisco SRW series switches REQUIRE MSIE v6 for management.
Anyone else have more info on this?
Yes, Cisco is still selling these today.
This isn't an old product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220834</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1266782880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds like the most reasonable scenario from a responsible company that's not just burying its head in the ground saying NaaNaaNaaCan'tHearYou.</p><p>But otoh I can see where cost keeps a lot of people stuck in the past.  Not too long ago I dealt with someone that had a broken down 12 (yes) year old computer attached to a special printer looking thing.  It cut posterboard to exacting sizes for poster printing, which was his business.  The unit connected via serial port.  A new cutter was 20 grand.  New software was 8. (obviously one of those niche markets where hardly no one sells the stuff and it's only used by profitable businesses that have to have it, so they gouge you good)  The machine was fine, he'd just dropped 2 bills on new blades.  The software he'd lost the discs for and it had some nasty copy protection preventing copying the app to another old machine.  So ya, he painted... or rather, <i>cemented</i> himself into a nice corner.  I don't know what he did, but there was no way to fix his OS without deactivating the software, which could not be reactivated.</p><p>And he has no one to blame but himself really.  It's not like he knew this day wouldn't come.  Or maybe in the back of his mind he just thought maybe it'd work <i>forever</i>, I dunno.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like the most reasonable scenario from a responsible company that 's not just burying its head in the ground saying NaaNaaNaaCan'tHearYou.But otoh I can see where cost keeps a lot of people stuck in the past .
Not too long ago I dealt with someone that had a broken down 12 ( yes ) year old computer attached to a special printer looking thing .
It cut posterboard to exacting sizes for poster printing , which was his business .
The unit connected via serial port .
A new cutter was 20 grand .
New software was 8 .
( obviously one of those niche markets where hardly no one sells the stuff and it 's only used by profitable businesses that have to have it , so they gouge you good ) The machine was fine , he 'd just dropped 2 bills on new blades .
The software he 'd lost the discs for and it had some nasty copy protection preventing copying the app to another old machine .
So ya , he painted... or rather , cemented himself into a nice corner .
I do n't know what he did , but there was no way to fix his OS without deactivating the software , which could not be reactivated.And he has no one to blame but himself really .
It 's not like he knew this day would n't come .
Or maybe in the back of his mind he just thought maybe it 'd work forever , I dunno .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like the most reasonable scenario from a responsible company that's not just burying its head in the ground saying NaaNaaNaaCan'tHearYou.But otoh I can see where cost keeps a lot of people stuck in the past.
Not too long ago I dealt with someone that had a broken down 12 (yes) year old computer attached to a special printer looking thing.
It cut posterboard to exacting sizes for poster printing, which was his business.
The unit connected via serial port.
A new cutter was 20 grand.
New software was 8.
(obviously one of those niche markets where hardly no one sells the stuff and it's only used by profitable businesses that have to have it, so they gouge you good)  The machine was fine, he'd just dropped 2 bills on new blades.
The software he'd lost the discs for and it had some nasty copy protection preventing copying the app to another old machine.
So ya, he painted... or rather, cemented himself into a nice corner.
I don't know what he did, but there was no way to fix his OS without deactivating the software, which could not be reactivated.And he has no one to blame but himself really.
It's not like he knew this day wouldn't come.
Or maybe in the back of his mind he just thought maybe it'd work forever, I dunno.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226094</id>
	<title>Re:Why expect companies to "upgrade"?</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1266775680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Three words: Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three words : Fear .
Uncertainty. Doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three words: Fear.
Uncertainty. Doubt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220436</id>
	<title>Take the hardline approach...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and just start BLOCKING IT.</p><p>
A lot of companies get themselves into a nice little rut where they will refuse to budge, unless their security / profits are affected. Give them a helping hand by forcing them to drop IE 6. After a while, the number of websites that will be throwing up road blocks in their faces will force them to upgrade.
</p><p>
Or migrate to Firefox, which would probably be better.
</p><p>If you administer an Apache server, it's more-or-less as easy as,</p><p>
RewriteCond \%{HTTP\_USER\_AGENT} MSIE\ ([56])\.<br>
RewriteCond \%{REQUEST\_URI} !/denied.php$<br>
RewriteRule ^(.*)$<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/denied.php [R=302,L]</p><p>
Okay, I realise it's often more complicated than that, since they need to test / upgrade from WinXP, etc., there are costs and man power involved, but unless webmasters act on this, we could still be asking people to upgrade IE6 in 2015. Yes, even 9 months after official support ends on XP.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and just start BLOCKING IT .
A lot of companies get themselves into a nice little rut where they will refuse to budge , unless their security / profits are affected .
Give them a helping hand by forcing them to drop IE 6 .
After a while , the number of websites that will be throwing up road blocks in their faces will force them to upgrade .
Or migrate to Firefox , which would probably be better .
If you administer an Apache server , it 's more-or-less as easy as , RewriteCond \ % { HTTP \ _USER \ _AGENT } MSIE \ ( [ 56 ] ) \ .
RewriteCond \ % { REQUEST \ _URI } ! /denied.php $ RewriteRule ^ ( .
* ) $ /denied.php [ R = 302,L ] Okay , I realise it 's often more complicated than that , since they need to test / upgrade from WinXP , etc. , there are costs and man power involved , but unless webmasters act on this , we could still be asking people to upgrade IE6 in 2015 .
Yes , even 9 months after official support ends on XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and just start BLOCKING IT.
A lot of companies get themselves into a nice little rut where they will refuse to budge, unless their security / profits are affected.
Give them a helping hand by forcing them to drop IE 6.
After a while, the number of websites that will be throwing up road blocks in their faces will force them to upgrade.
Or migrate to Firefox, which would probably be better.
If you administer an Apache server, it's more-or-less as easy as,
RewriteCond \%{HTTP\_USER\_AGENT} MSIE\ ([56])\.
RewriteCond \%{REQUEST\_URI} !/denied.php$
RewriteRule ^(.
*)$ /denied.php [R=302,L]
Okay, I realise it's often more complicated than that, since they need to test / upgrade from WinXP, etc., there are costs and man power involved, but unless webmasters act on this, we could still be asking people to upgrade IE6 in 2015.
Yes, even 9 months after official support ends on XP.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220858</id>
	<title>Re:Old Standards Never Die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266783060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is an <a href="http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp" title="snopes.com" rel="nofollow">urban legend</a> [snopes.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is an urban legend [ snopes.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is an urban legend [snopes.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224990</id>
	<title>Re:Kill Them?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1266767460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Is the author suggesting that we try to solve<br>&gt; the problem by killing anyone who still uses IE6?<br><br>Personally, I think that would be unnecessarily harsh.  All we really need to do is revoke their internet privileges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Is the author suggesting that we try to solve &gt; the problem by killing anyone who still uses IE6 ? Personally , I think that would be unnecessarily harsh .
All we really need to do is revoke their internet privileges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Is the author suggesting that we try to solve&gt; the problem by killing anyone who still uses IE6?Personally, I think that would be unnecessarily harsh.
All we really need to do is revoke their internet privileges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1266785100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired?***</p><p>I would imagine that in many cases, their question would be why YOU are still employed.  They have computers.  The computers do what is needed.  They perceive that the IT industry -- much like American car manufacturers in the 1970s -- is creating expensive and poorly crafted junk that is little, if any, better than what they have.  Change for the sake of change.</p><p>And they might be right.  Refusal to engage in a Red Queen's Race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Queen's\_race) is not necessarily a sign of cluelessness.  You might want to meditate during leisure moments about who here is actually clueless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * What I want to know is , will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired ?
* * * I would imagine that in many cases , their question would be why YOU are still employed .
They have computers .
The computers do what is needed .
They perceive that the IT industry -- much like American car manufacturers in the 1970s -- is creating expensive and poorly crafted junk that is little , if any , better than what they have .
Change for the sake of change.And they might be right .
Refusal to engage in a Red Queen 's Race ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red \ _Queen 's \ _race ) is not necessarily a sign of cluelessness .
You might want to meditate during leisure moments about who here is actually clueless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***What I want to know is, will the managers or admins who chose solutions that locked them into an obsolete browser will be fired?
***I would imagine that in many cases, their question would be why YOU are still employed.
They have computers.
The computers do what is needed.
They perceive that the IT industry -- much like American car manufacturers in the 1970s -- is creating expensive and poorly crafted junk that is little, if any, better than what they have.
Change for the sake of change.And they might be right.
Refusal to engage in a Red Queen's Race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Queen's\_race) is not necessarily a sign of cluelessness.
You might want to meditate during leisure moments about who here is actually clueless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226378</id>
	<title>Re:This is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266778980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i work for the online part of a very well known "successful retailer" which uses (and probably will always use) XP and IE6 because system management programs were writen in VB6, and also use VB6 active-X controls. (and they dont have a reason to upgrade either. they dont allow internet access period.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i work for the online part of a very well known " successful retailer " which uses ( and probably will always use ) XP and IE6 because system management programs were writen in VB6 , and also use VB6 active-X controls .
( and they dont have a reason to upgrade either .
they dont allow internet access period .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i work for the online part of a very well known "successful retailer" which uses (and probably will always use) XP and IE6 because system management programs were writen in VB6, and also use VB6 active-X controls.
(and they dont have a reason to upgrade either.
they dont allow internet access period.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226594</id>
	<title>Re:Take the hardline approach...</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1266781740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... and just start BLOCKING IT.</p></div></blockquote><p>

At which point the pointy haired bosses will demand that the IT people fix it, which will result in the proxy being configured to mangle the user agent string.<br> <br>

Secondly, has the slashdot moderation system gone mad lately? Whilst the Parent idea's may have been ineffective, how the hell is it a troll. Damn well have enough courage to do what I did and make a post explaining why the parents idea is wrong/ineffective/pointless. He is definitely not a troll.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and just start BLOCKING IT .
At which point the pointy haired bosses will demand that the IT people fix it , which will result in the proxy being configured to mangle the user agent string .
Secondly , has the slashdot moderation system gone mad lately ?
Whilst the Parent idea 's may have been ineffective , how the hell is it a troll .
Damn well have enough courage to do what I did and make a post explaining why the parents idea is wrong/ineffective/pointless .
He is definitely not a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and just start BLOCKING IT.
At which point the pointy haired bosses will demand that the IT people fix it, which will result in the proxy being configured to mangle the user agent string.
Secondly, has the slashdot moderation system gone mad lately?
Whilst the Parent idea's may have been ineffective, how the hell is it a troll.
Damn well have enough courage to do what I did and make a post explaining why the parents idea is wrong/ineffective/pointless.
He is definitely not a troll.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220436</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31229212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31233414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31227806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31253730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31236930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31368406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31228990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31273310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31230494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31281196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31227188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_174209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31227188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31229212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31368406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31253730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31273310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220822
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31230494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31228990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31223638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31281196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31233414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31221500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_174209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31220546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31224102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31226094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31227806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31236930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31225906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_174209.31222348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
