<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_2257234</id>
	<title>XML Co-Founder Joins Google, Blasts iPhone</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268655120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.renoise.com/" rel="nofollow">conner\_bw</a> writes <i>"XML co-founder Tim Bray has <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685\_3-20000423-264.html">taken the job of 'Developer Advocate' at Google</a>. Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?' Because he sure doesn't mince words against the iPhone in <a href="http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/15/Joining-Google">his first sermon</a>: 'It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>conner \ _bw writes " XML co-founder Tim Bray has taken the job of 'Developer Advocate ' at Google .
Do n't other companies call that position 'Evangelist ?
' Because he sure does n't mince words against the iPhone in his first sermon : 'It 's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers .
The people who create the apps serve at the landlord 's pleasure and fear his anger .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>conner\_bw writes "XML co-founder Tim Bray has taken the job of 'Developer Advocate' at Google.
Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?
' Because he sure doesn't mince words against the iPhone in his first sermon: 'It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers.
The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490680</id>
	<title>Google hires a FUDster? Do only a little evil?</title>
	<author>guidryp</author>
	<datestamp>1268663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something about this strikes me, as not very Google like.</p><p>I can figure out both the advantages/disadvantages of Apples model.</p><p>Does Google really need to hire someone to smear Apples model in Public.</p><p>I don't own any Apple product, so I don't think I qualify as an Apple fanboy, but I do respect the work of both companies.</p><p>But this really does lower Google a notch in my eyes, it is the kind of thing I expect Steve Balmer to say about the competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something about this strikes me , as not very Google like.I can figure out both the advantages/disadvantages of Apples model.Does Google really need to hire someone to smear Apples model in Public.I do n't own any Apple product , so I do n't think I qualify as an Apple fanboy , but I do respect the work of both companies.But this really does lower Google a notch in my eyes , it is the kind of thing I expect Steve Balmer to say about the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something about this strikes me, as not very Google like.I can figure out both the advantages/disadvantages of Apples model.Does Google really need to hire someone to smear Apples model in Public.I don't own any Apple product, so I don't think I qualify as an Apple fanboy, but I do respect the work of both companies.But this really does lower Google a notch in my eyes, it is the kind of thing I expect Steve Balmer to say about the competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>That's Unpossible!</author>
	<datestamp>1268668260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?</p><p>What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.</p><p>Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.</p><p>Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?</p><p>Wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting way to spin Apple 's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes .
Wow , how could anyone win with this kind of logic ? What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE ( iTunes ) .
They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC , in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said , why do n't we eliminate this DRM bullshit , because it does n't work .
One by one , they eventually relented , and now most music stores sell music without DRM .
You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.Yet you 're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now " safe " with this iPod monopoly .
Does this make any sense ?
They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library 's portability -- and decimated it .
Yet , in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something ? Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes.
Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes).
They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work.
One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM.
You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly.
Does this make any sense?
They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it.
Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?Wow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489940</id>
	<title>Oh SNAP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268658840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No he didn't!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No he did n't !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No he didn't!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490582</id>
	<title>evil apple seems to have a hit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268662560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can bitch and moan about it all we want but that probably means we're not selling the cheesy $1 apps.</p><p>Sadly as much as I hate a closed, dictatorship like environment the entire iTunes/App Store has been extremely successful and probably will be for years.     Obviously more folks like the false sense of security of what Apple provides through the app store compared to the ways of the past.    I'm just baffled that MS or Apple haven't opened an app store for the desktops... How wonderful would that be to buy actual software that has been confirmed to work on your OS version, it's so linux like but without the word free.  Sadly doing so might actually suck away open-source developers.</p><p>Wonder what how this will end up in 5 or 10 years..   Google the next apple, apple the next MS and MS the next google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can bitch and moan about it all we want but that probably means we 're not selling the cheesy $ 1 apps.Sadly as much as I hate a closed , dictatorship like environment the entire iTunes/App Store has been extremely successful and probably will be for years .
Obviously more folks like the false sense of security of what Apple provides through the app store compared to the ways of the past .
I 'm just baffled that MS or Apple have n't opened an app store for the desktops... How wonderful would that be to buy actual software that has been confirmed to work on your OS version , it 's so linux like but without the word free .
Sadly doing so might actually suck away open-source developers.Wonder what how this will end up in 5 or 10 years.. Google the next apple , apple the next MS and MS the next google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can bitch and moan about it all we want but that probably means we're not selling the cheesy $1 apps.Sadly as much as I hate a closed, dictatorship like environment the entire iTunes/App Store has been extremely successful and probably will be for years.
Obviously more folks like the false sense of security of what Apple provides through the app store compared to the ways of the past.
I'm just baffled that MS or Apple haven't opened an app store for the desktops... How wonderful would that be to buy actual software that has been confirmed to work on your OS version, it's so linux like but without the word free.
Sadly doing so might actually suck away open-source developers.Wonder what how this will end up in 5 or 10 years..   Google the next apple, apple the next MS and MS the next google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490092</id>
	<title>Disney-fied?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody, with me now..</p><p>It's a small world after all<br>It's a small world after all<br>it's a small small world..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody , with me now..It 's a small world after allIt 's a small world after allit 's a small small world. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody, with me now..It's a small world after allIt's a small world after allit's a small small world..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888</id>
	<title>Gotta love freetards</title>
	<author>wintermute000</author>
	<datestamp>1268664840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution, why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue:</p><p>For normal users (or even geeks who don't have the time/energy to care), walled garden that "just works" beats open solution that "sorta works" (even 'mostly') 10 times out of 10</p><p>Apple's formula is not a secret and their products sell themselves. Should they wish to implement a walled garden that's their perogative (and in their defence it is a major factor for the smooth integration of all their components / relative lack of issues compared to other platforms and OSes.) The market has shown that people are willing to sacrifice open-ness and pure performance for buck for a superior end user experience (note its not value for buck: my time fixing stupid linux bugs is a COST).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution , why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue : For normal users ( or even geeks who do n't have the time/energy to care ) , walled garden that " just works " beats open solution that " sorta works " ( even 'mostly ' ) 10 times out of 10Apple 's formula is not a secret and their products sell themselves .
Should they wish to implement a walled garden that 's their perogative ( and in their defence it is a major factor for the smooth integration of all their components / relative lack of issues compared to other platforms and OSes .
) The market has shown that people are willing to sacrifice open-ness and pure performance for buck for a superior end user experience ( note its not value for buck : my time fixing stupid linux bugs is a COST ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution, why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue:For normal users (or even geeks who don't have the time/energy to care), walled garden that "just works" beats open solution that "sorta works" (even 'mostly') 10 times out of 10Apple's formula is not a secret and their products sell themselves.
Should they wish to implement a walled garden that's their perogative (and in their defence it is a major factor for the smooth integration of all their components / relative lack of issues compared to other platforms and OSes.
) The market has shown that people are willing to sacrifice open-ness and pure performance for buck for a superior end user experience (note its not value for buck: my time fixing stupid linux bugs is a COST).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31500996</id>
	<title>let him finish his sentence</title>
	<author>robogobo</author>
	<datestamp>1268732040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger..."  and make a shitload of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The people who create the apps serve at the landlord 's pleasure and fear his anger... " and make a shitload of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger..."  and make a shitload of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490864</id>
	<title>***YAAAAAWWN***</title>
	<author>Khan</author>
	<datestamp>1268664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another technology tool calling another technology outfit names. Puh-lease...this shit just gets old. And the more these types of "employees" spew shit, the stupider they appear to me regardless of how many PhD's they have. Make a product that doesn't suck donkey ballz and you'll get my attention (and possibly my business). Otherwise, just STFU already. This world sucks enough as it stands without having to listen to yet another moron "evangelist" throw mud. Grow up already all of you. That includes you too, Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another technology tool calling another technology outfit names .
Puh-lease...this shit just gets old .
And the more these types of " employees " spew shit , the stupider they appear to me regardless of how many PhD 's they have .
Make a product that does n't suck donkey ballz and you 'll get my attention ( and possibly my business ) .
Otherwise , just STFU already .
This world sucks enough as it stands without having to listen to yet another moron " evangelist " throw mud .
Grow up already all of you .
That includes you too , Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another technology tool calling another technology outfit names.
Puh-lease...this shit just gets old.
And the more these types of "employees" spew shit, the stupider they appear to me regardless of how many PhD's they have.
Make a product that doesn't suck donkey ballz and you'll get my attention (and possibly my business).
Otherwise, just STFU already.
This world sucks enough as it stands without having to listen to yet another moron "evangelist" throw mud.
Grow up already all of you.
That includes you too, Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490608</id>
	<title>What he fails to understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268662740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that most users prefer a "walled garden" even if they don't know that's what it is.  Most users only want to do a few things on their phone such as browse the web, read e-mail, text, and make calls.  Most users want a dead simple, easy to understand interface.  Like iTunes or hate it, it makes setting up your phone, managing media and applications brain-dead simple even while it is somewhat limiting.</p><p>Tim can rail against the iPhone all he wants to, but at the end of the day, all I have to say to him is check the current market share scoreboard.  It's going to take more than a developer evangelist shitting on the competition to increase Android's market share.</p><p>Thus far the consumer has chosen, and they have chosen iPhone by a significant margin.  There's a reason why the Droid is buy one get one free on Verizon, and it's not because it's outselling the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that most users prefer a " walled garden " even if they do n't know that 's what it is .
Most users only want to do a few things on their phone such as browse the web , read e-mail , text , and make calls .
Most users want a dead simple , easy to understand interface .
Like iTunes or hate it , it makes setting up your phone , managing media and applications brain-dead simple even while it is somewhat limiting.Tim can rail against the iPhone all he wants to , but at the end of the day , all I have to say to him is check the current market share scoreboard .
It 's going to take more than a developer evangelist shitting on the competition to increase Android 's market share.Thus far the consumer has chosen , and they have chosen iPhone by a significant margin .
There 's a reason why the Droid is buy one get one free on Verizon , and it 's not because it 's outselling the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that most users prefer a "walled garden" even if they don't know that's what it is.
Most users only want to do a few things on their phone such as browse the web, read e-mail, text, and make calls.
Most users want a dead simple, easy to understand interface.
Like iTunes or hate it, it makes setting up your phone, managing media and applications brain-dead simple even while it is somewhat limiting.Tim can rail against the iPhone all he wants to, but at the end of the day, all I have to say to him is check the current market share scoreboard.
It's going to take more than a developer evangelist shitting on the competition to increase Android's market share.Thus far the consumer has chosen, and they have chosen iPhone by a significant margin.
There's a reason why the Droid is buy one get one free on Verizon, and it's not because it's outselling the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494338</id>
	<title>"co-founder" ???</title>
	<author>.tom.</author>
	<datestamp>1268749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please don't mix technique and business: XML is not a company, and contributing to the creation of a technology is not "co-founding" it.
<br>
Tim Bray is one of the creators of XML, like Vint Cerf can be said to be the inventor of TCP, but they are not "co-founders" of the said technologies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't mix technique and business : XML is not a company , and contributing to the creation of a technology is not " co-founding " it .
Tim Bray is one of the creators of XML , like Vint Cerf can be said to be the inventor of TCP , but they are not " co-founders " of the said technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't mix technique and business: XML is not a company, and contributing to the creation of a technology is not "co-founding" it.
Tim Bray is one of the creators of XML, like Vint Cerf can be said to be the inventor of TCP, but they are not "co-founders" of the said technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490132</id>
	<title>Re:Surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically RIM still holds the biggest smart phone market share with the iPhone in 2nd place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically RIM still holds the biggest smart phone market share with the iPhone in 2nd place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically RIM still holds the biggest smart phone market share with the iPhone in 2nd place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491626</id>
	<title>Re:XML...</title>
	<author>Nivag064</author>
	<datestamp>1268670960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm...</p><p>XML is human readable yet can readily processed by programs using well developed libraries in a number of compter languages su ch as Java - so you can use any decent text editor to change it, though an IDE like eclipse can be ageat help. To be fair, being processed by software, was a more important goal than being suitable to write English essays - but it was never intened to be seen by end users.</p><p>XML files are esily compressed to be much smaller, so it verbosity is irrelevant.</p><p>If you look at te design goals of XML, you might be able to reailize that although XML is nor perfect, it does avery good job - so much so, it is widely used for many puposes.</p><p>XML is used extensively for configuration files for enterprise Java systems, and to control the maven build process.  But there are many other areas of application.</p><p>XML is not designed to be used to dictate how the content should be disoplayed to the end user like HTML.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm...XML is human readable yet can readily processed by programs using well developed libraries in a number of compter languages su ch as Java - so you can use any decent text editor to change it , though an IDE like eclipse can be ageat help .
To be fair , being processed by software , was a more important goal than being suitable to write English essays - but it was never intened to be seen by end users.XML files are esily compressed to be much smaller , so it verbosity is irrelevant.If you look at te design goals of XML , you might be able to reailize that although XML is nor perfect , it does avery good job - so much so , it is widely used for many puposes.XML is used extensively for configuration files for enterprise Java systems , and to control the maven build process .
But there are many other areas of application.XML is not designed to be used to dictate how the content should be disoplayed to the end user like HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm...XML is human readable yet can readily processed by programs using well developed libraries in a number of compter languages su ch as Java - so you can use any decent text editor to change it, though an IDE like eclipse can be ageat help.
To be fair, being processed by software, was a more important goal than being suitable to write English essays - but it was never intened to be seen by end users.XML files are esily compressed to be much smaller, so it verbosity is irrelevant.If you look at te design goals of XML, you might be able to reailize that although XML is nor perfect, it does avery good job - so much so, it is widely used for many puposes.XML is used extensively for configuration files for enterprise Java systems, and to control the maven build process.
But there are many other areas of application.XML is not designed to be used to dictate how the content should be disoplayed to the end user like HTML.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492524</id>
	<title>Ah, the joys of open gardens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268769840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At the store, Roark had never been told that his HTC Eris has Android 1.5, nicknamed &ldquo;Cupcake.&rdquo; Until told by a reporter, he had no idea what features he&rsquo;s missing as a result. For instance, free turn-by-turn navigation is available in the latest version, Android 2.1 (&rdquo;Eclair&rdquo;), but is only available to Cupcake users for $10 a month from Verizon.</p></div><p>Read More <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/#ixzz0iJv1DstU" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/#ixzz0iJv1DstU</a> [wired.com]</p><p>The carriers have been fucking us for years. Half the talk on forums is how to uninstall the shitty bloatware that carriers install on the android phones. Hey, at least with an android phone you *can* do it, unlike every other motorola, nokia slow-fest.</p><p>The iphone is the best phone i've ever had. It has an alarm that works, and I can set for only weekdays. How hard is that???? It has a battery life of more than a few hours (I'm looking at you, my Samsung windows mobile phone). It has a headset with a NORMAL HEADSET JACK. It charges by plugging into my USB. How is it that such simple pleasures make this the best phone ever? Because all the others are corrupted bloatware pocket fillers, courtesy of the "carriers".</p><p>The iPhone works because Apple took on the carriers. The various Droid market is failing because carriers are worse than M$. Between you and google is a carrier. Good luck with that!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the store , Roark had never been told that his HTC Eris has Android 1.5 , nicknamed    Cupcake.    Until told by a reporter , he had no idea what features he    s missing as a result .
For instance , free turn-by-turn navigation is available in the latest version , Android 2.1 (    Eclair    ) , but is only available to Cupcake users for $ 10 a month from Verizon.Read More http : //www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/ # ixzz0iJv1DstU [ wired.com ] The carriers have been fucking us for years .
Half the talk on forums is how to uninstall the shitty bloatware that carriers install on the android phones .
Hey , at least with an android phone you * can * do it , unlike every other motorola , nokia slow-fest.The iphone is the best phone i 've ever had .
It has an alarm that works , and I can set for only weekdays .
How hard is that ? ? ? ?
It has a battery life of more than a few hours ( I 'm looking at you , my Samsung windows mobile phone ) .
It has a headset with a NORMAL HEADSET JACK .
It charges by plugging into my USB .
How is it that such simple pleasures make this the best phone ever ?
Because all the others are corrupted bloatware pocket fillers , courtesy of the " carriers " .The iPhone works because Apple took on the carriers .
The various Droid market is failing because carriers are worse than M $ .
Between you and google is a carrier .
Good luck with that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the store, Roark had never been told that his HTC Eris has Android 1.5, nicknamed “Cupcake.” Until told by a reporter, he had no idea what features he’s missing as a result.
For instance, free turn-by-turn navigation is available in the latest version, Android 2.1 (”Eclair”), but is only available to Cupcake users for $10 a month from Verizon.Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/#ixzz0iJv1DstU [wired.com]The carriers have been fucking us for years.
Half the talk on forums is how to uninstall the shitty bloatware that carriers install on the android phones.
Hey, at least with an android phone you *can* do it, unlike every other motorola, nokia slow-fest.The iphone is the best phone i've ever had.
It has an alarm that works, and I can set for only weekdays.
How hard is that????
It has a battery life of more than a few hours (I'm looking at you, my Samsung windows mobile phone).
It has a headset with a NORMAL HEADSET JACK.
It charges by plugging into my USB.
How is it that such simple pleasures make this the best phone ever?
Because all the others are corrupted bloatware pocket fillers, courtesy of the "carriers".The iPhone works because Apple took on the carriers.
The various Droid market is failing because carriers are worse than M$.
Between you and google is a carrier.
Good luck with that!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491098</id>
	<title>Some people enjoy a nice garden.</title>
	<author>VeryVito</author>
	<datestamp>1268666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a developer, I hardly "fear (the landlord's) anger." In fact, I find it rather liberating to develop the apps I want without worrying about what hardware and/or drivers the user has installed, and without worrying about how to market and collect payment for the same apps. Yes indeed, the iPhone is a miserable development experience  -- which must be why it has so many developers playing in its garden.

Is it perfect? Nope. Is it a streamlined development and distribution system? Absolutely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a developer , I hardly " fear ( the landlord 's ) anger .
" In fact , I find it rather liberating to develop the apps I want without worrying about what hardware and/or drivers the user has installed , and without worrying about how to market and collect payment for the same apps .
Yes indeed , the iPhone is a miserable development experience -- which must be why it has so many developers playing in its garden .
Is it perfect ?
Nope. Is it a streamlined development and distribution system ?
Absolutely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a developer, I hardly "fear (the landlord's) anger.
" In fact, I find it rather liberating to develop the apps I want without worrying about what hardware and/or drivers the user has installed, and without worrying about how to market and collect payment for the same apps.
Yes indeed, the iPhone is a miserable development experience  -- which must be why it has so many developers playing in its garden.
Is it perfect?
Nope. Is it a streamlined development and distribution system?
Absolutely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490528</id>
	<title>What are they doing again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268662260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e. the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players </i></p><p>Can you explain this point a little more?  None f it made much sense to me.</p><p>1) You could always use non-DRM music from other stores on the iPod, from launch.<br>2) There has never been an Apple "digital wallet" like the points system MS uses on Live (though MS is not using that for Windows Phone 7 Series).<br>3) Multiple music stores???  Why is that even a problem...</p><p>The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft had to have utter control of standards, and only begrudgingly worked with anything open.  While Apple has worked beside and on top of many open technologies, which has benefited a ton of people (ZeroConf, Webkit, CLANG, etc.).</p><p>I'm sorry but the parallels between Apple and Microsoft are weak at best, because in general Apple's approach strengthens the technology sector for everyone.  Would HTML5 video really be pushed as hard as it has been without Apple helping to shove?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing , i.e .
the digital wallet , multiple music stores , music players Can you explain this point a little more ?
None f it made much sense to me.1 ) You could always use non-DRM music from other stores on the iPod , from launch.2 ) There has never been an Apple " digital wallet " like the points system MS uses on Live ( though MS is not using that for Windows Phone 7 Series ) .3 ) Multiple music stores ? ? ?
Why is that even a problem...The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft had to have utter control of standards , and only begrudgingly worked with anything open .
While Apple has worked beside and on top of many open technologies , which has benefited a ton of people ( ZeroConf , Webkit , CLANG , etc .
) .I 'm sorry but the parallels between Apple and Microsoft are weak at best , because in general Apple 's approach strengthens the technology sector for everyone .
Would HTML5 video really be pushed as hard as it has been without Apple helping to shove ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e.
the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players Can you explain this point a little more?
None f it made much sense to me.1) You could always use non-DRM music from other stores on the iPod, from launch.2) There has never been an Apple "digital wallet" like the points system MS uses on Live (though MS is not using that for Windows Phone 7 Series).3) Multiple music stores???
Why is that even a problem...The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft had to have utter control of standards, and only begrudgingly worked with anything open.
While Apple has worked beside and on top of many open technologies, which has benefited a ton of people (ZeroConf, Webkit, CLANG, etc.
).I'm sorry but the parallels between Apple and Microsoft are weak at best, because in general Apple's approach strengthens the technology sector for everyone.
Would HTML5 video really be pushed as hard as it has been without Apple helping to shove?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490916</id>
	<title>Re:XML vs iPhone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268665080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable."</p></div><p>Well that explains why proprietary alternatives to XML like JSON or YAML are so much better!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XML vs. iPhone. I ca n't think of a better metaphor for " open but convoluted " vs. " closed but useable .
" Well that explains why proprietary alternatives to XML like JSON or YAML are so much better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable.
"Well that explains why proprietary alternatives to XML like JSON or YAML are so much better!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490532</id>
	<title>idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268662320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares? Apple is a Capitalist company out to make as much money as it can, just like the rest. Giving away your hard work so others don't have to work is called socialism. Two words sum up socialism, screw that. Apple and anybody else should have to give away anything to anybody if they want to. It's that simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
Apple is a Capitalist company out to make as much money as it can , just like the rest .
Giving away your hard work so others do n't have to work is called socialism .
Two words sum up socialism , screw that .
Apple and anybody else should have to give away anything to anybody if they want to .
It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
Apple is a Capitalist company out to make as much money as it can, just like the rest.
Giving away your hard work so others don't have to work is called socialism.
Two words sum up socialism, screw that.
Apple and anybody else should have to give away anything to anybody if they want to.
It's that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490374</id>
	<title>Re:That seems to be Apple's role...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b> <em> <strong>Hey, can I do that too?</strong> </em> </b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , can I do that too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Hey, can I do that too?   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490518</id>
	<title>Show me the money...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1268662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But how do you make money from the Android side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But how do you make money from the Android side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how do you make money from the Android side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976</id>
	<title>Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:</p><p><a href="http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/" title="tbray.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/</a> [tbray.org]...</p><p>Maybe if he had tried 3 or 4 other phones and then settled on Android, his opinion would have weight.<br>This guy had never owned a "fancy phone" until 15 months ago and now he's an expert? Seriously Google, is this the best you can do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tim Bray bought his * first * smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he 's ever owned : http : //www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/ [ tbray.org ] ...Maybe if he had tried 3 or 4 other phones and then settled on Android , his opinion would have weight.This guy had never owned a " fancy phone " until 15 months ago and now he 's an expert ?
Seriously Google , is this the best you can do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/ [tbray.org]...Maybe if he had tried 3 or 4 other phones and then settled on Android, his opinion would have weight.This guy had never owned a "fancy phone" until 15 months ago and now he's an expert?
Seriously Google, is this the best you can do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31505204</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, the joys of open gardens</title>
	<author>H0D\_G</author>
	<datestamp>1268765220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can do everything you just described with my nokia E72. + more!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can do everything you just described with my nokia E72 .
+ more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can do everything you just described with my nokia E72.
+ more!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490018</id>
	<title>The bird still sings in its gilded cage</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268659260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494700</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>cabjf</author>
	<datestamp>1268751240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So there is no room for ethical behavior in this brave new open world?  It's alright to sit on the board of a future competitor, gather secrets and plans, then launch a competing product (or products with Chrome, the upcoming Chrome OS, Android, etc)?  I'm all for competition in the marketplace, but spying on the competition isn't exactly a method I would condone.  If Schmidt was planning on competing with Apple, he should have left Apple's board much earlier than he did.  Oh well, information wants to be free, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So there is no room for ethical behavior in this brave new open world ?
It 's alright to sit on the board of a future competitor , gather secrets and plans , then launch a competing product ( or products with Chrome , the upcoming Chrome OS , Android , etc ) ?
I 'm all for competition in the marketplace , but spying on the competition is n't exactly a method I would condone .
If Schmidt was planning on competing with Apple , he should have left Apple 's board much earlier than he did .
Oh well , information wants to be free , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there is no room for ethical behavior in this brave new open world?
It's alright to sit on the board of a future competitor, gather secrets and plans, then launch a competing product (or products with Chrome, the upcoming Chrome OS, Android, etc)?
I'm all for competition in the marketplace, but spying on the competition isn't exactly a method I would condone.
If Schmidt was planning on competing with Apple, he should have left Apple's board much earlier than he did.
Oh well, information wants to be free, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490336</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>General Wesc</author>
	<datestamp>1268661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide, Apple or Google</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, it really doesn't. I can still use products from both companies.</p><blockquote><div><p>Switching away from Google just means typing in "www.bing.com".</p></div> </blockquote><p>I also use Google Reader, Google Docs, Google Voice, Google Calendar, Google Webmaster tools, Adsense, GMail, iGoogle, Blogger, and YouTube. I have a Picasa account, but don't really use it. I occasionally use Google Code Search.</p><p>And then there's the more relevant Google Android. I don't have it, but if I did, there's hardware right there.</p><p>(Oh, this post is written in Chromium--and at work I use Google Chrome.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide , Apple or Google No , it really does n't .
I can still use products from both companies.Switching away from Google just means typing in " www.bing.com " .
I also use Google Reader , Google Docs , Google Voice , Google Calendar , Google Webmaster tools , Adsense , GMail , iGoogle , Blogger , and YouTube .
I have a Picasa account , but do n't really use it .
I occasionally use Google Code Search.And then there 's the more relevant Google Android .
I do n't have it , but if I did , there 's hardware right there .
( Oh , this post is written in Chromium--and at work I use Google Chrome .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide, Apple or Google No, it really doesn't.
I can still use products from both companies.Switching away from Google just means typing in "www.bing.com".
I also use Google Reader, Google Docs, Google Voice, Google Calendar, Google Webmaster tools, Adsense, GMail, iGoogle, Blogger, and YouTube.
I have a Picasa account, but don't really use it.
I occasionally use Google Code Search.And then there's the more relevant Google Android.
I don't have it, but if I did, there's hardware right there.
(Oh, this post is written in Chromium--and at work I use Google Chrome.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31513344</id>
	<title>i can't get past this quote...</title>
	<author>Michael Kristopeit</author>
	<datestamp>1268856420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.</p></div><p>last i checked, fear-mongering was pretty evil... </p><p>bad move, google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who create the apps serve at the landlord 's pleasure and fear his anger.last i checked , fear-mongering was pretty evil... bad move , google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.last i checked, fear-mongering was pretty evil... bad move, google.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491480</id>
	<title>Re:He's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268669460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.</p></div><p>As opposed to the Big Brother wannabee that they were?</p><p>They always get the wrong book. Big Brother is too late. To understand Apple (and Google, and...) soon enough to do some good, don't read 1984, read Animal Farm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the iPhone and iPad , Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.As opposed to the Big Brother wannabee that they were ? They always get the wrong book .
Big Brother is too late .
To understand Apple ( and Google , and... ) soon enough to do some good , do n't read 1984 , read Animal Farm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.As opposed to the Big Brother wannabee that they were?They always get the wrong book.
Big Brother is too late.
To understand Apple (and Google, and...) soon enough to do some good, don't read 1984, read Animal Farm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492008</id>
	<title>"smart phones"</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1268675160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe "smart phones" is a meaningful market category.  First, my 2006 Motorola L7 SLVR supports email, plays mp3s, and plays java games.  Second, all these fancy phones are distinguished mostly by who buys them, not their features.</p><p>Nokia and RIM produce smart phones with large keyboards that balance the need for sending real emails with portability.  A casual consumer simply doesn't need that big ass keyboard because a casual consumer doesn't lose a $200k contract by sending a short terse text message.  I feel these are more properly called business phones, which also well represents their extra features, like tethering, vpn, voip, etc.</p><p>Apple and Google produce smart phones with large touch screens for entertainment.  Any road warrior salesman type would be stupid for depending upon a touch screen keyboard, even the new blackberry storm 2.  You know, Apple's iPhone hype might even have contributed to the recession.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  I feel these are more properly called entertainment phones, again well represents the available applications.</p><p>Apple's iPhone did surprise the industry by proving the profitability of high end entertainment phones, which prompted the Blackberry Storm 2 among others, and surely changed Android's direction.  Apple's iPhone has not altered the needs of business users.  If anything, Apple has removed business oriented applications, and push out the iPod Touch as a high end entertainment platform for travelers.  You almost surely know people who own both an iPod touch for entertainment and a Blackberry for work.</p><p>p.s.  Nokia largely control the smartphone market outside the U.S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe " smart phones " is a meaningful market category .
First , my 2006 Motorola L7 SLVR supports email , plays mp3s , and plays java games .
Second , all these fancy phones are distinguished mostly by who buys them , not their features.Nokia and RIM produce smart phones with large keyboards that balance the need for sending real emails with portability .
A casual consumer simply does n't need that big ass keyboard because a casual consumer does n't lose a $ 200k contract by sending a short terse text message .
I feel these are more properly called business phones , which also well represents their extra features , like tethering , vpn , voip , etc.Apple and Google produce smart phones with large touch screens for entertainment .
Any road warrior salesman type would be stupid for depending upon a touch screen keyboard , even the new blackberry storm 2 .
You know , Apple 's iPhone hype might even have contributed to the recession .
: ) I feel these are more properly called entertainment phones , again well represents the available applications.Apple 's iPhone did surprise the industry by proving the profitability of high end entertainment phones , which prompted the Blackberry Storm 2 among others , and surely changed Android 's direction .
Apple 's iPhone has not altered the needs of business users .
If anything , Apple has removed business oriented applications , and push out the iPod Touch as a high end entertainment platform for travelers .
You almost surely know people who own both an iPod touch for entertainment and a Blackberry for work.p.s .
Nokia largely control the smartphone market outside the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe "smart phones" is a meaningful market category.
First, my 2006 Motorola L7 SLVR supports email, plays mp3s, and plays java games.
Second, all these fancy phones are distinguished mostly by who buys them, not their features.Nokia and RIM produce smart phones with large keyboards that balance the need for sending real emails with portability.
A casual consumer simply doesn't need that big ass keyboard because a casual consumer doesn't lose a $200k contract by sending a short terse text message.
I feel these are more properly called business phones, which also well represents their extra features, like tethering, vpn, voip, etc.Apple and Google produce smart phones with large touch screens for entertainment.
Any road warrior salesman type would be stupid for depending upon a touch screen keyboard, even the new blackberry storm 2.
You know, Apple's iPhone hype might even have contributed to the recession.
:)  I feel these are more properly called entertainment phones, again well represents the available applications.Apple's iPhone did surprise the industry by proving the profitability of high end entertainment phones, which prompted the Blackberry Storm 2 among others, and surely changed Android's direction.
Apple's iPhone has not altered the needs of business users.
If anything, Apple has removed business oriented applications, and push out the iPod Touch as a high end entertainment platform for travelers.
You almost surely know people who own both an iPod touch for entertainment and a Blackberry for work.p.s.
Nokia largely control the smartphone market outside the U.S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491294</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268667900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With this, my opinion of Google is now changing. I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between "making money" and "doing the 'right' thing." This, however, is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light. Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.</p></div><p>Do you consider Apple's acts as ugly or have you forgotten the Apple MS bashing ads?    Or wait... I forgot its okay to bash MS but not Apple.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know which choice I'm going to be inclined to make in the future...</p></div><p>Linux?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With this , my opinion of Google is now changing .
I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between " making money " and " doing the 'right ' thing .
" This , however , is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light .
Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.Do you consider Apple 's acts as ugly or have you forgotten the Apple MS bashing ads ?
Or wait... I forgot its okay to bash MS but not Apple.I know which choice I 'm going to be inclined to make in the future...Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With this, my opinion of Google is now changing.
I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between "making money" and "doing the 'right' thing.
" This, however, is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light.
Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.Do you consider Apple's acts as ugly or have you forgotten the Apple MS bashing ads?
Or wait... I forgot its okay to bash MS but not Apple.I know which choice I'm going to be inclined to make in the future...Linux?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492552</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly!</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1268770500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
1. Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.<br>
2. Become a god and you won't need any other gods</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can he possibly know anything about religion if he does n't believe in god ! ? ? ! ? !
1. Properly read , the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived .
2. Become a god and you wo n't need any other gods</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!
1. Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
2. Become a god and you won't need any other gods
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492158</id>
	<title>Re:He's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboard</p></div><p>Just to be a little nitpicky, the signatures on the 128K Mac are on the inside of the plastic case, not the motherboard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the developer 's signatures burnt into the Mac 's first motherboardJust to be a little nitpicky , the signatures on the 128K Mac are on the inside of the plastic case , not the motherboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboardJust to be a little nitpicky, the signatures on the 128K Mac are on the inside of the plastic case, not the motherboard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492734</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268731320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? Switching to BING just because Apple and Google have decided to fight over the iphone/android? Stop letting companies decide your preferences for you. Just because APPLE doesn't like Google doesn't mean YOU have to hate google.</p><p>Yikes, the mindless drones these days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Switching to BING just because Apple and Google have decided to fight over the iphone/android ?
Stop letting companies decide your preferences for you .
Just because APPLE does n't like Google does n't mean YOU have to hate google.Yikes , the mindless drones these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Switching to BING just because Apple and Google have decided to fight over the iphone/android?
Stop letting companies decide your preferences for you.
Just because APPLE doesn't like Google doesn't mean YOU have to hate google.Yikes, the mindless drones these days...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490808</id>
	<title>Slight Irony...</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1268664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...in the fact that Apple has been a big pusher of XML-based formats - it pervades most of their application frameworks and is extensively supported in their APIs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...in the fact that Apple has been a big pusher of XML-based formats - it pervades most of their application frameworks and is extensively supported in their APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in the fact that Apple has been a big pusher of XML-based formats - it pervades most of their application frameworks and is extensively supported in their APIs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490080</id>
	<title>A critic, but not direct opponent of swpats</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1268659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Tim's critical of software patents, but his position is that there's just an implimentation problem - with good tweaking it could work.  Kinda disappointing that he's not pushing for abolition.  Surprising too given his experience in web dev and XML.  Related info:
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Tim\_Bray\_on\_software\_patents" title="swpat.org">Tim Bray on software patents</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google" title="swpat.org">Google</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Webpage\_and\_web\_service\_patents" title="swpat.org">Webpage and web service patents</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/XML\_patents" title="swpat.org">XML patents</a> [swpat.org] </li></ul><p>
swpat.org is a publicly-editable wiki - help in expanding this info would be very welcome and useful.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tim 's critical of software patents , but his position is that there 's just an implimentation problem - with good tweaking it could work .
Kinda disappointing that he 's not pushing for abolition .
Surprising too given his experience in web dev and XML .
Related info : Tim Bray on software patents [ swpat.org ] Google [ swpat.org ] Webpage and web service patents [ swpat.org ] XML patents [ swpat.org ] swpat.org is a publicly-editable wiki - help in expanding this info would be very welcome and useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Tim's critical of software patents, but his position is that there's just an implimentation problem - with good tweaking it could work.
Kinda disappointing that he's not pushing for abolition.
Surprising too given his experience in web dev and XML.
Related info:

 Tim Bray on software patents [swpat.org]  Google [swpat.org]  Webpage and web service patents [swpat.org]  XML patents [swpat.org] 
swpat.org is a publicly-editable wiki - help in expanding this info would be very welcome and useful.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494786</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>TheSunborn</author>
	<datestamp>1268751480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it was not so much a stab in the back. It was more a frontal attack. Apple knew that google were working on Android when they launched their first iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it was not so much a stab in the back .
It was more a frontal attack .
Apple knew that google were working on Android when they launched their first iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it was not so much a stab in the back.
It was more a frontal attack.
Apple knew that google were working on Android when they launched their first iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492116</id>
	<title>java vm ghetto better than app store ghetto</title>
	<author>ad454</author>
	<datestamp>1268676660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Android is only open for carriers, not users.

Basically this idiot is saying that he prefers that end-users and developers be walled within a slow Java VM (Virtual Machine) ghetto on the Android platform, verses having end-user and developers walled within a ghetto of limited, but fast natively compiled and executed, selection of iTunes Apps that Apple approves at their sole discretion.  Keep in mind that many of Android's prebundled apps/utilities are compiled into machine code, since the Java VM is nothing more than 3rd party app ghetto .  I will only believe that the Android VM Java is decent and not an app ghetto, when all of the Android core applications, including the phone app, are solely written in it.

Gee, I miss those days when computer operating systems use to have an open execution model that allowed anyone to write, distribute, and install applications as compiled machine code without any restrictions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Android is only open for carriers , not users .
Basically this idiot is saying that he prefers that end-users and developers be walled within a slow Java VM ( Virtual Machine ) ghetto on the Android platform , verses having end-user and developers walled within a ghetto of limited , but fast natively compiled and executed , selection of iTunes Apps that Apple approves at their sole discretion .
Keep in mind that many of Android 's prebundled apps/utilities are compiled into machine code , since the Java VM is nothing more than 3rd party app ghetto .
I will only believe that the Android VM Java is decent and not an app ghetto , when all of the Android core applications , including the phone app , are solely written in it .
Gee , I miss those days when computer operating systems use to have an open execution model that allowed anyone to write , distribute , and install applications as compiled machine code without any restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android is only open for carriers, not users.
Basically this idiot is saying that he prefers that end-users and developers be walled within a slow Java VM (Virtual Machine) ghetto on the Android platform, verses having end-user and developers walled within a ghetto of limited, but fast natively compiled and executed, selection of iTunes Apps that Apple approves at their sole discretion.
Keep in mind that many of Android's prebundled apps/utilities are compiled into machine code, since the Java VM is nothing more than 3rd party app ghetto .
I will only believe that the Android VM Java is decent and not an app ghetto, when all of the Android core applications, including the phone app, are solely written in it.
Gee, I miss those days when computer operating systems use to have an open execution model that allowed anyone to write, distribute, and install applications as compiled machine code without any restrictions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148</id>
	<title>Exactly!</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1268659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he's always talking about religion, but he's an atheist!  How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly - it 's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he 's always talking about religion , but he 's an atheist !
How can he possibly know anything about religion if he does n't believe in god ! ? ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he's always talking about religion, but he's an atheist!
How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490214</id>
	<title>Apple == Gay Nancy Boys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268660340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple iFags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple iFags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple iFags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490676</id>
	<title>Dont worry, Cancer will stopThe Landlord.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1268663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OOOOOOOOH NO HE DIDNT!!! YES HE DID...</p><p>seriously...</p><p>cancer sucks.</p><p>no seriously...</p><p>it does...</p><p>I wish Mr Jobs good health.</p><p>and I like my iPhone.</p><p>But i'll gladly pay attention to anyone else offering something better... and I'm locked into iTunes so... It better be damn good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OOOOOOOOH NO HE DIDNT ! ! !
YES HE DID...seriously...cancer sucks.no seriously...it does...I wish Mr Jobs good health.and I like my iPhone.But i 'll gladly pay attention to anyone else offering something better... and I 'm locked into iTunes so... It better be damn good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OOOOOOOOH NO HE DIDNT!!!
YES HE DID...seriously...cancer sucks.no seriously...it does...I wish Mr Jobs good health.and I like my iPhone.But i'll gladly pay attention to anyone else offering something better... and I'm locked into iTunes so... It better be damn good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490554</id>
	<title>Re:XML vs iPhone</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1268662440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can:  open but convoluted = Little money<br>
          Closed but usable = Big money</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can : open but convoluted = Little money Closed but usable = Big money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can:  open but convoluted = Little money
          Closed but usable = Big money</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490812</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The choice to not spin a personal blog post of a new employee into the damnable actions of a company?</p><p>The choice to actually RTFA?</p><p>Whoops, forgot this was Slashdot for a moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The choice to not spin a personal blog post of a new employee into the damnable actions of a company ? The choice to actually RTFA ? Whoops , forgot this was Slashdot for a moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The choice to not spin a personal blog post of a new employee into the damnable actions of a company?The choice to actually RTFA?Whoops, forgot this was Slashdot for a moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496612</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love freetards</title>
	<author>$1uck</author>
	<datestamp>1268758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it fails 10 out 10 times when you're a developer who wants develop an app that isn't allowed (be it porn or whatever else isn't permitted inside the walled garden) or you're a user who wants to install such an application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it fails 10 out 10 times when you 're a developer who wants develop an app that is n't allowed ( be it porn or whatever else is n't permitted inside the walled garden ) or you 're a user who wants to install such an application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it fails 10 out 10 times when you're a developer who wants develop an app that isn't allowed (be it porn or whatever else isn't permitted inside the walled garden) or you're a user who wants to install such an application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492312</id>
	<title>Way I see it...</title>
	<author>Stu Charlton</author>
	<datestamp>1268679540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple wants to control the world's premium hardware devices (and how they are used).<br>Google wants to control the world's information.</p><p>Only one of these visions frightens me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple wants to control the world 's premium hardware devices ( and how they are used ) .Google wants to control the world 's information.Only one of these visions frightens me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple wants to control the world's premium hardware devices (and how they are used).Google wants to control the world's information.Only one of these visions frightens me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489960</id>
	<title>To be fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a work-related "convenient opinion" of his. He's been critical of Apple's walled-garden approach to development for years, and an Android advocate since he got an Android phone in 2008 (see <a href="http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Diary" title="tbray.org">http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Diary</a> [tbray.org] for his chronicles using and programming it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a work-related " convenient opinion " of his .
He 's been critical of Apple 's walled-garden approach to development for years , and an Android advocate since he got an Android phone in 2008 ( see http : //www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Diary [ tbray.org ] for his chronicles using and programming it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a work-related "convenient opinion" of his.
He's been critical of Apple's walled-garden approach to development for years, and an Android advocate since he got an Android phone in 2008 (see http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Diary [tbray.org] for his chronicles using and programming it).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31504922</id>
	<title>Re:What are they doing again?</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1268760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds an awful lot like the only difference is that Apple was happier to save money by using good technology that was developed outside of the company. That's because Apple doesn't think of itself as a software company, they're a whole widget company and anything that will help them build a better widget using less development resources is fine by them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds an awful lot like the only difference is that Apple was happier to save money by using good technology that was developed outside of the company .
That 's because Apple does n't think of itself as a software company , they 're a whole widget company and anything that will help them build a better widget using less development resources is fine by them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds an awful lot like the only difference is that Apple was happier to save money by using good technology that was developed outside of the company.
That's because Apple doesn't think of itself as a software company, they're a whole widget company and anything that will help them build a better widget using less development resources is fine by them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493356</id>
	<title>Blasphemy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no! Someone blasphemes against the iGods! - quick, someone tell the Slashdot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !
Someone blasphemes against the iGods !
- quick , someone tell the Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!
Someone blasphemes against the iGods!
- quick, someone tell the Slashdot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493932</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You act as if Apple brought about the removal of DRM everywhere.  I could buy DRM-free music from Amazon before iTunes dumped it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You act as if Apple brought about the removal of DRM everywhere .
I could buy DRM-free music from Amazon before iTunes dumped it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You act as if Apple brought about the removal of DRM everywhere.
I could buy DRM-free music from Amazon before iTunes dumped it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31495628</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love freetards</title>
	<author>maugle</author>
	<datestamp>1268754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Unfortunately" modded to flamebait?  The guy just called everyone who values freedom and choice over convenience "freetards".  That won't exactly endear anyone to his point of view.<br>
<br>
If I complained that people were giving up their long-term interests (an app market where apps can't be pulled at the whim of a single company, general openness, etc.) in favor of short-term usability and shininess, I'd have a point and we'd have the beginning of a debate about the pros and cons of the Apple environment.<br>
<br>
But if I did so while calling those people "Mactards" or "blowJobs" or "iDiots" or "smug self-satisfied latte-sipping black-turtleneck-wearing fuckwits", you bet your ass I'd be modded flamebait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unfortunately " modded to flamebait ?
The guy just called everyone who values freedom and choice over convenience " freetards " .
That wo n't exactly endear anyone to his point of view .
If I complained that people were giving up their long-term interests ( an app market where apps ca n't be pulled at the whim of a single company , general openness , etc .
) in favor of short-term usability and shininess , I 'd have a point and we 'd have the beginning of a debate about the pros and cons of the Apple environment .
But if I did so while calling those people " Mactards " or " blowJobs " or " iDiots " or " smug self-satisfied latte-sipping black-turtleneck-wearing fuckwits " , you bet your ass I 'd be modded flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unfortunately" modded to flamebait?
The guy just called everyone who values freedom and choice over convenience "freetards".
That won't exactly endear anyone to his point of view.
If I complained that people were giving up their long-term interests (an app market where apps can't be pulled at the whim of a single company, general openness, etc.
) in favor of short-term usability and shininess, I'd have a point and we'd have the beginning of a debate about the pros and cons of the Apple environment.
But if I did so while calling those people "Mactards" or "blowJobs" or "iDiots" or "smug self-satisfied latte-sipping black-turtleneck-wearing fuckwits", you bet your ass I'd be modded flamebait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490870</id>
	<title>Re:XML sucks</title>
	<author>ThePengwin</author>
	<datestamp>1268664660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Googling iPhone sucks... </p><p>Results 1 - 10 of about 11,100,000 for iPhone sucks. (0.33 seconds)</p><p>Somehow, i dont think that is a good way to measure how much something sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Googling iPhone sucks... Results 1 - 10 of about 11,100,000 for iPhone sucks .
( 0.33 seconds ) Somehow , i dont think that is a good way to measure how much something sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googling iPhone sucks... Results 1 - 10 of about 11,100,000 for iPhone sucks.
(0.33 seconds)Somehow, i dont think that is a good way to measure how much something sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490226</id>
	<title>Re:Surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268660460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Of course he's going to blast the iPhone. Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevant</i></p><p>Haha. The market leader in advanced phones remains the blackberry, which has had an open SDK and documentation freely available for years. You don't need RIM's blessing (or even RIM's knowledge) to sell your blackberry apps.</p><p>Google is trying to dethrone the market leader in <b>coolness</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course he 's going to blast the iPhone .
Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevantHaha .
The market leader in advanced phones remains the blackberry , which has had an open SDK and documentation freely available for years .
You do n't need RIM 's blessing ( or even RIM 's knowledge ) to sell your blackberry apps.Google is trying to dethrone the market leader in coolness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course he's going to blast the iPhone.
Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevantHaha.
The market leader in advanced phones remains the blackberry, which has had an open SDK and documentation freely available for years.
You don't need RIM's blessing (or even RIM's knowledge) to sell your blackberry apps.Google is trying to dethrone the market leader in coolness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492624</id>
	<title>I totally agree with Tim Bray</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1268772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time to talk about things the way they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to talk about things the way they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to talk about things the way they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1268661660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm, Apple has been forcing people to decide for a really long time. I take it you didn't notice that the ITMS for a really long time didn't support any MP3 player that wasn't a variation of iPod. They didn't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space.<br> <br>

But I'm sure that's so much better than actively locking people out of your store while signing things up as exclusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , Apple has been forcing people to decide for a really long time .
I take it you did n't notice that the ITMS for a really long time did n't support any MP3 player that was n't a variation of iPod .
They did n't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space .
But I 'm sure that 's so much better than actively locking people out of your store while signing things up as exclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, Apple has been forcing people to decide for a really long time.
I take it you didn't notice that the ITMS for a really long time didn't support any MP3 player that wasn't a variation of iPod.
They didn't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space.
But I'm sure that's so much better than actively locking people out of your store while signing things up as exclusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493314</id>
	<title>Nominative Determinism...</title>
	<author>Rational</author>
	<datestamp>1268739660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best example in a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best example in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best example in a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490884</id>
	<title>Small lives or what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you guys serious? Are your lives so small that you have to seek validation and self-fulfillment by way of the brand of *cell-phone* that you use? Wow. That's just so sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you guys serious ?
Are your lives so small that you have to seek validation and self-fulfillment by way of the brand of * cell-phone * that you use ?
Wow. That 's just so sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you guys serious?
Are your lives so small that you have to seek validation and self-fulfillment by way of the brand of *cell-phone* that you use?
Wow. That's just so sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493272</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268738880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy</p><p>You make a more cogent point than I thought possible from a sentence starting like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Exactly - it 's just like that Richard Dawkins guyYou make a more cogent point than I thought possible from a sentence starting like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guyYou make a more cogent point than I thought possible from a sentence starting like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493922</id>
	<title>How to spice things up...</title>
	<author>TaggartAleslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1268747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether you are for Apple or for Google, you will eventually get tired of the conversation. So here is how to add some spice.</p><p>"Well, I mean OS X and Android are both Unix derivitaves, so as long as we're supporting open source I'm all for it."</p><p>Hilarity ensues on many levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you are for Apple or for Google , you will eventually get tired of the conversation .
So here is how to add some spice .
" Well , I mean OS X and Android are both Unix derivitaves , so as long as we 're supporting open source I 'm all for it .
" Hilarity ensues on many levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you are for Apple or for Google, you will eventually get tired of the conversation.
So here is how to add some spice.
"Well, I mean OS X and Android are both Unix derivitaves, so as long as we're supporting open source I'm all for it.
"Hilarity ensues on many levels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492278</id>
	<title>thers better devices then the ipad,</title>
	<author>luther349</author>
	<datestamp>1268679180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the ipad the over sized ipod it is i dont think will be a big hit. theirs just better devices out there at a lower price that offer better features. the arcos 5 android tablet smokes anything apple in term of power and features, the orignal arcos models did but they used there own os and genuinely charged to unlock anything useful they have changed that model with there new models being the use the fully open android. the android 5 is powerd by a arm cortex hehe lots of power.  if i knew of the arcos before i bought my ipod trust me i woulda when with a android arcos its the same price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the ipad the over sized ipod it is i dont think will be a big hit .
theirs just better devices out there at a lower price that offer better features .
the arcos 5 android tablet smokes anything apple in term of power and features , the orignal arcos models did but they used there own os and genuinely charged to unlock anything useful they have changed that model with there new models being the use the fully open android .
the android 5 is powerd by a arm cortex hehe lots of power .
if i knew of the arcos before i bought my ipod trust me i woulda when with a android arcos its the same price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ipad the over sized ipod it is i dont think will be a big hit.
theirs just better devices out there at a lower price that offer better features.
the arcos 5 android tablet smokes anything apple in term of power and features, the orignal arcos models did but they used there own os and genuinely charged to unlock anything useful they have changed that model with there new models being the use the fully open android.
the android 5 is powerd by a arm cortex hehe lots of power.
if i knew of the arcos before i bought my ipod trust me i woulda when with a android arcos its the same price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490446</id>
	<title>Re:A critic, but not direct opponent of swpats</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268661780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a strong argument for patents: that if a person works hard to invent something, they should be rewarded for having done something great.<br> <br>
The biggest problem with software patents is that people can patent things that are extremely obvious, and very much not something great.  If people only got patents for doing something great, not very many people would have a problem with them. (there might be a few other problems to fix too, like elimination of submarine patents).<br> <br>
Most of us don't benefit directly from patents, so we don't have any reason to support them, but there are some reasons for their existence (though personally I would prefer to get rid of software patents completely compared to what we have now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a strong argument for patents : that if a person works hard to invent something , they should be rewarded for having done something great .
The biggest problem with software patents is that people can patent things that are extremely obvious , and very much not something great .
If people only got patents for doing something great , not very many people would have a problem with them .
( there might be a few other problems to fix too , like elimination of submarine patents ) .
Most of us do n't benefit directly from patents , so we do n't have any reason to support them , but there are some reasons for their existence ( though personally I would prefer to get rid of software patents completely compared to what we have now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a strong argument for patents: that if a person works hard to invent something, they should be rewarded for having done something great.
The biggest problem with software patents is that people can patent things that are extremely obvious, and very much not something great.
If people only got patents for doing something great, not very many people would have a problem with them.
(there might be a few other problems to fix too, like elimination of submarine patents).
Most of us don't benefit directly from patents, so we don't have any reason to support them, but there are some reasons for their existence (though personally I would prefer to get rid of software patents completely compared to what we have now).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490078</id>
	<title>wrong.</title>
	<author>Michael Kristopeit</author>
	<datestamp>1268659500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.</p></div><p>i create the apps... i fear nothing.</p><p>the employees of google are presumptuous AND wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who create the apps serve at the landlord 's pleasure and fear his anger.i create the apps... i fear nothing.the employees of google are presumptuous AND wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.i create the apps... i fear nothing.the employees of google are presumptuous AND wrong.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493224</id>
	<title>like it's with all new technologies...</title>
	<author>alobar72</author>
	<datestamp>1268738400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is like with all new technologies that settel in the consumer market.<br>First, there are the early adopters who can - an take pride in the fact that they can - manipulate and fix those technologies.<br>As that technology becomes more common - more and more users are<br>a) not willing to invest a huge amount  of time to be able to use this technology correctly and<br>b) dont want to rely an an early adopter to do so.<br>As the technology further matures, the neccessety - and with it the possibility - to maipulate and fix this technology by yourself disappears.<br>The early adopters loose the possibility of beeing more than just "dumb users" and feel caged because that technology has been kind of locked down.<br>But for the users that have by now become the majority it is most convenient to use it without having to get into it too deeply.<br>The early adopters find a niche (product ) where they still can test their technical skills on and the overall consumer is just happy this easy-to-use piece of technology exists.<br>That said:<br>- assuring no app can do bad things through strict quality controll<br>- strict guidelines for userinterface design<br>- limit external interfaces and provide a standard way of data exchange<br>sounds to me like being a good thing for serving the average user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is like with all new technologies that settel in the consumer market.First , there are the early adopters who can - an take pride in the fact that they can - manipulate and fix those technologies.As that technology becomes more common - more and more users area ) not willing to invest a huge amount of time to be able to use this technology correctly andb ) dont want to rely an an early adopter to do so.As the technology further matures , the neccessety - and with it the possibility - to maipulate and fix this technology by yourself disappears.The early adopters loose the possibility of beeing more than just " dumb users " and feel caged because that technology has been kind of locked down.But for the users that have by now become the majority it is most convenient to use it without having to get into it too deeply.The early adopters find a niche ( product ) where they still can test their technical skills on and the overall consumer is just happy this easy-to-use piece of technology exists.That said : - assuring no app can do bad things through strict quality controll- strict guidelines for userinterface design- limit external interfaces and provide a standard way of data exchangesounds to me like being a good thing for serving the average user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is like with all new technologies that settel in the consumer market.First, there are the early adopters who can - an take pride in the fact that they can - manipulate and fix those technologies.As that technology becomes more common - more and more users area) not willing to invest a huge amount  of time to be able to use this technology correctly andb) dont want to rely an an early adopter to do so.As the technology further matures, the neccessety - and with it the possibility - to maipulate and fix this technology by yourself disappears.The early adopters loose the possibility of beeing more than just "dumb users" and feel caged because that technology has been kind of locked down.But for the users that have by now become the majority it is most convenient to use it without having to get into it too deeply.The early adopters find a niche (product ) where they still can test their technical skills on and the overall consumer is just happy this easy-to-use piece of technology exists.That said:- assuring no app can do bad things through strict quality controll- strict guidelines for userinterface design- limit external interfaces and provide a standard way of data exchangesounds to me like being a good thing for serving the average user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491818</id>
	<title>Re:He's right.</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1268673000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the extent that Steve Jobs can get his way, Apple will sell locked-down products that they can control.  Steve Wozniak was in favor of openness, Steve Jobs not so much.</p><p>The Apple II series was open, with card slots, and anyone could make cards for it.  Steve Jobs was in charge of first the Lisa and then the Mac; these were released with no card slots at all.  I don't have a citation, but I have heard that Steve Jobs fiercely resisted putting a hard disk into the Mac initially, because they were able to sell the Mac initially without a cooling fan, but adding a hard disk would require also adding a fan, and fan noise offended his sense of aesthetics.</p><p>When Apple killed off the Newton, some Newton fans got together and made a serious bid to buy out the Newton technology so they could keep the platform going.  Steve Jobs preferred to kill Newton rather than let someone else have control of it.</p><p>There are other examples, but enough.  Basically, Steve Jobs wants to control your whole experience.  Because Steve Jobs has, overall, very good taste in user experience issues, this does have its good points.  Man, the iPhone is really slick!</p><p>But I won't buy in to the Apple "walled gardens" of the iPod and the iPad.  If I spend my own money on a smart phone, I will get an Android phone; and I'm eagerly waiting for the $300 Taiwanese tablet computers that will actually let me install Ubuntu, plug in USB devices, and slot in memory cards.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the extent that Steve Jobs can get his way , Apple will sell locked-down products that they can control .
Steve Wozniak was in favor of openness , Steve Jobs not so much.The Apple II series was open , with card slots , and anyone could make cards for it .
Steve Jobs was in charge of first the Lisa and then the Mac ; these were released with no card slots at all .
I do n't have a citation , but I have heard that Steve Jobs fiercely resisted putting a hard disk into the Mac initially , because they were able to sell the Mac initially without a cooling fan , but adding a hard disk would require also adding a fan , and fan noise offended his sense of aesthetics.When Apple killed off the Newton , some Newton fans got together and made a serious bid to buy out the Newton technology so they could keep the platform going .
Steve Jobs preferred to kill Newton rather than let someone else have control of it.There are other examples , but enough .
Basically , Steve Jobs wants to control your whole experience .
Because Steve Jobs has , overall , very good taste in user experience issues , this does have its good points .
Man , the iPhone is really slick ! But I wo n't buy in to the Apple " walled gardens " of the iPod and the iPad .
If I spend my own money on a smart phone , I will get an Android phone ; and I 'm eagerly waiting for the $ 300 Taiwanese tablet computers that will actually let me install Ubuntu , plug in USB devices , and slot in memory cards.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the extent that Steve Jobs can get his way, Apple will sell locked-down products that they can control.
Steve Wozniak was in favor of openness, Steve Jobs not so much.The Apple II series was open, with card slots, and anyone could make cards for it.
Steve Jobs was in charge of first the Lisa and then the Mac; these were released with no card slots at all.
I don't have a citation, but I have heard that Steve Jobs fiercely resisted putting a hard disk into the Mac initially, because they were able to sell the Mac initially without a cooling fan, but adding a hard disk would require also adding a fan, and fan noise offended his sense of aesthetics.When Apple killed off the Newton, some Newton fans got together and made a serious bid to buy out the Newton technology so they could keep the platform going.
Steve Jobs preferred to kill Newton rather than let someone else have control of it.There are other examples, but enough.
Basically, Steve Jobs wants to control your whole experience.
Because Steve Jobs has, overall, very good taste in user experience issues, this does have its good points.
Man, the iPhone is really slick!But I won't buy in to the Apple "walled gardens" of the iPod and the iPad.
If I spend my own money on a smart phone, I will get an Android phone; and I'm eagerly waiting for the $300 Taiwanese tablet computers that will actually let me install Ubuntu, plug in USB devices, and slot in memory cards.steveha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493504</id>
	<title>Sad propaganda from the Chief of the Nerd Police</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1268742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you need to ask yourself is why did he even say the word "iPhone" at all? He just got hired by Google. WTF has iPhone got to do with anything? Seriously, ask yourself that. None of the answers are good for Google.</p><p>The misinformation was also very sad, since he is someone who has contributed mightily in the past. He should at least have the standards of a Gizmodo review. It was sad to see him say the Internet is locked down on iPhone when it is clearly not in any way locked down, nor is it proprietary like Microsoft or Adobe. It was also sad to see him say that iPhone has limited the conversation on the Internet when it's clearly drawn an even larger audience to the conversation, providing many people with the first Internet device that they could master, causing many people to discover text messaging or Twitter and so on for the first time. Not only that but these are the very first native app purchases and installs for many users. Also sad that he thinks the successful, popular, and malware-free iPhone App Store should change to be more like the fragmented, unpopular, malware-serving Android Market. And he clearly doesn't understand that App Store is not the only place to get iPhone apps, it is only 1 of 2 app platforms on iPhone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... App Store is entirely optional. The other platform is totally open, totally unmanaged, totally unmediated, uses open API's, and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server. The alternative is there already if App Store is not for you. Why does it bother the Nerd Police so much that users on iPhone have their own choice of either managed or unmanaged apps? With all that has happened with Windows malware and botnets, why is it so important that *phone users* should be exposed to a native malware risk?</p><p>But this is the guy who said he would never type on a virtual keyboard and how awful iPhone was for having that, how stupid the users were for not being able to type on the device (he imagined) until he got a G1 with a much worse virtual keyboard than iPhone and said it was OK, he could live with it. So it's actually not surprising to see him talking out of his ass rather than actually trying the gear, learning about it, finding out about it.</p><p>Imagine if Google had hired a hardware chief instead, and announced they were making a "true Google phone" like so many have asked for. I think that would have been a much more interesting move, and they could have done it without saying "iPhone." Well, maybe not. Too bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you need to ask yourself is why did he even say the word " iPhone " at all ?
He just got hired by Google .
WTF has iPhone got to do with anything ?
Seriously , ask yourself that .
None of the answers are good for Google.The misinformation was also very sad , since he is someone who has contributed mightily in the past .
He should at least have the standards of a Gizmodo review .
It was sad to see him say the Internet is locked down on iPhone when it is clearly not in any way locked down , nor is it proprietary like Microsoft or Adobe .
It was also sad to see him say that iPhone has limited the conversation on the Internet when it 's clearly drawn an even larger audience to the conversation , providing many people with the first Internet device that they could master , causing many people to discover text messaging or Twitter and so on for the first time .
Not only that but these are the very first native app purchases and installs for many users .
Also sad that he thinks the successful , popular , and malware-free iPhone App Store should change to be more like the fragmented , unpopular , malware-serving Android Market .
And he clearly does n't understand that App Store is not the only place to get iPhone apps , it is only 1 of 2 app platforms on iPhone ... App Store is entirely optional .
The other platform is totally open , totally unmanaged , totally unmediated , uses open API 's , and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server .
The alternative is there already if App Store is not for you .
Why does it bother the Nerd Police so much that users on iPhone have their own choice of either managed or unmanaged apps ?
With all that has happened with Windows malware and botnets , why is it so important that * phone users * should be exposed to a native malware risk ? But this is the guy who said he would never type on a virtual keyboard and how awful iPhone was for having that , how stupid the users were for not being able to type on the device ( he imagined ) until he got a G1 with a much worse virtual keyboard than iPhone and said it was OK , he could live with it .
So it 's actually not surprising to see him talking out of his ass rather than actually trying the gear , learning about it , finding out about it.Imagine if Google had hired a hardware chief instead , and announced they were making a " true Google phone " like so many have asked for .
I think that would have been a much more interesting move , and they could have done it without saying " iPhone .
" Well , maybe not .
Too bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you need to ask yourself is why did he even say the word "iPhone" at all?
He just got hired by Google.
WTF has iPhone got to do with anything?
Seriously, ask yourself that.
None of the answers are good for Google.The misinformation was also very sad, since he is someone who has contributed mightily in the past.
He should at least have the standards of a Gizmodo review.
It was sad to see him say the Internet is locked down on iPhone when it is clearly not in any way locked down, nor is it proprietary like Microsoft or Adobe.
It was also sad to see him say that iPhone has limited the conversation on the Internet when it's clearly drawn an even larger audience to the conversation, providing many people with the first Internet device that they could master, causing many people to discover text messaging or Twitter and so on for the first time.
Not only that but these are the very first native app purchases and installs for many users.
Also sad that he thinks the successful, popular, and malware-free iPhone App Store should change to be more like the fragmented, unpopular, malware-serving Android Market.
And he clearly doesn't understand that App Store is not the only place to get iPhone apps, it is only 1 of 2 app platforms on iPhone ... App Store is entirely optional.
The other platform is totally open, totally unmanaged, totally unmediated, uses open API's, and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server.
The alternative is there already if App Store is not for you.
Why does it bother the Nerd Police so much that users on iPhone have their own choice of either managed or unmanaged apps?
With all that has happened with Windows malware and botnets, why is it so important that *phone users* should be exposed to a native malware risk?But this is the guy who said he would never type on a virtual keyboard and how awful iPhone was for having that, how stupid the users were for not being able to type on the device (he imagined) until he got a G1 with a much worse virtual keyboard than iPhone and said it was OK, he could live with it.
So it's actually not surprising to see him talking out of his ass rather than actually trying the gear, learning about it, finding out about it.Imagine if Google had hired a hardware chief instead, and announced they were making a "true Google phone" like so many have asked for.
I think that would have been a much more interesting move, and they could have done it without saying "iPhone.
" Well, maybe not.
Too bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31495476</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love freetards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>walled garden that "just works"</i></p><p>I'm sorry, are we still talking about the iPhone here?  I couldn't finish reading that because Safari on my iPhone crashed again, then I had to wait for the "broken apple" picture to go away, which took 20 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>walled garden that " just works " I 'm sorry , are we still talking about the iPhone here ?
I could n't finish reading that because Safari on my iPhone crashed again , then I had to wait for the " broken apple " picture to go away , which took 20 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>walled garden that "just works"I'm sorry, are we still talking about the iPhone here?
I couldn't finish reading that because Safari on my iPhone crashed again, then I had to wait for the "broken apple" picture to go away, which took 20 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490146</id>
	<title>Re:Surprising?</title>
	<author>eparker05</author>
	<datestamp>1268659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't disagree with the implication you are making here, but I'd like to point out the irony that Google needs to win a fight for a software platform in order to prevent themselves from becoming irrelevant in the cloud.</p><p>Perhaps this supports the idea that the future is going to be made on software+service. This also turns all the old antitrust rules on their head. Businesses based on software+service can't be decoupled in the same way as windows + IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't disagree with the implication you are making here , but I 'd like to point out the irony that Google needs to win a fight for a software platform in order to prevent themselves from becoming irrelevant in the cloud.Perhaps this supports the idea that the future is going to be made on software + service .
This also turns all the old antitrust rules on their head .
Businesses based on software + service ca n't be decoupled in the same way as windows + IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't disagree with the implication you are making here, but I'd like to point out the irony that Google needs to win a fight for a software platform in order to prevent themselves from becoming irrelevant in the cloud.Perhaps this supports the idea that the future is going to be made on software+service.
This also turns all the old antitrust rules on their head.
Businesses based on software+service can't be decoupled in the same way as windows + IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490978</id>
	<title>Re:Surprising?</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1268665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the android platform is gaining, and that fast:<br><a href="http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/10/comscore-android-gains-on-the-iphone/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/10/comscore-android-gains-on-the-iphone/</a> [cnn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the android platform is gaining , and that fast : http : //brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/10/comscore-android-gains-on-the-iphone/ [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the android platform is gaining, and that fast:http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/10/comscore-android-gains-on-the-iphone/ [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494650</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love freetards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does a post get moderated flame-bait for stating the obvious? I think most commenter's and moderators here on slashdot somehow lost their grasp of reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does a post get moderated flame-bait for stating the obvious ?
I think most commenter 's and moderators here on slashdot somehow lost their grasp of reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does a post get moderated flame-bait for stating the obvious?
I think most commenter's and moderators here on slashdot somehow lost their grasp of reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491636</id>
	<title>Re:XML...</title>
	<author>cbreak</author>
	<datestamp>1268671080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He didn't even design it, he just co-founded it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't even design it , he just co-founded it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't even design it, he just co-founded it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>tabdelgawad</author>
	<datestamp>1268663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing context.  See here:</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>Apparently, Apple considered Google's Android a stab in the back.  So now Google's CEO (Eric Schmidt) is off Apple's board of directors and Apple is suing HTC for patent infringement (Google is not named, but is the indirect target).</p><p>I'm surprised this whole fight hasn't gotten more coverage on Slashdot.  In any case, I'm squarely in Google's corner on this issue.  We need Android to succeed to preserve competition and openness in the smart phone and tablet/e-reader markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing context .
See here : http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html [ nytimes.com ] Apparently , Apple considered Google 's Android a stab in the back .
So now Google 's CEO ( Eric Schmidt ) is off Apple 's board of directors and Apple is suing HTC for patent infringement ( Google is not named , but is the indirect target ) .I 'm surprised this whole fight has n't gotten more coverage on Slashdot .
In any case , I 'm squarely in Google 's corner on this issue .
We need Android to succeed to preserve competition and openness in the smart phone and tablet/e-reader markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing context.
See here:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html [nytimes.com]Apparently, Apple considered Google's Android a stab in the back.
So now Google's CEO (Eric Schmidt) is off Apple's board of directors and Apple is suing HTC for patent infringement (Google is not named, but is the indirect target).I'm surprised this whole fight hasn't gotten more coverage on Slashdot.
In any case, I'm squarely in Google's corner on this issue.
We need Android to succeed to preserve competition and openness in the smart phone and tablet/e-reader markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492298</id>
	<title>Re:A critic, but not direct opponent of swpats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268679420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but XML is for limp wristed fags, what makes you think he is going to suddenly warrant credibility now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but XML is for limp wristed fags , what makes you think he is going to suddenly warrant credibility now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but XML is for limp wristed fags, what makes you think he is going to suddenly warrant credibility now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31509692</id>
	<title>Why doesn't the android have USB- HOST mode?</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1268845740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why doesn't the android have USB- HOST mode?<br> <br>

Seriously, without that we can't build:<br>
Light turn on gizmos.<br>
Robotics<br>
Cruise controls<br>
TV remote controls<br> <br>

I just did a preliminary investigation of using Android for controlling something and there is no USB-host mode.<br> <br>

WTF


<a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">Need USB HOST MODE</a> [wikispeedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't the android have USB- HOST mode ?
Seriously , without that we ca n't build : Light turn on gizmos .
Robotics Cruise controls TV remote controls I just did a preliminary investigation of using Android for controlling something and there is no USB-host mode .
WTF Need USB HOST MODE [ wikispeedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't the android have USB- HOST mode?
Seriously, without that we can't build:
Light turn on gizmos.
Robotics
Cruise controls
TV remote controls 

I just did a preliminary investigation of using Android for controlling something and there is no USB-host mode.
WTF


Need USB HOST MODE [wikispeedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496772</id>
	<title>Irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268758560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.'"</p><p>Ironic, much like Google's relationship with China.</p><p>Something about people in glass houses....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The people who create the apps serve at the landlord 's pleasure and fear his anger .
' " Ironic , much like Google 's relationship with China.Something about people in glass houses... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.
'"Ironic, much like Google's relationship with China.Something about people in glass houses....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490202</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>trb</author>
	<datestamp>1268660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tim Bray managed the Oxford English Dictionary project - that is, computerizing the OED, back in the 80's, before anyone blazed those trails - and did lots of other cool hacking over the years.  You're saying he doesn't have credibility because he hasn't sampled enough smartphones?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tim Bray managed the Oxford English Dictionary project - that is , computerizing the OED , back in the 80 's , before anyone blazed those trails - and did lots of other cool hacking over the years .
You 're saying he does n't have credibility because he has n't sampled enough smartphones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tim Bray managed the Oxford English Dictionary project - that is, computerizing the OED, back in the 80's, before anyone blazed those trails - and did lots of other cool hacking over the years.
You're saying he doesn't have credibility because he hasn't sampled enough smartphones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492078</id>
	<title>Droid</title>
	<author>manekineko2</author>
	<datestamp>1268676000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, actually I think you're thinking of the ads for the Droid, which is actually just a particular Android device made by Motorola and marketed by Verizon. It was the one with the really macho ads everywhere.</p><p>I don't know what Google was thinking allowing one of their OS users to brand their device the Droid, total marketplace confusion.</p><p>The Palm Pre is Verizon's smartphone for women:<br><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/04/verizon-advertising-says-droid-is-for-men-pre-is-for-women-vid/" title="engadget.com">http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/04/verizon-advertising-says-droid-is-for-men-pre-is-for-women-vid/</a> [engadget.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , actually I think you 're thinking of the ads for the Droid , which is actually just a particular Android device made by Motorola and marketed by Verizon .
It was the one with the really macho ads everywhere.I do n't know what Google was thinking allowing one of their OS users to brand their device the Droid , total marketplace confusion.The Palm Pre is Verizon 's smartphone for women : http : //www.engadget.com/2010/02/04/verizon-advertising-says-droid-is-for-men-pre-is-for-women-vid/ [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, actually I think you're thinking of the ads for the Droid, which is actually just a particular Android device made by Motorola and marketed by Verizon.
It was the one with the really macho ads everywhere.I don't know what Google was thinking allowing one of their OS users to brand their device the Droid, total marketplace confusion.The Palm Pre is Verizon's smartphone for women:http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/04/verizon-advertising-says-droid-is-for-men-pre-is-for-women-vid/ [engadget.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493644</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268744220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we already have maemo, which is ready for the prime time and truly open (heck, it's debian). we don't need any more fragmentation, especially in terms of programming languages. (android's java vs iphone's objc vs nokia's qt/c++)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we already have maemo , which is ready for the prime time and truly open ( heck , it 's debian ) .
we do n't need any more fragmentation , especially in terms of programming languages .
( android 's java vs iphone 's objc vs nokia 's qt/c + + )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we already have maemo, which is ready for the prime time and truly open (heck, it's debian).
we don't need any more fragmentation, especially in terms of programming languages.
(android's java vs iphone's objc vs nokia's qt/c++)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491364</id>
	<title>Re:XML...</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1268668440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>Oh, so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language.</i>
</p><p>
XML is just a simplified subset of SGML.  XML-type stuff had been done in SGML for years, but mostly in government applications.
(SEC filings used SGML, for example.)  For XML, the heavy thinking had all been done. It just needed a promoter for the subset.  It's not like HTML, where the presentation was an issue and browsers had to be developed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language .
XML is just a simplified subset of SGML .
XML-type stuff had been done in SGML for years , but mostly in government applications .
( SEC filings used SGML , for example .
) For XML , the heavy thinking had all been done .
It just needed a promoter for the subset .
It 's not like HTML , where the presentation was an issue and browsers had to be developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Oh, so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language.
XML is just a simplified subset of SGML.
XML-type stuff had been done in SGML for years, but mostly in government applications.
(SEC filings used SGML, for example.
)  For XML, the heavy thinking had all been done.
It just needed a promoter for the subset.
It's not like HTML, where the presentation was an issue and browsers had to be developed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491560</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268670360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you were being sarcastic. If not, I regret to inform you that you're an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you were being sarcastic .
If not , I regret to inform you that you 're an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you were being sarcastic.
If not, I regret to inform you that you're an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490708</id>
	<title>He just wants the sex and violence</title>
	<author>macsyrinx</author>
	<datestamp>1268663580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It&rsquo;s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord&rsquo;s pleasure and fear his anger.

I hate it.

I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great</i>
<p>
He just wants the sex and violence on a phone that he likes, and OS that he likes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers .
The people who create the apps serve at the landlord    s pleasure and fear his anger .
I hate it .
I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great He just wants the sex and violence on a phone that he likes , and OS that he likes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers.
The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger.
I hate it.
I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great

He just wants the sex and violence on a phone that he likes, and OS that he likes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491044</id>
	<title>Re:XML...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268665980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hint - Tim designed it as a <b>markup</b> language, you know - that's why it's right there in the name. For that sort of thing, it's pretty good (and keep in mind that "sorta looks like SGML" was a requirement, just as Java had to look "sorta like C++", to get existing developers to learn it).</p><p>The fact that it has since been used not for markup, but as a general-purpose tree and even graph description language (configs, SOAP packets, etc) isn't his fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hint - Tim designed it as a markup language , you know - that 's why it 's right there in the name .
For that sort of thing , it 's pretty good ( and keep in mind that " sorta looks like SGML " was a requirement , just as Java had to look " sorta like C + + " , to get existing developers to learn it ) .The fact that it has since been used not for markup , but as a general-purpose tree and even graph description language ( configs , SOAP packets , etc ) is n't his fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hint - Tim designed it as a markup language, you know - that's why it's right there in the name.
For that sort of thing, it's pretty good (and keep in mind that "sorta looks like SGML" was a requirement, just as Java had to look "sorta like C++", to get existing developers to learn it).The fact that it has since been used not for markup, but as a general-purpose tree and even graph description language (configs, SOAP packets, etc) isn't his fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</id>
	<title>Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With this, my opinion of Google is now changing. I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between "making money" and "doing the 'right' thing." This, however, is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light. Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.<br> <br>
In case Google has forgotten, Apple has a lot of fans. Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide, Apple or Google, and Google might not like the choice people make. After all, switching away from Apple means buying all new hardware and software. Switching away from Google just means typing in "www.bing.com".<br> <br>
I know which choice I'm going to be inclined to make in the future...</htmltext>
<tokenext>With this , my opinion of Google is now changing .
I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between " making money " and " doing the 'right ' thing .
" This , however , is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light .
Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target .
In case Google has forgotten , Apple has a lot of fans .
Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide , Apple or Google , and Google might not like the choice people make .
After all , switching away from Apple means buying all new hardware and software .
Switching away from Google just means typing in " www.bing.com " .
I know which choice I 'm going to be inclined to make in the future.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With this, my opinion of Google is now changing.
I was a very large fan of Google and thought they were doing a fine balancing act between "making money" and "doing the 'right' thing.
" This, however, is turning things considerably ugly and is painting Google in a very unpleasant light.
Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.
In case Google has forgotten, Apple has a lot of fans.
Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide, Apple or Google, and Google might not like the choice people make.
After all, switching away from Apple means buying all new hardware and software.
Switching away from Google just means typing in "www.bing.com".
I know which choice I'm going to be inclined to make in the future...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31497944</id>
	<title>Re:java vm ghetto better than app store ghetto</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Android doesn't run JVM (it runs Dalvik VM).</p><p>2. Android has an officially supported <a href="http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html" title="android.com">way</a> [android.com] of developing native code applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Android does n't run JVM ( it runs Dalvik VM ) .2 .
Android has an officially supported way [ android.com ] of developing native code applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Android doesn't run JVM (it runs Dalvik VM).2.
Android has an officially supported way [android.com] of developing native code applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490908</id>
	<title>You are free to make a better Apple.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note to all the whiners - Stop it!!</p><p>You and Mr. Bray are free to create a company and come up with another product that people will<br>want to buy instead of Apple's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note to all the whiners - Stop it !
! You and Mr. Bray are free to create a company and come up with another product that people willwant to buy instead of Apple 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note to all the whiners - Stop it!
!You and Mr. Bray are free to create a company and come up with another product that people willwant to buy instead of Apple's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490108</id>
	<title>XML sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Googling XML sucks</p><p>
&nbsp; Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for xml sucks. (0.22 seconds)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Googling XML sucks   Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for xml sucks .
( 0.22 seconds )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googling XML sucks
  Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for xml sucks.
(0.22 seconds)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493674</id>
	<title>Walled garden construction kit</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1268744880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reason Android beat out Openmoko was because Google was willing to make a platform that carriers could turn into a walled garden if they wanted to, while Openmoko was designed to NOT be locked down.</p><p>Sure, technically Google isn't doing evil here. They're just enabling AT&amp;T to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason Android beat out Openmoko was because Google was willing to make a platform that carriers could turn into a walled garden if they wanted to , while Openmoko was designed to NOT be locked down.Sure , technically Google is n't doing evil here .
They 're just enabling AT&amp;T to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason Android beat out Openmoko was because Google was willing to make a platform that carriers could turn into a walled garden if they wanted to, while Openmoko was designed to NOT be locked down.Sure, technically Google isn't doing evil here.
They're just enabling AT&amp;T to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492488</id>
	<title>Quality, simplicity - onus is on Android</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1268682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On my smartphone I want<br>-quality and security vetted apps -just works<br>-apps with simple, quality-assessed human factors ui design<br>-relatively few apps to choose from in each category<br>-performance and battery-life vetted apps<br>-a single simple way to pay for non-free apps or content</p><p>These properties are way more important to me than<br>total freedom for developers on the platform.</p><p>If android can achieve my requirements, and also have<br>a "scratch" area for unvetted apps to be browsed and tried<br>out in secure sandboxes, well, cool, but the onus is on<br>them to show that they have a way of making it easy to<br>limit yourself to finding and running apps that have<br>some standards. Yeah, I know. iFart, But at least its easy<br>to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On my smartphone I want-quality and security vetted apps -just works-apps with simple , quality-assessed human factors ui design-relatively few apps to choose from in each category-performance and battery-life vetted apps-a single simple way to pay for non-free apps or contentThese properties are way more important to me thantotal freedom for developers on the platform.If android can achieve my requirements , and also havea " scratch " area for unvetted apps to be browsed and triedout in secure sandboxes , well , cool , but the onus is onthem to show that they have a way of making it easy tolimit yourself to finding and running apps that havesome standards .
Yeah , I know .
iFart , But at least its easyto use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my smartphone I want-quality and security vetted apps -just works-apps with simple, quality-assessed human factors ui design-relatively few apps to choose from in each category-performance and battery-life vetted apps-a single simple way to pay for non-free apps or contentThese properties are way more important to me thantotal freedom for developers on the platform.If android can achieve my requirements, and also havea "scratch" area for unvetted apps to be browsed and triedout in secure sandboxes, well, cool, but the onus is onthem to show that they have a way of making it easy tolimit yourself to finding and running apps that havesome standards.
Yeah, I know.
iFart, But at least its easyto use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144</id>
	<title>XML...</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1268659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language.  Yeah, I can't wait to not care any less what his opinion of a <i>phone</i> is.<br> <br>

He's right, though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language .
Yeah , I ca n't wait to not care any less what his opinion of a phone is .
He 's right , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so this is the guy who designed that bloated markup language.
Yeah, I can't wait to not care any less what his opinion of a phone is.
He's right, though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492542</id>
	<title>Meditation</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1268770200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I visited a meditation garden with my family. It was a very beautiful place. Our children were excited and making quite a bit of noise. A polite lady asked us if we could keep our children quiet because people were meditating. We agreed. It had walls, this garden. And a gate. We will be going back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I visited a meditation garden with my family .
It was a very beautiful place .
Our children were excited and making quite a bit of noise .
A polite lady asked us if we could keep our children quiet because people were meditating .
We agreed .
It had walls , this garden .
And a gate .
We will be going back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I visited a meditation garden with my family.
It was a very beautiful place.
Our children were excited and making quite a bit of noise.
A polite lady asked us if we could keep our children quiet because people were meditating.
We agreed.
It had walls, this garden.
And a gate.
We will be going back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492442</id>
	<title>Re:XML...</title>
	<author>glassware</author>
	<datestamp>1268681820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the real question is, was he the idiot that came up with the "' in it?  Oh, too bad, my entire system fails on those three characters.  I just assumed nobody would ever want to use those three characters together."</p><p>Anyone who's designed encoding systems would know that, by the mere fact of selecting a token, you make that token text that people will need to embed.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  A proper language would take into account the fact that you will someday have to nest that ending token inside another element.  HTML encoding, for example, works.  CDATA doesn't.  In fact, there's no reason why CDATA should ever have existed - you could simply have specified that complex characters would be represented by html encoding, which can nest infinitely deeply.  But instead, now we have to program special rules for CDATA conditions that are unreliable at best and wrong at worst.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the real question is , was he the idiot that came up with the " ' in it ?
Oh , too bad , my entire system fails on those three characters .
I just assumed nobody would ever want to use those three characters together .
" Anyone who 's designed encoding systems would know that , by the mere fact of selecting a token , you make that token text that people will need to embed .
: ) A proper language would take into account the fact that you will someday have to nest that ending token inside another element .
HTML encoding , for example , works .
CDATA does n't .
In fact , there 's no reason why CDATA should ever have existed - you could simply have specified that complex characters would be represented by html encoding , which can nest infinitely deeply .
But instead , now we have to program special rules for CDATA conditions that are unreliable at best and wrong at worst .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the real question is, was he the idiot that came up with the "' in it?
Oh, too bad, my entire system fails on those three characters.
I just assumed nobody would ever want to use those three characters together.
"Anyone who's designed encoding systems would know that, by the mere fact of selecting a token, you make that token text that people will need to embed.
:)  A proper language would take into account the fact that you will someday have to nest that ending token inside another element.
HTML encoding, for example, works.
CDATA doesn't.
In fact, there's no reason why CDATA should ever have existed - you could simply have specified that complex characters would be represented by html encoding, which can nest infinitely deeply.
But instead, now we have to program special rules for CDATA conditions that are unreliable at best and wrong at worst.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490732</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1268663760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.</p></div><p>The sad thing is that this site has already seen that happen with Linux zealotry.  I can't believe I'm watching this little bit of history repeat itself again.  Who is going to take Android or any other OS seriously when people that like it actively call iPhone users 'iSheep' or say that the only reason they like their phone is because Steve Jobs tells them to?</p><p>I think this site would rather have flame wars than actually guide people towards Open Source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.The sad thing is that this site has already seen that happen with Linux zealotry .
I ca n't believe I 'm watching this little bit of history repeat itself again .
Who is going to take Android or any other OS seriously when people that like it actively call iPhone users 'iSheep ' or say that the only reason they like their phone is because Steve Jobs tells them to ? I think this site would rather have flame wars than actually guide people towards Open Source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mud-slinging is never pretty and often makes the slinger look worse than the target.The sad thing is that this site has already seen that happen with Linux zealotry.
I can't believe I'm watching this little bit of history repeat itself again.
Who is going to take Android or any other OS seriously when people that like it actively call iPhone users 'iSheep' or say that the only reason they like their phone is because Steve Jobs tells them to?I think this site would rather have flame wars than actually guide people towards Open Source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31506956</id>
	<title>Re:He's right.</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1268832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most technologies do not sell off failed products to third parties.  There is still IP there can be used for future products.  Like people, companies learn from their mistakes.</p><p>They made a serious bid for what they valued a failed product, they have no idea what Apple was able to do with what was learned in the development of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most technologies do not sell off failed products to third parties .
There is still IP there can be used for future products .
Like people , companies learn from their mistakes.They made a serious bid for what they valued a failed product , they have no idea what Apple was able to do with what was learned in the development of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most technologies do not sell off failed products to third parties.
There is still IP there can be used for future products.
Like people, companies learn from their mistakes.They made a serious bid for what they valued a failed product, they have no idea what Apple was able to do with what was learned in the development of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492250</id>
	<title>Re:Everybody be cool, this is a 'vangellery!</title>
	<author>tbray</author>
	<datestamp>1268678760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tha muthafuckin phone is fulla muthafuckin snakes!  Hey, I could get used to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tha muthafuckin phone is fulla muthafuckin snakes !
Hey , I could get used to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tha muthafuckin phone is fulla muthafuckin snakes!
Hey, I could get used to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494962</id>
	<title>And...</title>
	<author>Rand Race</author>
	<datestamp>1268752080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Google and I have been a plausible match for a long time. Web-centric, check. Search, check. Open-source, check. The list goes on.</i></p><p>Unstable, check. Virus ridden, check. Poorly documented, check. Good enough but cheaper than the best, oh you better believe that's a check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google and I have been a plausible match for a long time .
Web-centric , check .
Search , check .
Open-source , check .
The list goes on.Unstable , check .
Virus ridden , check .
Poorly documented , check .
Good enough but cheaper than the best , oh you better believe that 's a check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google and I have been a plausible match for a long time.
Web-centric, check.
Search, check.
Open-source, check.
The list goes on.Unstable, check.
Virus ridden, check.
Poorly documented, check.
Good enough but cheaper than the best, oh you better believe that's a check.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492390</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1268680740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They didn't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space.</p></div><p>They may have gotten rid of DRM in an advanced stage, but that might have been because the competition was emerging with DRM free files, and Apple was moving to keep step.  As a matter of fact, I think that's more the case.  There are a few stories that Jobs was against DRM from the get go, but had to go with it <a href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/" title="apple.com">per the record industry</a> [apple.com].  I mean you can accuse him of lying, but this is what the man says.<br> <br>On another point, you say Apple has achieved a "strong monopoly" in the music player space.  I don't find this to be true.  Yes, they have the lion's share of the market, but that doesn't imply that they have a monopoly or full control of the market.  There are competing players, they exist, and they sell.  Apple does not have the market horizontally integrated, and it doesn't control the player market.  The consumer can definitely still choose alternatives.  It just means that they have a majority market share because the consumer considers their product(s)/ecosystem to be that good.  Apple was there at the beginning and struck at a pivotal time.  They created an integrated music store and player system that competition can barely ape (at best, even today!).  Heck, not even Sony has put out an end-to-end system that competes with Apples in the reasonable sense, and they could have vertical integration!  (I love using these robber baron terms).<br> <br>Lastly, I ask you, what would the impetus be for Apple to unlock iTunes to make the music simply compatible with <em>other players?</em>  Especially given the fact that consumers can get unlocked music from other places already?  It wasn't in Apple's best interest, their consumers could already <em>use the product anyway</em> and people who didn't opt in, hadn't yet opted in anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space.They may have gotten rid of DRM in an advanced stage , but that might have been because the competition was emerging with DRM free files , and Apple was moving to keep step .
As a matter of fact , I think that 's more the case .
There are a few stories that Jobs was against DRM from the get go , but had to go with it per the record industry [ apple.com ] .
I mean you can accuse him of lying , but this is what the man says .
On another point , you say Apple has achieved a " strong monopoly " in the music player space .
I do n't find this to be true .
Yes , they have the lion 's share of the market , but that does n't imply that they have a monopoly or full control of the market .
There are competing players , they exist , and they sell .
Apple does not have the market horizontally integrated , and it does n't control the player market .
The consumer can definitely still choose alternatives .
It just means that they have a majority market share because the consumer considers their product ( s ) /ecosystem to be that good .
Apple was there at the beginning and struck at a pivotal time .
They created an integrated music store and player system that competition can barely ape ( at best , even today ! ) .
Heck , not even Sony has put out an end-to-end system that competes with Apples in the reasonable sense , and they could have vertical integration !
( I love using these robber baron terms ) .
Lastly , I ask you , what would the impetus be for Apple to unlock iTunes to make the music simply compatible with other players ?
Especially given the fact that consumers can get unlocked music from other places already ?
It was n't in Apple 's best interest , their consumers could already use the product anyway and people who did n't opt in , had n't yet opted in anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't change the DRM scheme until after they had secured a strong monopoly position in that market space.They may have gotten rid of DRM in an advanced stage, but that might have been because the competition was emerging with DRM free files, and Apple was moving to keep step.
As a matter of fact, I think that's more the case.
There are a few stories that Jobs was against DRM from the get go, but had to go with it per the record industry [apple.com].
I mean you can accuse him of lying, but this is what the man says.
On another point, you say Apple has achieved a "strong monopoly" in the music player space.
I don't find this to be true.
Yes, they have the lion's share of the market, but that doesn't imply that they have a monopoly or full control of the market.
There are competing players, they exist, and they sell.
Apple does not have the market horizontally integrated, and it doesn't control the player market.
The consumer can definitely still choose alternatives.
It just means that they have a majority market share because the consumer considers their product(s)/ecosystem to be that good.
Apple was there at the beginning and struck at a pivotal time.
They created an integrated music store and player system that competition can barely ape (at best, even today!).
Heck, not even Sony has put out an end-to-end system that competes with Apples in the reasonable sense, and they could have vertical integration!
(I love using these robber baron terms).
Lastly, I ask you, what would the impetus be for Apple to unlock iTunes to make the music simply compatible with other players?
Especially given the fact that consumers can get unlocked music from other places already?
It wasn't in Apple's best interest, their consumers could already use the product anyway and people who didn't opt in, hadn't yet opted in anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000</id>
	<title>Surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course he's going to blast the iPhone. Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevant in the future in the same way that Microsoft did in the cloud (for lack of a better term).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course he 's going to blast the iPhone .
Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevant in the future in the same way that Microsoft did in the cloud ( for lack of a better term ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course he's going to blast the iPhone.
Google needs to de-trone the iPhone as the market leader in advanced phones otherwise they run the risk of becoming irrelevant in the future in the same way that Microsoft did in the cloud (for lack of a better term).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love freetards</title>
	<author>Raffaello</author>
	<datestamp>1268673360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just gonna burn some karma here since you've unfortunately been modded 0 flamebait:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution, why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue:</p><p>For normal users (or even geeks who don't have the time/energy to care), walled garden that "just works" beats open solution that "sorta works" (even 'mostly') 10 times out of 10</p></div><p>You sir, are absolutely right, no matter how much we people who read slashdot, we denizens of the extreme right hand tail of the user bell curve, wish it weren't so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just gon na burn some karma here since you 've unfortunately been modded 0 flamebait : As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution , why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue : For normal users ( or even geeks who do n't have the time/energy to care ) , walled garden that " just works " beats open solution that " sorta works " ( even 'mostly ' ) 10 times out of 10You sir , are absolutely right , no matter how much we people who read slashdot , we denizens of the extreme right hand tail of the user bell curve , wish it were n't so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just gonna burn some karma here since you've unfortunately been modded 0 flamebait:As much as I enjoy tinkering w/ open source and recognise its massive contribution, why is it so hard for freetards to grasp the key issue:For normal users (or even geeks who don't have the time/energy to care), walled garden that "just works" beats open solution that "sorta works" (even 'mostly') 10 times out of 10You sir, are absolutely right, no matter how much we people who read slashdot, we denizens of the extreme right hand tail of the user bell curve, wish it weren't so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490086</id>
	<title>That seems to be Apple's role...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b> <em> <strong>They make the breakthroughs in technology, but leave others to fully exploit it.  Their first mice had one button so that others could have two or three.  Their music player and iTunes had to deal with DRM and proprietary formats so that others could develop cheaper players and negotiate DRM-free MP3 sales.</strong> </em> </b> </p><p> <b> <em> <strong>Being first is risky in business, but Apple has really made it work for themselves.  Yeah, iPhone app development is a real pain, but there's a reason so many people put up with it -- and iPhone users couldn't be happier with the results.</strong></em></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They make the breakthroughs in technology , but leave others to fully exploit it .
Their first mice had one button so that others could have two or three .
Their music player and iTunes had to deal with DRM and proprietary formats so that others could develop cheaper players and negotiate DRM-free MP3 sales .
Being first is risky in business , but Apple has really made it work for themselves .
Yeah , iPhone app development is a real pain , but there 's a reason so many people put up with it -- and iPhone users could n't be happier with the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   They make the breakthroughs in technology, but leave others to fully exploit it.
Their first mice had one button so that others could have two or three.
Their music player and iTunes had to deal with DRM and proprietary formats so that others could develop cheaper players and negotiate DRM-free MP3 sales.
Being first is risky in business, but Apple has really made it work for themselves.
Yeah, iPhone app development is a real pain, but there's a reason so many people put up with it -- and iPhone users couldn't be happier with the results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496690</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1268758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the way, your Tautology Club card is your Tautology Club card. You can collect it at a place of collecting Tautology Club cards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , your Tautology Club card is your Tautology Club card .
You can collect it at a place of collecting Tautology Club cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, your Tautology Club card is your Tautology Club card.
You can collect it at a place of collecting Tautology Club cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492410</id>
	<title>Pragmatism Pragmatism Pragmatism Pragmatism!</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1268681220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reworking the line from Steve Ballmer.  Everybody seems to be reminiscing about the days when this stuff was open, but it was open because that's what people wanted to buy!  Steve Jobs could be a nasty guy like people pass him off (I don't know him, so I reserve judgement), but what he is good at is reading markets.  He was good then, and he's good now.  Steve Jobs doesn't care about openness more than closed-ness.  The man wants a product that sells, he's a businessman to the core (and a damn good one at that).  If it's open stuff, he'll make it, but right now he doesn't see it that way, and I'm inclined to agree with him.  The typical consumer he's targeting wants an integrated product suite that "just works".  Openness takes a backseat to dealing with the alternative (to your typical Mac user, IMO!!).  You can't really hold it against the user, or Jobs, for creating a product and acting as such.  I'm sure you can come up with other reasons to hate them though..  That Mac user loves his VW, lattes at Starbucks, thick black rimmed square glasses and listening to Moby.  Steve Jobs is running a company that, apparently, goes nuts in court over patents and control of its OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reworking the line from Steve Ballmer .
Everybody seems to be reminiscing about the days when this stuff was open , but it was open because that 's what people wanted to buy !
Steve Jobs could be a nasty guy like people pass him off ( I do n't know him , so I reserve judgement ) , but what he is good at is reading markets .
He was good then , and he 's good now .
Steve Jobs does n't care about openness more than closed-ness .
The man wants a product that sells , he 's a businessman to the core ( and a damn good one at that ) .
If it 's open stuff , he 'll make it , but right now he does n't see it that way , and I 'm inclined to agree with him .
The typical consumer he 's targeting wants an integrated product suite that " just works " .
Openness takes a backseat to dealing with the alternative ( to your typical Mac user , IMO ! ! ) .
You ca n't really hold it against the user , or Jobs , for creating a product and acting as such .
I 'm sure you can come up with other reasons to hate them though.. That Mac user loves his VW , lattes at Starbucks , thick black rimmed square glasses and listening to Moby .
Steve Jobs is running a company that , apparently , goes nuts in court over patents and control of its OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reworking the line from Steve Ballmer.
Everybody seems to be reminiscing about the days when this stuff was open, but it was open because that's what people wanted to buy!
Steve Jobs could be a nasty guy like people pass him off (I don't know him, so I reserve judgement), but what he is good at is reading markets.
He was good then, and he's good now.
Steve Jobs doesn't care about openness more than closed-ness.
The man wants a product that sells, he's a businessman to the core (and a damn good one at that).
If it's open stuff, he'll make it, but right now he doesn't see it that way, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
The typical consumer he's targeting wants an integrated product suite that "just works".
Openness takes a backseat to dealing with the alternative (to your typical Mac user, IMO!!).
You can't really hold it against the user, or Jobs, for creating a product and acting as such.
I'm sure you can come up with other reasons to hate them though..  That Mac user loves his VW, lattes at Starbucks, thick black rimmed square glasses and listening to Moby.
Steve Jobs is running a company that, apparently, goes nuts in court over patents and control of its OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491252</id>
	<title>Re:He's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268667600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed &amp; proprietary.</i></p><p>Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date? Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash? Contributing to webkit?</p><p>The future is going to continue to be dominated by the web. Apple provides a really good web platform in their products.</p><p>You can write any web application you want, and get people on iPhone and iPad to use it. HTML5 has great support in Safari.</p><p>You can write any full application you want for the Mac platform, using one of the best development environments in Xcode.</p><p>You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment. The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store. Apple has decided to tightly control that marketplace. Some of their reasoning is valid -- security issues, quality control issues, etc. Some of it has to do with branding, things they don't want to be associated with. Some of it has to do with appealing to the widest audience. And yes, some of it has to do with business.</p><p>What I would like to see Apple do, and I think they eventually will be forced by the marketplace to do this -- is to allow apps to be installed from sources outside the App Store. Google Android will push them to do this, if for no other reason than Apple can answer all critics.</p><p>Invariably, Apple tends to solve criticisms eventually, before they erode mindshare.</p><p>Consider the history of iPhone:</p><p>- Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps? Solved in OS 2.0.</p><p>- Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste? Solved in OS 3.0.</p><p>- Criticisms #3 and #4. Now Android is picking up steam. What are the primary advantages people name for Android? Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.</p><p>Well, Apple is rumored to be addressing multi-tasking in OS 4.0. I'm not one of those people that berates them for not having it from the beginning, I think they tackled major problems that plagued earlier "smartphones," i.e. overly complex process management, and battery use issues. As hardware evolves, battery life is less of a problem, and I am confident Apple can solve user interface challenges.</p><p>If they did address multi-tasking and application installation, what would all of you guys bitch about? Oh, right. AT&amp;T.</p><p>Disclaimer: I own stock in Apple and Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But when push comes to shove , I 'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed &amp; proprietary.Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date ?
Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash ?
Contributing to webkit ? The future is going to continue to be dominated by the web .
Apple provides a really good web platform in their products.You can write any web application you want , and get people on iPhone and iPad to use it .
HTML5 has great support in Safari.You can write any full application you want for the Mac platform , using one of the best development environments in Xcode.You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad , as well , using the exact same environment .
The only question is whether or not you 're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store .
Apple has decided to tightly control that marketplace .
Some of their reasoning is valid -- security issues , quality control issues , etc .
Some of it has to do with branding , things they do n't want to be associated with .
Some of it has to do with appealing to the widest audience .
And yes , some of it has to do with business.What I would like to see Apple do , and I think they eventually will be forced by the marketplace to do this -- is to allow apps to be installed from sources outside the App Store .
Google Android will push them to do this , if for no other reason than Apple can answer all critics.Invariably , Apple tends to solve criticisms eventually , before they erode mindshare.Consider the history of iPhone : - Criticism # 1 : What , no native apps , only web apps ?
Solved in OS 2.0.- Criticism # 2 : What , no copy and paste ?
Solved in OS 3.0.- Criticisms # 3 and # 4 .
Now Android is picking up steam .
What are the primary advantages people name for Android ?
Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.Well , Apple is rumored to be addressing multi-tasking in OS 4.0 .
I 'm not one of those people that berates them for not having it from the beginning , I think they tackled major problems that plagued earlier " smartphones , " i.e .
overly complex process management , and battery use issues .
As hardware evolves , battery life is less of a problem , and I am confident Apple can solve user interface challenges.If they did address multi-tasking and application installation , what would all of you guys bitch about ?
Oh , right .
AT&amp;T.Disclaimer : I own stock in Apple and Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed &amp; proprietary.Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date?
Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash?
Contributing to webkit?The future is going to continue to be dominated by the web.
Apple provides a really good web platform in their products.You can write any web application you want, and get people on iPhone and iPad to use it.
HTML5 has great support in Safari.You can write any full application you want for the Mac platform, using one of the best development environments in Xcode.You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment.
The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store.
Apple has decided to tightly control that marketplace.
Some of their reasoning is valid -- security issues, quality control issues, etc.
Some of it has to do with branding, things they don't want to be associated with.
Some of it has to do with appealing to the widest audience.
And yes, some of it has to do with business.What I would like to see Apple do, and I think they eventually will be forced by the marketplace to do this -- is to allow apps to be installed from sources outside the App Store.
Google Android will push them to do this, if for no other reason than Apple can answer all critics.Invariably, Apple tends to solve criticisms eventually, before they erode mindshare.Consider the history of iPhone:- Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps?
Solved in OS 2.0.- Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste?
Solved in OS 3.0.- Criticisms #3 and #4.
Now Android is picking up steam.
What are the primary advantages people name for Android?
Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.Well, Apple is rumored to be addressing multi-tasking in OS 4.0.
I'm not one of those people that berates them for not having it from the beginning, I think they tackled major problems that plagued earlier "smartphones," i.e.
overly complex process management, and battery use issues.
As hardware evolves, battery life is less of a problem, and I am confident Apple can solve user interface challenges.If they did address multi-tasking and application installation, what would all of you guys bitch about?
Oh, right.
AT&amp;T.Disclaimer: I own stock in Apple and Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490062</id>
	<title>Wait, what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XML was "founded"?  What is it, a city?  An institution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XML was " founded " ?
What is it , a city ?
An institution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML was "founded"?
What is it, a city?
An institution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491088</id>
	<title>When it happened</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, THAT explains it!  Now that I've got a rough time estimate to go against, it all makes sense!  Around the exact time this guy originally made these statements, I noticed all my iPhone-toting co-workers suddenly stopped in their tracks, all at once, all sort of staring into space.  Then their heads jerked a bit, all in unison, complete with a very subtle but decidedly inhuman clicking noise.</p><p>Now, I was on the phone at the time when I was walking by, and they all slowly turned their heads straight at my Nexus One, with empty, unblinking stares in their eyes.  Then they all pointed at me, and for the next couple hours it was all this cacophony of "cleanse the unpure" this and "the sinner must pay" that as they chased me all over the office.  If it weren't for the RescueDroid app I found in a non-Marketplace website, I would've been done for, but in a matter of a half-hour of hiding, a blue, red, yellow, and green-colored helicopter came to rescue me.</p><p>Man, first interesting day at work in ages!  Anyway, am I sure glad THAT got cleared up!  Would've been wondering about it for MONTHS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , THAT explains it !
Now that I 've got a rough time estimate to go against , it all makes sense !
Around the exact time this guy originally made these statements , I noticed all my iPhone-toting co-workers suddenly stopped in their tracks , all at once , all sort of staring into space .
Then their heads jerked a bit , all in unison , complete with a very subtle but decidedly inhuman clicking noise.Now , I was on the phone at the time when I was walking by , and they all slowly turned their heads straight at my Nexus One , with empty , unblinking stares in their eyes .
Then they all pointed at me , and for the next couple hours it was all this cacophony of " cleanse the unpure " this and " the sinner must pay " that as they chased me all over the office .
If it were n't for the RescueDroid app I found in a non-Marketplace website , I would 've been done for , but in a matter of a half-hour of hiding , a blue , red , yellow , and green-colored helicopter came to rescue me.Man , first interesting day at work in ages !
Anyway , am I sure glad THAT got cleared up !
Would 've been wondering about it for MONTHS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, THAT explains it!
Now that I've got a rough time estimate to go against, it all makes sense!
Around the exact time this guy originally made these statements, I noticed all my iPhone-toting co-workers suddenly stopped in their tracks, all at once, all sort of staring into space.
Then their heads jerked a bit, all in unison, complete with a very subtle but decidedly inhuman clicking noise.Now, I was on the phone at the time when I was walking by, and they all slowly turned their heads straight at my Nexus One, with empty, unblinking stares in their eyes.
Then they all pointed at me, and for the next couple hours it was all this cacophony of "cleanse the unpure" this and "the sinner must pay" that as they chased me all over the office.
If it weren't for the RescueDroid app I found in a non-Marketplace website, I would've been done for, but in a matter of a half-hour of hiding, a blue, red, yellow, and green-colored helicopter came to rescue me.Man, first interesting day at work in ages!
Anyway, am I sure glad THAT got cleared up!
Would've been wondering about it for MONTHS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491642</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268671140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With this, my opinion of Google is now changing</p></div><p>Then, as Gregory House, M.D. would no doubt say, "You're an idiot."
<br> <br>
This is one employee of Google making comments about a product and a company that he doesn't particularly like. You're taking it way too seriously (which simply marks you as a likely candidate for iPhone ownership. If you don't have one already, you will sooner or later. I wish you luck.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Outright insulting Apple in this way</p></div><p>Apple Computer can't be insulted: it's not a person. It's a corporation, and frankly it's deserving of such a critique. If you mean that the man is insulting iPhone <i>customers</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, he's criticizing their choices, and offering legitimate reasons as to why they made a bad one. Given that the bulk of iPhone customers made that choice because they didn't bother to look past Apple's marketing hype, I'd say he's performing a public service.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>forces people to decide, Apple or Google</p></div><p>What? Why would it? All of Google's services are, for the most part, readily available to iPhone owners. Google wants it that way. Furthermore, as the happy owner of an Android phone there's nothing that Apple has to offer in terms of online services that would interest me. So how is Google being evil here, again?
<br> <br>
Fact is, Apple owners <i>in particular</i> behave like zombies (or maybe lemmings, certainly pack animals of some kind or other) when defending their toy, and rather than take the man's statements at face value and acknowledge that it happens to be <i>true</i>, will simply hide behind the usual wall of arrogant ignorance (arrignorance?) exhibited by many Apple users.. What this might (hopefully) do is make people that were considering Apple think twice. There are alternatives to Apple's iPhone, even if Apple won't publicly admit that, and it's high time that the facts about Apple's high-handed behavior are given a wider public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With this , my opinion of Google is now changingThen , as Gregory House , M.D .
would no doubt say , " You 're an idiot .
" This is one employee of Google making comments about a product and a company that he does n't particularly like .
You 're taking it way too seriously ( which simply marks you as a likely candidate for iPhone ownership .
If you do n't have one already , you will sooner or later .
I wish you luck .
) Outright insulting Apple in this wayApple Computer ca n't be insulted : it 's not a person .
It 's a corporation , and frankly it 's deserving of such a critique .
If you mean that the man is insulting iPhone customers ... well , he 's criticizing their choices , and offering legitimate reasons as to why they made a bad one .
Given that the bulk of iPhone customers made that choice because they did n't bother to look past Apple 's marketing hype , I 'd say he 's performing a public service.forces people to decide , Apple or GoogleWhat ?
Why would it ?
All of Google 's services are , for the most part , readily available to iPhone owners .
Google wants it that way .
Furthermore , as the happy owner of an Android phone there 's nothing that Apple has to offer in terms of online services that would interest me .
So how is Google being evil here , again ?
Fact is , Apple owners in particular behave like zombies ( or maybe lemmings , certainly pack animals of some kind or other ) when defending their toy , and rather than take the man 's statements at face value and acknowledge that it happens to be true , will simply hide behind the usual wall of arrogant ignorance ( arrignorance ?
) exhibited by many Apple users.. What this might ( hopefully ) do is make people that were considering Apple think twice .
There are alternatives to Apple 's iPhone , even if Apple wo n't publicly admit that , and it 's high time that the facts about Apple 's high-handed behavior are given a wider public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With this, my opinion of Google is now changingThen, as Gregory House, M.D.
would no doubt say, "You're an idiot.
"
 
This is one employee of Google making comments about a product and a company that he doesn't particularly like.
You're taking it way too seriously (which simply marks you as a likely candidate for iPhone ownership.
If you don't have one already, you will sooner or later.
I wish you luck.
)Outright insulting Apple in this wayApple Computer can't be insulted: it's not a person.
It's a corporation, and frankly it's deserving of such a critique.
If you mean that the man is insulting iPhone customers ... well, he's criticizing their choices, and offering legitimate reasons as to why they made a bad one.
Given that the bulk of iPhone customers made that choice because they didn't bother to look past Apple's marketing hype, I'd say he's performing a public service.forces people to decide, Apple or GoogleWhat?
Why would it?
All of Google's services are, for the most part, readily available to iPhone owners.
Google wants it that way.
Furthermore, as the happy owner of an Android phone there's nothing that Apple has to offer in terms of online services that would interest me.
So how is Google being evil here, again?
Fact is, Apple owners in particular behave like zombies (or maybe lemmings, certainly pack animals of some kind or other) when defending their toy, and rather than take the man's statements at face value and acknowledge that it happens to be true, will simply hide behind the usual wall of arrogant ignorance (arrignorance?
) exhibited by many Apple users.. What this might (hopefully) do is make people that were considering Apple think twice.
There are alternatives to Apple's iPhone, even if Apple won't publicly admit that, and it's high time that the facts about Apple's high-handed behavior are given a wider public.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490106</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1268659680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, if it were his *first* smartphone, how could it *not* be the best he'd ever owned?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , if it were his * first * smartphone , how could it * not * be the best he 'd ever owned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, if it were his *first* smartphone, how could it *not* be the best he'd ever owned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490778</id>
	<title>Eh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure the iPhone is a "walled garden" and sure it's all filled with DRM and the music store sucks.</p><p>Eh...</p><p>The thing is the thing works wonderfully well, I've not had the chance to try out an Android phone just yet, might turn out it works just as well or better; but that does not change the fact the iPhone does it job wonderfully well.<br>Sure Apple might rule the app store with an iron fist and put all kinds of restrictions on what kind of apps the developers can put on there, again does not change the fact that many of the apps that do make in into the app store are good apps (or at least marginally useful or entertaining).<br>The Android phones might allow the developers more freedom, it might allow them TONS more freedom and the result might be that there will be more cool and more useful apps released for the Android phones. Again this does not change the fact that the iPhone also has some good apps.</p><p>iPhone, Android. In the end it's all the same, they're both phones, they both do relatively the same things and offer relatively the same services. It is not like the increased freedom offered to developers in the Android app store is going to somehow magically revolutionize the mobile phone market, it is simply going to result in Android being a different product to the iPhone.<br>I'm no Apple fanboy, I just don't particularly care. If you like the iPhone (and many do), fine buy one, use it and like it. If you want an Android phone, buy one, use it and so forth.</p><p>Aside from the OS and the associated policies the Nexus One and the iPhone are basically the same stuff in different wrappers, neither one is doing something that is in any way revolutionary.<br>I mean be objective about it, both phones can make calls, send text messages, handle contacts and calender information, handle e-mail and browse the web and offers apps and a way to distribute those apps, both come with bluetooth, gps and a way to store (some kinds of)data.<br>They are the same thing, the differences between the two are philosophical neither one is superior (or really that unique any more) so get the one you like.</p><p>(and if you want more freedom on the iPhone, jailbreak it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure the iPhone is a " walled garden " and sure it 's all filled with DRM and the music store sucks.Eh...The thing is the thing works wonderfully well , I 've not had the chance to try out an Android phone just yet , might turn out it works just as well or better ; but that does not change the fact the iPhone does it job wonderfully well.Sure Apple might rule the app store with an iron fist and put all kinds of restrictions on what kind of apps the developers can put on there , again does not change the fact that many of the apps that do make in into the app store are good apps ( or at least marginally useful or entertaining ) .The Android phones might allow the developers more freedom , it might allow them TONS more freedom and the result might be that there will be more cool and more useful apps released for the Android phones .
Again this does not change the fact that the iPhone also has some good apps.iPhone , Android .
In the end it 's all the same , they 're both phones , they both do relatively the same things and offer relatively the same services .
It is not like the increased freedom offered to developers in the Android app store is going to somehow magically revolutionize the mobile phone market , it is simply going to result in Android being a different product to the iPhone.I 'm no Apple fanboy , I just do n't particularly care .
If you like the iPhone ( and many do ) , fine buy one , use it and like it .
If you want an Android phone , buy one , use it and so forth.Aside from the OS and the associated policies the Nexus One and the iPhone are basically the same stuff in different wrappers , neither one is doing something that is in any way revolutionary.I mean be objective about it , both phones can make calls , send text messages , handle contacts and calender information , handle e-mail and browse the web and offers apps and a way to distribute those apps , both come with bluetooth , gps and a way to store ( some kinds of ) data.They are the same thing , the differences between the two are philosophical neither one is superior ( or really that unique any more ) so get the one you like .
( and if you want more freedom on the iPhone , jailbreak it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure the iPhone is a "walled garden" and sure it's all filled with DRM and the music store sucks.Eh...The thing is the thing works wonderfully well, I've not had the chance to try out an Android phone just yet, might turn out it works just as well or better; but that does not change the fact the iPhone does it job wonderfully well.Sure Apple might rule the app store with an iron fist and put all kinds of restrictions on what kind of apps the developers can put on there, again does not change the fact that many of the apps that do make in into the app store are good apps (or at least marginally useful or entertaining).The Android phones might allow the developers more freedom, it might allow them TONS more freedom and the result might be that there will be more cool and more useful apps released for the Android phones.
Again this does not change the fact that the iPhone also has some good apps.iPhone, Android.
In the end it's all the same, they're both phones, they both do relatively the same things and offer relatively the same services.
It is not like the increased freedom offered to developers in the Android app store is going to somehow magically revolutionize the mobile phone market, it is simply going to result in Android being a different product to the iPhone.I'm no Apple fanboy, I just don't particularly care.
If you like the iPhone (and many do), fine buy one, use it and like it.
If you want an Android phone, buy one, use it and so forth.Aside from the OS and the associated policies the Nexus One and the iPhone are basically the same stuff in different wrappers, neither one is doing something that is in any way revolutionary.I mean be objective about it, both phones can make calls, send text messages, handle contacts and calender information, handle e-mail and browse the web and offers apps and a way to distribute those apps, both come with bluetooth, gps and a way to store (some kinds of)data.They are the same thing, the differences between the two are philosophical neither one is superior (or really that unique any more) so get the one you like.
(and if you want more freedom on the iPhone, jailbreak it)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493110</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He knows about religion because atheism is a religion. A no-god religion. But it meets all the requirements of being a fundamentalist cult. and i am knox@knoxbronson.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... too tired to create an account at the moment.  am an apple fanboy, been lurking for years here.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He knows about religion because atheism is a religion .
A no-god religion .
But it meets all the requirements of being a fundamentalist cult .
and i am knox @ knoxbronson.com ... too tired to create an account at the moment .
am an apple fanboy , been lurking for years here .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He knows about religion because atheism is a religion.
A no-god religion.
But it meets all the requirements of being a fundamentalist cult.
and i am knox@knoxbronson.com ... too tired to create an account at the moment.
am an apple fanboy, been lurking for years here.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490140</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1268659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only is it a walled garden, but everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e. the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players (at least they opened it up to other vendors besides themselves), etc, all crying out that this would be bad for the consumer. Well, Apple has done exactly what Microsoft was doing 10 years ago, it's just that since it was Apple, it was ok (don't mod me down, I'm not trying to troll here). There's some traction in the tech media about Apple doing to developers what slashdotites claimed MS would do, but since Apple isn't the (or wasn't) 800 lb gorilla most people let it slide. Well now Apple owns the market segment (or at least a good portion of it) and ceding Poland to Apple is showing it's downside. Google's approach is definitely better, but right now the fact of the matter is that Apple's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft's has been in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is it a walled garden , but everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing , i.e .
the digital wallet , multiple music stores , music players ( at least they opened it up to other vendors besides themselves ) , etc , all crying out that this would be bad for the consumer .
Well , Apple has done exactly what Microsoft was doing 10 years ago , it 's just that since it was Apple , it was ok ( do n't mod me down , I 'm not trying to troll here ) .
There 's some traction in the tech media about Apple doing to developers what slashdotites claimed MS would do , but since Apple is n't the ( or was n't ) 800 lb gorilla most people let it slide .
Well now Apple owns the market segment ( or at least a good portion of it ) and ceding Poland to Apple is showing it 's downside .
Google 's approach is definitely better , but right now the fact of the matter is that Apple 's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft 's has been in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is it a walled garden, but everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e.
the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players (at least they opened it up to other vendors besides themselves), etc, all crying out that this would be bad for the consumer.
Well, Apple has done exactly what Microsoft was doing 10 years ago, it's just that since it was Apple, it was ok (don't mod me down, I'm not trying to troll here).
There's some traction in the tech media about Apple doing to developers what slashdotites claimed MS would do, but since Apple isn't the (or wasn't) 800 lb gorilla most people let it slide.
Well now Apple owns the market segment (or at least a good portion of it) and ceding Poland to Apple is showing it's downside.
Google's approach is definitely better, but right now the fact of the matter is that Apple's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft's has been in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31497976</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>BlackCobra43</author>
	<datestamp>1268762820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it was the [i]worst[/i] he'd ever owned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it was the [ i ] worst [ /i ] he 'd ever owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it was the [i]worst[/i] he'd ever owned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494220</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>ndavis</author>
	<datestamp>1268748840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?</p><p>What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.</p><p>Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.</p><p>Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?</p><p>Wow.</p></div><p>
I think the reason Apple wanted to remove DRM is for two reasons.<br> <br>

First Amazon.com was selling non DRM MP3 files.  Who is going to purchase from Apple if they can get the same song without DRM from Amazon.com?<br> <br>

Second if the Apple store grew too large they could be considered a monopoly due to the hardware lockin which would have come with a new set of problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting way to spin Apple 's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes .
Wow , how could anyone win with this kind of logic ? What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE ( iTunes ) .
They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC , in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said , why do n't we eliminate this DRM bullshit , because it does n't work .
One by one , they eventually relented , and now most music stores sell music without DRM .
You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.Yet you 're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now " safe " with this iPod monopoly .
Does this make any sense ?
They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library 's portability -- and decimated it .
Yet , in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something ? Wow .
I think the reason Apple wanted to remove DRM is for two reasons .
First Amazon.com was selling non DRM MP3 files .
Who is going to purchase from Apple if they can get the same song without DRM from Amazon.com ?
Second if the Apple store grew too large they could be considered a monopoly due to the hardware lockin which would have come with a new set of problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes.
Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes).
They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work.
One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM.
You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly.
Does this make any sense?
They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it.
Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?Wow.
I think the reason Apple wanted to remove DRM is for two reasons.
First Amazon.com was selling non DRM MP3 files.
Who is going to purchase from Apple if they can get the same song without DRM from Amazon.com?
Second if the Apple store grew too large they could be considered a monopoly due to the hardware lockin which would have come with a new set of problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496896</id>
	<title>Re:Sad propaganda from the Chief of the Nerd Polic</title>
	<author>$1uck</author>
	<datestamp>1268758980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The other platform is totally open, totally unmanaged, totally unmediated, uses open API's, and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server."

Did you write that with a straight face? Seriously, do you really believe that?

"fragmented, unpopular, malware-serving Android Market"

citation please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The other platform is totally open , totally unmanaged , totally unmediated , uses open API 's , and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server .
" Did you write that with a straight face ?
Seriously , do you really believe that ?
" fragmented , unpopular , malware-serving Android Market " citation please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The other platform is totally open, totally unmanaged, totally unmediated, uses open API's, and apps are installed from any arbitrary HTTP server.
"

Did you write that with a straight face?
Seriously, do you really believe that?
"fragmented, unpopular, malware-serving Android Market"

citation please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491444</id>
	<title>Re:Walled garden it may be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268669160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes. It's easier to convince people that everything is version X, make them all look alike, but charge for changing within it. Why didn't I think of that!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
It 's easier to convince people that everything is version X , make them all look alike , but charge for changing within it .
Why did n't I think of that !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
It's easier to convince people that everything is version X, make them all look alike, but charge for changing within it.
Why didn't I think of that!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492420</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1268681400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have sampled more than enough smartphones over the years, SonyEricsson 900i, 990i, Nokia Communicator, Nokia 6110, Blackberry, Palm Tungsten, Treo, iPhone etc. The reason not many people was interested in them was that cellular internet connections sucked, bigtime. Both internet speeds and battery consumption made a smartphone worthless unless you had an extension cord and an ethernet jack. The phones was on top of this crap all by themselves, both in software and hardware.</p><p>It would have been enough if i had tried one phone and then waited for something working to come out but what can i say, im pretty stubborn. The first phone im really satisfied with is my Nexus One. All the others had major flaws like not being able to multitask, being totally locked down, having sucky camera, lack flash, crappy screen resolution, the list goes on.</p><p>I fully understand all the people who just looked at smartphones a couple of years ago and said to themselves "that sucks donkeys" and decided to wait a year or two. If i had been a bit smarter i could have saved myself oodles of money and sanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have sampled more than enough smartphones over the years , SonyEricsson 900i , 990i , Nokia Communicator , Nokia 6110 , Blackberry , Palm Tungsten , Treo , iPhone etc .
The reason not many people was interested in them was that cellular internet connections sucked , bigtime .
Both internet speeds and battery consumption made a smartphone worthless unless you had an extension cord and an ethernet jack .
The phones was on top of this crap all by themselves , both in software and hardware.It would have been enough if i had tried one phone and then waited for something working to come out but what can i say , im pretty stubborn .
The first phone im really satisfied with is my Nexus One .
All the others had major flaws like not being able to multitask , being totally locked down , having sucky camera , lack flash , crappy screen resolution , the list goes on.I fully understand all the people who just looked at smartphones a couple of years ago and said to themselves " that sucks donkeys " and decided to wait a year or two .
If i had been a bit smarter i could have saved myself oodles of money and sanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have sampled more than enough smartphones over the years, SonyEricsson 900i, 990i, Nokia Communicator, Nokia 6110, Blackberry, Palm Tungsten, Treo, iPhone etc.
The reason not many people was interested in them was that cellular internet connections sucked, bigtime.
Both internet speeds and battery consumption made a smartphone worthless unless you had an extension cord and an ethernet jack.
The phones was on top of this crap all by themselves, both in software and hardware.It would have been enough if i had tried one phone and then waited for something working to come out but what can i say, im pretty stubborn.
The first phone im really satisfied with is my Nexus One.
All the others had major flaws like not being able to multitask, being totally locked down, having sucky camera, lack flash, crappy screen resolution, the list goes on.I fully understand all the people who just looked at smartphones a couple of years ago and said to themselves "that sucks donkeys" and decided to wait a year or two.
If i had been a bit smarter i could have saved myself oodles of money and sanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491102</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:</p></div></blockquote><p>

Pretty much describes every Iphone owner I've ever met. The Iphone is a consumer phone, the typical user goes from things like the LG Shine or Nokia 6210 to the Iphone and instantly claim it is the best smartphone evar despite lacking any experience with smartphones what so ever.<br> <br>

Comparing this to business users who has used a BB, Nokia E71 or TYTN/JASJAM you'll find the Iphone uptake and praise is far lower.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tim Bray bought his * first * smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he 's ever owned : Pretty much describes every Iphone owner I 've ever met .
The Iphone is a consumer phone , the typical user goes from things like the LG Shine or Nokia 6210 to the Iphone and instantly claim it is the best smartphone evar despite lacking any experience with smartphones what so ever .
Comparing this to business users who has used a BB , Nokia E71 or TYTN/JASJAM you 'll find the Iphone uptake and praise is far lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:

Pretty much describes every Iphone owner I've ever met.
The Iphone is a consumer phone, the typical user goes from things like the LG Shine or Nokia 6210 to the Iphone and instantly claim it is the best smartphone evar despite lacking any experience with smartphones what so ever.
Comparing this to business users who has used a BB, Nokia E71 or TYTN/JASJAM you'll find the Iphone uptake and praise is far lower.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490316</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair</title>
	<author>michaelhood</author>
	<datestamp>1268660880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and ceding Poland to Apple</p></div><p>godWIN!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and ceding Poland to ApplegodWIN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and ceding Poland to ApplegodWIN!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490496</id>
	<title>Everybody be cool, this is a 'vangellery!</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1268662020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they make a movie of this, I hope they get Samuel Jackson to play Tim Bray. Of course they'll have to change a few of the words, and give him a revolver...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they make a movie of this , I hope they get Samuel Jackson to play Tim Bray .
Of course they 'll have to change a few of the words , and give him a revolver.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they make a movie of this, I hope they get Samuel Jackson to play Tim Bray.
Of course they'll have to change a few of the words, and give him a revolver...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490110</id>
	<title>I love this quote</title>
	<author>laffer1</author>
	<datestamp>1268659680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger."  -- There's an app for that.</p><p>I guess I'll start caring about google's phones when they decide to target men AND women.  Their ads are clearly for men and it's not like I can convince my wife to get one.  It's just too convenient having the same phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The people who create the apps serve at the landlord 's pleasure and fear his anger .
" -- There 's an app for that.I guess I 'll start caring about google 's phones when they decide to target men AND women .
Their ads are clearly for men and it 's not like I can convince my wife to get one .
It 's just too convenient having the same phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.
"  -- There's an app for that.I guess I'll start caring about google's phones when they decide to target men AND women.
Their ads are clearly for men and it's not like I can convince my wife to get one.
It's just too convenient having the same phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31519836</id>
	<title>Re:XML vs iPhone</title>
	<author>amexiteinc</author>
	<datestamp>1268944740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is XML?  I don't Get it.  Thanks

Du
www.amexite.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is XML ?
I do n't Get it .
Thanks Du www.amexite.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is XML?
I don't Get it.
Thanks

Du
www.amexite.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31508012</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion of Google is Changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268838840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac user?</p><p>itunes on windows is horrible. It would be easy to blame windows, but most other media/library progs on the same OS work better.</p><p>Maybe their hardware is superior. But people are FORCED to user itunes.</p><p>Everything Apple does is evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac user ? itunes on windows is horrible .
It would be easy to blame windows , but most other media/library progs on the same OS work better.Maybe their hardware is superior .
But people are FORCED to user itunes.Everything Apple does is evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac user?itunes on windows is horrible.
It would be easy to blame windows, but most other media/library progs on the same OS work better.Maybe their hardware is superior.
But people are FORCED to user itunes.Everything Apple does is evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490900</id>
	<title>Billy Graham versus Clarence Darrow</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1268664900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?'</p></div><p>Evangelists preach to developers, advocates listen to them. Since Google basically gives away most of its tools and platforms, it does make rather more sense to ask developers what they want, rather than tell them.</p><p>Just so nobody doubts my Google-skeptic creds: Google can afford to do this because they make so much money off their ad revenues they can afford to run almost every other business at a loss with profits postponed to an extremely hypothetical future. And even so, their stockholders would never stand for it &mdash; <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Google-to-defend-dual-class-stock-structure/2100-1030\_3-6060691.html" title="cnet.com">if they had any say in the matter</a> [cnet.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't other companies call that position 'Evangelist ?
'Evangelists preach to developers , advocates listen to them .
Since Google basically gives away most of its tools and platforms , it does make rather more sense to ask developers what they want , rather than tell them.Just so nobody doubts my Google-skeptic creds : Google can afford to do this because they make so much money off their ad revenues they can afford to run almost every other business at a loss with profits postponed to an extremely hypothetical future .
And even so , their stockholders would never stand for it    if they had any say in the matter [ cnet.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?
'Evangelists preach to developers, advocates listen to them.
Since Google basically gives away most of its tools and platforms, it does make rather more sense to ask developers what they want, rather than tell them.Just so nobody doubts my Google-skeptic creds: Google can afford to do this because they make so much money off their ad revenues they can afford to run almost every other business at a loss with profits postponed to an extremely hypothetical future.
And even so, their stockholders would never stand for it — if they had any say in the matter [cnet.com].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492672</id>
	<title>Re:He's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268730120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer [in the 1984 commercial]. And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?</p></div><p>You're kidding?  Where's the source to gmail, or their ranking algorithms, or <i>anything</i> google other that trivial things like say protocol buffers or jokes like Google Go?  Google doesn't even contribute back their changes to the linux kernel.  In fact about the only open source thing to do with google is the interface, Chrome, to their closed world.  And the vast majority of the work involved in that is webkit, so was other people's work.</p><p>Google doesn't mind giving you convenient access to your data... as long as they still control it.  Fans of google aren't swinging the hammer... they're the people sitting in the crowd who technically could get up and go to the bathroom or leave, but are too glamored to blink.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer [ in the 1984 commercial ] .
And maybe it 's Jobs ' face on the big screen ? You 're kidding ?
Where 's the source to gmail , or their ranking algorithms , or anything google other that trivial things like say protocol buffers or jokes like Google Go ?
Google does n't even contribute back their changes to the linux kernel .
In fact about the only open source thing to do with google is the interface , Chrome , to their closed world .
And the vast majority of the work involved in that is webkit , so was other people 's work.Google does n't mind giving you convenient access to your data... as long as they still control it .
Fans of google are n't swinging the hammer... they 're the people sitting in the crowd who technically could get up and go to the bathroom or leave , but are too glamored to blink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer [in the 1984 commercial].
And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?You're kidding?
Where's the source to gmail, or their ranking algorithms, or anything google other that trivial things like say protocol buffers or jokes like Google Go?
Google doesn't even contribute back their changes to the linux kernel.
In fact about the only open source thing to do with google is the interface, Chrome, to their closed world.
And the vast majority of the work involved in that is webkit, so was other people's work.Google doesn't mind giving you convenient access to your data... as long as they still control it.
Fans of google aren't swinging the hammer... they're the people sitting in the crowd who technically could get up and go to the bathroom or leave, but are too glamored to blink.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490182</id>
	<title>Walled garden it may be</title>
	<author>actionbastard</author>
	<datestamp>1268660160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But at least it's the same version of the walled garden for all purchasers/users:<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/</a> [wired.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>But at least it 's the same version of the walled garden for all purchasers/users : http : //www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/ [ wired.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But at least it's the same version of the walled garden for all purchasers/users: 
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/ [wired.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489990</id>
	<title>Mind Of God</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hires Devils Advocate.<br>Hell just froze over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hires Devils Advocate.Hell just froze over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hires Devils Advocate.Hell just froze over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958</id>
	<title>XML vs iPhone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XML vs. iPhone. I ca n't think of a better metaphor for " open but convoluted " vs. " closed but useable .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31500592</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268730060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, what?  This is fucking illogical.  Just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean you don't understand what religion is.  How did you even come to this fucking retarded theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what ?
This is fucking illogical .
Just because you do n't believe in god does n't mean you do n't understand what religion is .
How did you even come to this fucking retarded theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what?
This is fucking illogical.
Just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean you don't understand what religion is.
How did you even come to this fucking retarded theory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</id>
	<title>He's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.</p><p>As an owner of many Apple computers from the Apple ][ all the way to today, it's thoroughly depressing to have watched this happen.  But I guess Apple's always been schizophrenic about opennness.  One one hand you have Woz distributing schematics,  the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboard,  embracing of open-sourced software &amp; development tools, lack of copy protection on their OS, replacing drm music with watermarking, etc.  But then you've got them suing Franklin &amp; Pystar, suing HTC, their absurdly paternalistic App market, a closed-down iPad, etc.  I guess there's always been a bit of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">hypocrisy and self-contradiction</a> [youtube.com] with Apple.</p><p>But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed &amp; proprietary.  Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer.  And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?</p><p>I guess Apple II isn't forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the iPhone and iPad , Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.As an owner of many Apple computers from the Apple ] [ all the way to today , it 's thoroughly depressing to have watched this happen .
But I guess Apple 's always been schizophrenic about opennness .
One one hand you have Woz distributing schematics , the developer 's signatures burnt into the Mac 's first motherboard , embracing of open-sourced software &amp; development tools , lack of copy protection on their OS , replacing drm music with watermarking , etc .
But then you 've got them suing Franklin &amp; Pystar , suing HTC , their absurdly paternalistic App market , a closed-down iPad , etc .
I guess there 's always been a bit of hypocrisy and self-contradiction [ youtube.com ] with Apple.But when push comes to shove , I 'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed &amp; proprietary .
Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer .
And maybe it 's Jobs ' face on the big screen ? I guess Apple II is n't forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.As an owner of many Apple computers from the Apple ][ all the way to today, it's thoroughly depressing to have watched this happen.
But I guess Apple's always been schizophrenic about opennness.
One one hand you have Woz distributing schematics,  the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboard,  embracing of open-sourced software &amp; development tools, lack of copy protection on their OS, replacing drm music with watermarking, etc.
But then you've got them suing Franklin &amp; Pystar, suing HTC, their absurdly paternalistic App market, a closed-down iPad, etc.
I guess there's always been a bit of hypocrisy and self-contradiction [youtube.com] with Apple.But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed &amp; proprietary.
Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer.
And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?I guess Apple II isn't forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491916</id>
	<title>Re:He's right.</title>
	<author>Nicky G</author>
	<datestamp>1268673900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem with this observation is that in 2010, Google \_REALLY IS\_ Big Brother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem with this observation is that in 2010 , Google \ _REALLY IS \ _ Big Brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem with this observation is that in 2010, Google \_REALLY IS\_ Big Brother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490162</id>
	<title>Thanks, kdawson!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268660040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have provided us with yet another article worthy of slashdot's finest flamewarriors.</p><p>Instead of RTFA or reading the comments, I think I'll go pet some kittens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have provided us with yet another article worthy of slashdot 's finest flamewarriors.Instead of RTFA or reading the comments , I think I 'll go pet some kittens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have provided us with yet another article worthy of slashdot's finest flamewarriors.Instead of RTFA or reading the comments, I think I'll go pet some kittens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490972</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of credibility</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1268665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of those "fancy phones" weren't worth buying until recently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of those " fancy phones " were n't worth buying until recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of those "fancy phones" weren't worth buying until recently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31495628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31519836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31504922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31505204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31500592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31508012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31497944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31495476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31506956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31497976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2257234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31500592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31497976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31504922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31519836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31506956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31508012
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31491848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31495476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31495628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31494650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31496896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31489940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31505204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31493674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31490518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2257234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31492116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2257234.31497944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
