<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_165220</id>
	<title>Adobe Not Worried About the Future of Flash</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269880980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Adobe company man John Dowdell isn't worried about <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2010/03/\_the\_fundamental\_things\_apply.html">the future of Flash</a>. He writes in his company blog, 'There's really no "HTML vs Flash" war. There are sure people inciting to create such a war, and individual developers may have strong practical reasons to choose one technology over another, but at corporate levels that drive strategy, all delivery channels are important Adobe territory, whether SWF or HTML or video or documents or paper or ebook or e-mag or film or packaging or whatever. Adobe profits by making it easier for creatives to reach their audiences. We're on the verge of a disruptive change that, I think, will dwarf that of the World Wide Web fifteen years ago. It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative's webpage. With these cheaper devices we'll be reaching far more people, and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on." The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we're going to see, I think.' It's interesting to note that he talks about the World Wide Web in the past tense. I find it instructive as to Adobe's perspective. Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Adobe company man John Dowdell is n't worried about the future of Flash .
He writes in his company blog , 'There 's really no " HTML vs Flash " war .
There are sure people inciting to create such a war , and individual developers may have strong practical reasons to choose one technology over another , but at corporate levels that drive strategy , all delivery channels are important Adobe territory , whether SWF or HTML or video or documents or paper or ebook or e-mag or film or packaging or whatever .
Adobe profits by making it easier for creatives to reach their audiences .
We 're on the verge of a disruptive change that , I think , will dwarf that of the World Wide Web fifteen years ago .
It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative 's webpage .
With these cheaper devices we 'll be reaching far more people , and with pocket devices we 'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when " logged-on .
" The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we 're going to see , I think .
' It 's interesting to note that he talks about the World Wide Web in the past tense .
I find it instructive as to Adobe 's perspective .
Personally , I 'm not worried about the future of Flash either .
I do n't think it has one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Adobe company man John Dowdell isn't worried about the future of Flash.
He writes in his company blog, 'There's really no "HTML vs Flash" war.
There are sure people inciting to create such a war, and individual developers may have strong practical reasons to choose one technology over another, but at corporate levels that drive strategy, all delivery channels are important Adobe territory, whether SWF or HTML or video or documents or paper or ebook or e-mag or film or packaging or whatever.
Adobe profits by making it easier for creatives to reach their audiences.
We're on the verge of a disruptive change that, I think, will dwarf that of the World Wide Web fifteen years ago.
It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative's webpage.
With these cheaper devices we'll be reaching far more people, and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on.
" The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we're going to see, I think.
' It's interesting to note that he talks about the World Wide Web in the past tense.
I find it instructive as to Adobe's perspective.
Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either.
I don't think it has one.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659880</id>
	<title>One man dream</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1269889140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash is like the dishonest brother, that has managed a fortune, and have sexy girls, cheating and stealing money.  While HTML is the honest brother, that is hardworking, and respect all rules.</p><p>One want the dishonest brother to fail hard. What is around, gets around, and Flash sure, deserve a painfull death.<br>The technology is a pure WTF. A binary object stream in my text based internet protocols? But Adobe has managed to make people angry, by producing half-assed versions of the plugin.  Maybe here the thing to blame is the very idea of a plugin. Will you want a monocultive of a single binary on all computers with who knows what bugs in all computers? What could have fixed that? maybe different clients, but that is something that would have created worse and different problems. So the plugin thing is un-fixable. Is just a idea that was not good. Only 2 plugins managed to get universal support, flash and java, and only flash is universally usefull, and for a unintended purpose: streaming video.  Now.. seems is doing a good work at it, at the expense of poor perfomance on different machines than the ones Adobe seems to test his plugin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash is like the dishonest brother , that has managed a fortune , and have sexy girls , cheating and stealing money .
While HTML is the honest brother , that is hardworking , and respect all rules.One want the dishonest brother to fail hard .
What is around , gets around , and Flash sure , deserve a painfull death.The technology is a pure WTF .
A binary object stream in my text based internet protocols ?
But Adobe has managed to make people angry , by producing half-assed versions of the plugin .
Maybe here the thing to blame is the very idea of a plugin .
Will you want a monocultive of a single binary on all computers with who knows what bugs in all computers ?
What could have fixed that ?
maybe different clients , but that is something that would have created worse and different problems .
So the plugin thing is un-fixable .
Is just a idea that was not good .
Only 2 plugins managed to get universal support , flash and java , and only flash is universally usefull , and for a unintended purpose : streaming video .
Now.. seems is doing a good work at it , at the expense of poor perfomance on different machines than the ones Adobe seems to test his plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash is like the dishonest brother, that has managed a fortune, and have sexy girls, cheating and stealing money.
While HTML is the honest brother, that is hardworking, and respect all rules.One want the dishonest brother to fail hard.
What is around, gets around, and Flash sure, deserve a painfull death.The technology is a pure WTF.
A binary object stream in my text based internet protocols?
But Adobe has managed to make people angry, by producing half-assed versions of the plugin.
Maybe here the thing to blame is the very idea of a plugin.
Will you want a monocultive of a single binary on all computers with who knows what bugs in all computers?
What could have fixed that?
maybe different clients, but that is something that would have created worse and different problems.
So the plugin thing is un-fixable.
Is just a idea that was not good.
Only 2 plugins managed to get universal support, flash and java, and only flash is universally usefull, and for a unintended purpose: streaming video.
Now.. seems is doing a good work at it, at the expense of poor perfomance on different machines than the ones Adobe seems to test his plugin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663202</id>
	<title>Re:archival quality Internet, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269861660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I want now is bulletproof base of archival-quality standards, not ones that reinvent themselves every product cycle.</p></div><p>You mean like XML?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want now is bulletproof base of archival-quality standards , not ones that reinvent themselves every product cycle.You mean like XML ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want now is bulletproof base of archival-quality standards, not ones that reinvent themselves every product cycle.You mean like XML?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659002</id>
	<title>A Flash in the Pan?</title>
	<author>Smivs</author>
	<datestamp>1269885420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Says it all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Says it all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Says it all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661376</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>VTI9600</author>
	<datestamp>1269896280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices, including several, like the iPhone, from which they have previously been locked out.</p></div><p>They probably won't need HTML5 for that since they've almost <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor\_iphone/" title="adobe.com" rel="nofollow">solved the problem</a> [adobe.com] with the iPhone packager in the upcoming release of Flash CS5.  Once Apple sees that people can still get Flash apps on their iPhones without violating the TOS, they might loosen their stance on blocking it from being embedded in web pages viewed with Safari.</p><p>Also, browser inconsistencies are plentiful and there's no guarantee that HTML5 API's will ever be rendered/supported exactly the same in all of them.  One of the great things about Flash is that you get a consistent experience across all platforms.  I highly doubt that Adobe would want to dilute the quality of their brand by providing an "export" tool that gives inconsistent results.  Like converting documents from MS Office to/from OO.org -- It should work fine, but in practice you always end up losing some quality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices , including several , like the iPhone , from which they have previously been locked out.They probably wo n't need HTML5 for that since they 've almost solved the problem [ adobe.com ] with the iPhone packager in the upcoming release of Flash CS5 .
Once Apple sees that people can still get Flash apps on their iPhones without violating the TOS , they might loosen their stance on blocking it from being embedded in web pages viewed with Safari.Also , browser inconsistencies are plentiful and there 's no guarantee that HTML5 API 's will ever be rendered/supported exactly the same in all of them .
One of the great things about Flash is that you get a consistent experience across all platforms .
I highly doubt that Adobe would want to dilute the quality of their brand by providing an " export " tool that gives inconsistent results .
Like converting documents from MS Office to/from OO.org -- It should work fine , but in practice you always end up losing some quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices, including several, like the iPhone, from which they have previously been locked out.They probably won't need HTML5 for that since they've almost solved the problem [adobe.com] with the iPhone packager in the upcoming release of Flash CS5.
Once Apple sees that people can still get Flash apps on their iPhones without violating the TOS, they might loosen their stance on blocking it from being embedded in web pages viewed with Safari.Also, browser inconsistencies are plentiful and there's no guarantee that HTML5 API's will ever be rendered/supported exactly the same in all of them.
One of the great things about Flash is that you get a consistent experience across all platforms.
I highly doubt that Adobe would want to dilute the quality of their brand by providing an "export" tool that gives inconsistent results.
Like converting documents from MS Office to/from OO.org -- It should work fine, but in practice you always end up losing some quality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661152</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1269895020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those disgusting prefabbed square forms however work on any platform, can be bookmarked, saved, and they can even be mangled beyond recognition and still do their job (see Lynx and browsers on smartphones).</p><p>Unlike Flash "sites" which basically are longing for the days where you would just write a real application.  Using Flash is the peek of completely missing the point of HTML in the first place.  It's primarily pushed by the marketeer crowd who just want, dare I say, flashy looking, pixel-perfect (tiny) 800x600 sites that will be presented in a quick-quick fashion like powerpoint slides when a demonstration of a website or product is given.  Dig a little bit deeper than the skindeep flashy layer and people quickly realize that Flash just makes things more difficult, not only by being different from everyone elses website (including other flash sites) but also because even the most basic functionality a browser offers is completely negated by it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those disgusting prefabbed square forms however work on any platform , can be bookmarked , saved , and they can even be mangled beyond recognition and still do their job ( see Lynx and browsers on smartphones ) .Unlike Flash " sites " which basically are longing for the days where you would just write a real application .
Using Flash is the peek of completely missing the point of HTML in the first place .
It 's primarily pushed by the marketeer crowd who just want , dare I say , flashy looking , pixel-perfect ( tiny ) 800x600 sites that will be presented in a quick-quick fashion like powerpoint slides when a demonstration of a website or product is given .
Dig a little bit deeper than the skindeep flashy layer and people quickly realize that Flash just makes things more difficult , not only by being different from everyone elses website ( including other flash sites ) but also because even the most basic functionality a browser offers is completely negated by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those disgusting prefabbed square forms however work on any platform, can be bookmarked, saved, and they can even be mangled beyond recognition and still do their job (see Lynx and browsers on smartphones).Unlike Flash "sites" which basically are longing for the days where you would just write a real application.
Using Flash is the peek of completely missing the point of HTML in the first place.
It's primarily pushed by the marketeer crowd who just want, dare I say, flashy looking, pixel-perfect (tiny) 800x600 sites that will be presented in a quick-quick fashion like powerpoint slides when a demonstration of a website or product is given.
Dig a little bit deeper than the skindeep flashy layer and people quickly realize that Flash just makes things more difficult, not only by being different from everyone elses website (including other flash sites) but also because even the most basic functionality a browser offers is completely negated by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658926</id>
	<title>Arrogant and Overconfident</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1269885120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, do they think that any piece of crap content delivery system (to use their buzzwords against them) will supplant webpages? I just find it unbelievably arrogant for them to think that people will abandon a mature, (somewhat) stable system to use whatever crazy stuff they're cooking up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , do they think that any piece of crap content delivery system ( to use their buzzwords against them ) will supplant webpages ?
I just find it unbelievably arrogant for them to think that people will abandon a mature , ( somewhat ) stable system to use whatever crazy stuff they 're cooking up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, do they think that any piece of crap content delivery system (to use their buzzwords against them) will supplant webpages?
I just find it unbelievably arrogant for them to think that people will abandon a mature, (somewhat) stable system to use whatever crazy stuff they're cooking up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658990</id>
	<title>Re:Stinking badgers</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269885360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like this Harry Potter version better:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6mpaVEaTg" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6mpaVEaTg</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this Harry Potter version better : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = BY6mpaVEaTg [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this Harry Potter version better:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6mpaVEaTg [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659174</id>
	<title>Constant Change</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1269886260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The web is still in its infancy so the technologies involved with it - especially those for publishing on it - are still developing and constantly changing. Roughly every three to four years, many "technologies" which were previously thought to be "standard" begin to shows signs of age and start to fall from grace. Flash has had a long run, considering how rapidly things are constantly changing but, like pretty much everything involved with the internet at this stage, it is now fading from grace. Other alternatives are beginning to rise which have specifically targeted Flash's weaknesses. And, in a handful of years, they'll be replaced as something new steps up.<br> <br>
The internet is still young and evolving and it will be some time (decades) before it really settles down and true standards establish themselves.<br> <br>
I find his comment about Adobe wanting to be involved in getting creative ideas out there - be it on the internet or paper or whatever - to be a promising sign. It \_appears\_ Adobe is well-aware that things are going to change and their only chance is to roll with the punches and evolve when needed. Time, of course, will tell if they put their money where their mouths are...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is still in its infancy so the technologies involved with it - especially those for publishing on it - are still developing and constantly changing .
Roughly every three to four years , many " technologies " which were previously thought to be " standard " begin to shows signs of age and start to fall from grace .
Flash has had a long run , considering how rapidly things are constantly changing but , like pretty much everything involved with the internet at this stage , it is now fading from grace .
Other alternatives are beginning to rise which have specifically targeted Flash 's weaknesses .
And , in a handful of years , they 'll be replaced as something new steps up .
The internet is still young and evolving and it will be some time ( decades ) before it really settles down and true standards establish themselves .
I find his comment about Adobe wanting to be involved in getting creative ideas out there - be it on the internet or paper or whatever - to be a promising sign .
It \ _appears \ _ Adobe is well-aware that things are going to change and their only chance is to roll with the punches and evolve when needed .
Time , of course , will tell if they put their money where their mouths are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is still in its infancy so the technologies involved with it - especially those for publishing on it - are still developing and constantly changing.
Roughly every three to four years, many "technologies" which were previously thought to be "standard" begin to shows signs of age and start to fall from grace.
Flash has had a long run, considering how rapidly things are constantly changing but, like pretty much everything involved with the internet at this stage, it is now fading from grace.
Other alternatives are beginning to rise which have specifically targeted Flash's weaknesses.
And, in a handful of years, they'll be replaced as something new steps up.
The internet is still young and evolving and it will be some time (decades) before it really settles down and true standards establish themselves.
I find his comment about Adobe wanting to be involved in getting creative ideas out there - be it on the internet or paper or whatever - to be a promising sign.
It \_appears\_ Adobe is well-aware that things are going to change and their only chance is to roll with the punches and evolve when needed.
Time, of course, will tell if they put their money where their mouths are...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662054</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, right now, you cannot expect any of the five browsers to display CSS2 consistently, and that spec has been around since 1998. Why is it that everyone expects HTML5 to be perfect out of the box on every platform?</p></div><p>There are billions of pages on the WWW today. With the release of IE9, web development will be more consistent than it ever has been. It won't be perfect out of the box but if billions of pages can be authored today, there's no particular reason to believe that there won't be billions more using HTML5.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , right now , you can not expect any of the five browsers to display CSS2 consistently , and that spec has been around since 1998 .
Why is it that everyone expects HTML5 to be perfect out of the box on every platform ? There are billions of pages on the WWW today .
With the release of IE9 , web development will be more consistent than it ever has been .
It wo n't be perfect out of the box but if billions of pages can be authored today , there 's no particular reason to believe that there wo n't be billions more using HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, right now, you cannot expect any of the five browsers to display CSS2 consistently, and that spec has been around since 1998.
Why is it that everyone expects HTML5 to be perfect out of the box on every platform?There are billions of pages on the WWW today.
With the release of IE9, web development will be more consistent than it ever has been.
It won't be perfect out of the box but if billions of pages can be authored today, there's no particular reason to believe that there won't be billions more using HTML5.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659582</id>
	<title>Re:Their strategy is embedded Flash?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1269887880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device. That means that a browser is already necessary.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because Adobe <i>surely</i> wouldn't make a version of AIR for embedded devices so Flash could be viewed without a browser!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device .
That means that a browser is already necessary.Because Adobe surely would n't make a version of AIR for embedded devices so Flash could be viewed without a browser !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device.
That means that a browser is already necessary.Because Adobe surely wouldn't make a version of AIR for embedded devices so Flash could be viewed without a browser!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31671392</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NoScipt has this. You can forbid HTML5 audio and video tags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScipt has this .
You can forbid HTML5 audio and video tags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScipt has this.
You can forbid HTML5 audio and video tags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660788</id>
	<title>A long time, in internet years.</title>
	<author>Peter Trepan</author>
	<datestamp>1269893280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> it's a long, <em>long</em> distance from seriously competing with Flash [...] five years</p></div><p>What a difference the internet has made on our sense of progress. Thank you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore\_Bill" title="wikipedia.org">Al Gore</a> [wikipedia.org]!
<br> <br>
Maybe Adobe isn't worried about HTML 5 because their business model doesn't rely on rent-seeking behavior. They make good tools, too. It's not easy to do animations based on JavaScript plus the canvas tag, and that presents Adobe with an opportunity to build a library and a graphical tool for <em>that.</em> If they build such a thing on open standards, I won't be able to complain. Well, except about the price.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a long , long distance from seriously competing with Flash [ ... ] five yearsWhat a difference the internet has made on our sense of progress .
Thank you Al Gore [ wikipedia.org ] !
Maybe Adobe is n't worried about HTML 5 because their business model does n't rely on rent-seeking behavior .
They make good tools , too .
It 's not easy to do animations based on JavaScript plus the canvas tag , and that presents Adobe with an opportunity to build a library and a graphical tool for that .
If they build such a thing on open standards , I wo n't be able to complain .
Well , except about the price .
: -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it's a long, long distance from seriously competing with Flash [...] five yearsWhat a difference the internet has made on our sense of progress.
Thank you Al Gore [wikipedia.org]!
Maybe Adobe isn't worried about HTML 5 because their business model doesn't rely on rent-seeking behavior.
They make good tools, too.
It's not easy to do animations based on JavaScript plus the canvas tag, and that presents Adobe with an opportunity to build a library and a graphical tool for that.
If they build such a thing on open standards, I won't be able to complain.
Well, except about the price.
:-/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658906</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. There's something that flash could do better than all the other alternatives, web video, and now we're coming to HTML5 to do that one thing better still, but Flash does a LOT of things, and there's a lot of people using it that won't want to stop using it. Just look at how long they've been trying to phase out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe\_Director#Product\_Timeline" title="wikipedia.org">Director</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Those "creatives" like to hang on to their familiar tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
There 's something that flash could do better than all the other alternatives , web video , and now we 're coming to HTML5 to do that one thing better still , but Flash does a LOT of things , and there 's a lot of people using it that wo n't want to stop using it .
Just look at how long they 've been trying to phase out Director [ wikipedia.org ] .Those " creatives " like to hang on to their familiar tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
There's something that flash could do better than all the other alternatives, web video, and now we're coming to HTML5 to do that one thing better still, but Flash does a LOT of things, and there's a lot of people using it that won't want to stop using it.
Just look at how long they've been trying to phase out Director [wikipedia.org].Those "creatives" like to hang on to their familiar tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662274</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consistent like flash? you mean it works or it doesn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consistent like flash ?
you mean it works or it does n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consistent like flash?
you mean it works or it doesn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660376</id>
	<title>Denial ain't just a river in Egypt</title>
	<author>meta\_gorn</author>
	<datestamp>1269891480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What else is Adobe gonna say? Of course they're worried.  You've got a market maker in the iPad as dumb as it is inevitable, so you've got iPad developers going gaga, coding to an unfinished HTML5 spec . If the next big thing is the iPad, then the net big thing in development is to dump Flash, ready or not.<br>Pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What else is Adobe gon na say ?
Of course they 're worried .
You 've got a market maker in the iPad as dumb as it is inevitable , so you 've got iPad developers going gaga , coding to an unfinished HTML5 spec .
If the next big thing is the iPad , then the net big thing in development is to dump Flash , ready or not.Pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else is Adobe gonna say?
Of course they're worried.
You've got a market maker in the iPad as dumb as it is inevitable, so you've got iPad developers going gaga, coding to an unfinished HTML5 spec .
If the next big thing is the iPad, then the net big thing in development is to dump Flash, ready or not.Pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31671700</id>
	<title>The future of Flash != Future of Adobe</title>
	<author>Bryan3000000</author>
	<datestamp>1269967020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What nobody here seems to understand, is that this guy is saying that Adobe doesn't stand or fall on the future of Flash.  Flash is so common and useful because Adobe made great tools for designers and developers, regardless of the problems with Flash.  It's still going to take a while for other technologies to catch up in that area.  When those tools are developed, for whatever technologies are adopted - I bet Adobe will be making some of the best tools, and that a whole lot of designers and developers will choose the Adobe tools.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What nobody here seems to understand , is that this guy is saying that Adobe does n't stand or fall on the future of Flash .
Flash is so common and useful because Adobe made great tools for designers and developers , regardless of the problems with Flash .
It 's still going to take a while for other technologies to catch up in that area .
When those tools are developed , for whatever technologies are adopted - I bet Adobe will be making some of the best tools , and that a whole lot of designers and developers will choose the Adobe tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What nobody here seems to understand, is that this guy is saying that Adobe doesn't stand or fall on the future of Flash.
Flash is so common and useful because Adobe made great tools for designers and developers, regardless of the problems with Flash.
It's still going to take a while for other technologies to catch up in that area.
When those tools are developed, for whatever technologies are adopted - I bet Adobe will be making some of the best tools, and that a whole lot of designers and developers will choose the Adobe tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659956</id>
	<title>Re:The fact that they're talking about it says a l</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269889500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, when all kinds of geeks are crying "Flash is dead", and an Adobe rep comes out and says "We've faced worse, we aren't worried" I don't think you can automatically assume they are worried.</p><p>Basically, it tells you nothing, because you can't just sit there and be silent - that will be more of a condemnation than anything.  If you're scared shitless, you say "We aren't worried", and if you're not worried you also say "We aren't worried".</p><p>Basically you can't read much of anything into it, and I have to point out that Adobe is <i>extremely</i> good at making their products the de facto standard.  Probably the biggest knock against HTML5 is it is not going to be nearly as consistent as Flash across browser versions, the next biggest would be the fact that Flash will always be in a better position to adjust to the market - H264 video is a perfect example, Flash has had it for two years now, IE has it for HTML5 but Firefox apparently won't have it for HTML5 (it's a licensing issue).  So if you want to be sure everyone can see your H264 encoded video, you use Flash, not HTML5 at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , when all kinds of geeks are crying " Flash is dead " , and an Adobe rep comes out and says " We 've faced worse , we are n't worried " I do n't think you can automatically assume they are worried.Basically , it tells you nothing , because you ca n't just sit there and be silent - that will be more of a condemnation than anything .
If you 're scared shitless , you say " We are n't worried " , and if you 're not worried you also say " We are n't worried " .Basically you ca n't read much of anything into it , and I have to point out that Adobe is extremely good at making their products the de facto standard .
Probably the biggest knock against HTML5 is it is not going to be nearly as consistent as Flash across browser versions , the next biggest would be the fact that Flash will always be in a better position to adjust to the market - H264 video is a perfect example , Flash has had it for two years now , IE has it for HTML5 but Firefox apparently wo n't have it for HTML5 ( it 's a licensing issue ) .
So if you want to be sure everyone can see your H264 encoded video , you use Flash , not HTML5 at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, when all kinds of geeks are crying "Flash is dead", and an Adobe rep comes out and says "We've faced worse, we aren't worried" I don't think you can automatically assume they are worried.Basically, it tells you nothing, because you can't just sit there and be silent - that will be more of a condemnation than anything.
If you're scared shitless, you say "We aren't worried", and if you're not worried you also say "We aren't worried".Basically you can't read much of anything into it, and I have to point out that Adobe is extremely good at making their products the de facto standard.
Probably the biggest knock against HTML5 is it is not going to be nearly as consistent as Flash across browser versions, the next biggest would be the fact that Flash will always be in a better position to adjust to the market - H264 video is a perfect example, Flash has had it for two years now, IE has it for HTML5 but Firefox apparently won't have it for HTML5 (it's a licensing issue).
So if you want to be sure everyone can see your H264 encoded video, you use Flash, not HTML5 at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659810</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269888780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting</p></div><p>I find no such widgets on the sides of blogs.  And it's not Flash(R) that makes me so interesting, it's flash.  *knowing smile*<br> <br> <br>
Drink Responsibly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash makes the web interesting , it 's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs , it 's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interestingI find no such widgets on the sides of blogs .
And it 's not Flash ( R ) that makes me so interesting , it 's flash .
* knowing smile * Drink Responsibly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interestingI find no such widgets on the sides of blogs.
And it's not Flash(R) that makes me so interesting, it's flash.
*knowing smile*  
Drink Responsibly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658948</id>
	<title>Ultimately, users care about use and content</title>
	<author>Kashell</author>
	<datestamp>1269885240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares if your browser games are in flash or HTML5? Or if video is flash or HTML5?<br><br>I only how fast the video loads, and how responsive the games are. And from my testing of YouTube's HTML5, HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares if your browser games are in flash or HTML5 ?
Or if video is flash or HTML5 ? I only how fast the video loads , and how responsive the games are .
And from my testing of YouTube 's HTML5 , HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares if your browser games are in flash or HTML5?
Or if video is flash or HTML5?I only how fast the video loads, and how responsive the games are.
And from my testing of YouTube's HTML5, HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662116</id>
	<title>flash does have a future</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1269856500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people (mac fans) who think Flash has no future think its only used for video. The reality is its used in a lot of television animation (a lot of tv cartoons from here and Japan use Flash), video game authoring (not just web games either - a lot of stand-alone game ui's are compiled in flash - like Starcraft 2). I know someone who does nothing but flash animations for NBC television (a good chunk of all the 2d, and psuedo 2d animations/charts you see on the news are flash!).</p><p>Clearly - people who say it doesn't have a future don't know what they are talking about - all that work isn't just going disapear. Of course it wouldn't be the first time Adobe just sat there and let some other company eat their breakfast, lunch and dinner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people ( mac fans ) who think Flash has no future think its only used for video .
The reality is its used in a lot of television animation ( a lot of tv cartoons from here and Japan use Flash ) , video game authoring ( not just web games either - a lot of stand-alone game ui 's are compiled in flash - like Starcraft 2 ) .
I know someone who does nothing but flash animations for NBC television ( a good chunk of all the 2d , and psuedo 2d animations/charts you see on the news are flash !
) .Clearly - people who say it does n't have a future do n't know what they are talking about - all that work is n't just going disapear .
Of course it would n't be the first time Adobe just sat there and let some other company eat their breakfast , lunch and dinner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people (mac fans) who think Flash has no future think its only used for video.
The reality is its used in a lot of television animation (a lot of tv cartoons from here and Japan use Flash), video game authoring (not just web games either - a lot of stand-alone game ui's are compiled in flash - like Starcraft 2).
I know someone who does nothing but flash animations for NBC television (a good chunk of all the 2d, and psuedo 2d animations/charts you see on the news are flash!
).Clearly - people who say it doesn't have a future don't know what they are talking about - all that work isn't just going disapear.
Of course it wouldn't be the first time Adobe just sat there and let some other company eat their breakfast, lunch and dinner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31667828</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht</title>
	<author>cypherfusion</author>
	<datestamp>1269942840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NoScript blocks HYML5 video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScript blocks HYML5 video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScript blocks HYML5 video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659528</id>
	<title>O RLY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269887580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one.</p></div><p>
Great, Dad and I will dump those shares today.  (Way to rally the investors!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'm not worried about the future of Flash either .
I do n't think it has one .
Great , Dad and I will dump those shares today .
( Way to rally the investors !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either.
I don't think it has one.
Great, Dad and I will dump those shares today.
(Way to rally the investors!
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661506</id>
	<title>Web Designers love it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269853740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flash will be around as long as those "Web Designer" types insist on doing everything on the web page in freaking flash.  Now flash has it's place, but it is not something you should use to design your entire web page layout around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash will be around as long as those " Web Designer " types insist on doing everything on the web page in freaking flash .
Now flash has it 's place , but it is not something you should use to design your entire web page layout around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash will be around as long as those "Web Designer" types insist on doing everything on the web page in freaking flash.
Now flash has it's place, but it is not something you should use to design your entire web page layout around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659172</id>
	<title>Mobile Devices!?!</title>
	<author>Dan East</author>
	<datestamp>1269886200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this guy smoking?</p><p><i>and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on</i></p><p>Oh, you <i>will</i>, huh?  And they aren't the least bit worried about establishing themselves in an entire market and hardware paradigm in which they have no influence or foothold in whatsoever? (And no, using Actionscript as a compiler language to build native iPhone apps doesn't count.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this guy smoking ? and with pocket devices we 'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when " logged-onOh , you will , huh ?
And they are n't the least bit worried about establishing themselves in an entire market and hardware paradigm in which they have no influence or foothold in whatsoever ?
( And no , using Actionscript as a compiler language to build native iPhone apps does n't count .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this guy smoking?and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-onOh, you will, huh?
And they aren't the least bit worried about establishing themselves in an entire market and hardware paradigm in which they have no influence or foothold in whatsoever?
(And no, using Actionscript as a compiler language to build native iPhone apps doesn't count.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659770</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269888600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When you really look at it, there's no reason that Adobe shouldn't embrace HTML 5.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes there is.  Right now, Adobe has locks on both the production and consumption sides of Flash.  Notably, they periodically add features to Flash that anyone else who makes a flash editor or player doesn't support.  Heck, the GNU Flash player, Gnash, is still back on Flash 7 with some features of 8 and 9; the current version of Flash is Flash 11.</p><p>Adobe controls neither production or consumption sides of HTML5.  They would just be a single developer making a product in this market segment.</p><p>As a side point, Flash was originally created as a vector animation tool.  Strangely, it became hugely popular, largely supplanting its parent, Macromedia (now Adobe) Shockwave.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you really look at it , there 's no reason that Adobe should n't embrace HTML 5.Yes there is .
Right now , Adobe has locks on both the production and consumption sides of Flash .
Notably , they periodically add features to Flash that anyone else who makes a flash editor or player does n't support .
Heck , the GNU Flash player , Gnash , is still back on Flash 7 with some features of 8 and 9 ; the current version of Flash is Flash 11.Adobe controls neither production or consumption sides of HTML5 .
They would just be a single developer making a product in this market segment.As a side point , Flash was originally created as a vector animation tool .
Strangely , it became hugely popular , largely supplanting its parent , Macromedia ( now Adobe ) Shockwave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you really look at it, there's no reason that Adobe shouldn't embrace HTML 5.Yes there is.
Right now, Adobe has locks on both the production and consumption sides of Flash.
Notably, they periodically add features to Flash that anyone else who makes a flash editor or player doesn't support.
Heck, the GNU Flash player, Gnash, is still back on Flash 7 with some features of 8 and 9; the current version of Flash is Flash 11.Adobe controls neither production or consumption sides of HTML5.
They would just be a single developer making a product in this market segment.As a side point, Flash was originally created as a vector animation tool.
Strangely, it became hugely popular, largely supplanting its parent, Macromedia (now Adobe) Shockwave.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659784</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269888720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE6?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659420</id>
	<title>Flash replacement=Flash</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1269887100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flash will probably be flash's replacement. As a programmer I used curse every time I opened the flash app to program in that lousy IDE. Now I curse far less with Flex. But much of the cool stuff seems to be missing or hard to get in Flex. Thus the way forward is simple. Improve Flex and I, as a programmer, will be content. And for all the HTML5 screamers out there; keep in mind that I still have to check to see if my stuff works in IE6. I hate IE6 and my stuff works like crap in it but I am not about to toss a chunk of my users/revenue into the toilet. So it will be a very long time before I can even consider using any HTML5 coolness. And by then it will be HTML6. The bit that works best in IE6... flash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash will probably be flash 's replacement .
As a programmer I used curse every time I opened the flash app to program in that lousy IDE .
Now I curse far less with Flex .
But much of the cool stuff seems to be missing or hard to get in Flex .
Thus the way forward is simple .
Improve Flex and I , as a programmer , will be content .
And for all the HTML5 screamers out there ; keep in mind that I still have to check to see if my stuff works in IE6 .
I hate IE6 and my stuff works like crap in it but I am not about to toss a chunk of my users/revenue into the toilet .
So it will be a very long time before I can even consider using any HTML5 coolness .
And by then it will be HTML6 .
The bit that works best in IE6... flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash will probably be flash's replacement.
As a programmer I used curse every time I opened the flash app to program in that lousy IDE.
Now I curse far less with Flex.
But much of the cool stuff seems to be missing or hard to get in Flex.
Thus the way forward is simple.
Improve Flex and I, as a programmer, will be content.
And for all the HTML5 screamers out there; keep in mind that I still have to check to see if my stuff works in IE6.
I hate IE6 and my stuff works like crap in it but I am not about to toss a chunk of my users/revenue into the toilet.
So it will be a very long time before I can even consider using any HTML5 coolness.
And by then it will be HTML6.
The bit that works best in IE6... flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</id>
	<title>Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for html5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like there is to block flash.</p><p>I do not want any video type stream to load when i am going to a web page until I have made the decision to watch it.</p><p>That is not an anti flash statement because I do make the choice to watch a lot of flash. But it is at my discretion and not the web page designers.</p><p>If it wasn't for flash block, I would spend all day waiting for news sites to load instead of actually reading the news.  I hardly ever watch the flash on those types of sites, and they are probably the worse offenders of loading up the crap flash.  Now other sites, which by the nature of the site presents its content via flash. yes, I do watch it. But, only after I have clicked the specific flash object I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like there is to block flash.I do not want any video type stream to load when i am going to a web page until I have made the decision to watch it.That is not an anti flash statement because I do make the choice to watch a lot of flash .
But it is at my discretion and not the web page designers.If it was n't for flash block , I would spend all day waiting for news sites to load instead of actually reading the news .
I hardly ever watch the flash on those types of sites , and they are probably the worse offenders of loading up the crap flash .
Now other sites , which by the nature of the site presents its content via flash .
yes , I do watch it .
But , only after I have clicked the specific flash object I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like there is to block flash.I do not want any video type stream to load when i am going to a web page until I have made the decision to watch it.That is not an anti flash statement because I do make the choice to watch a lot of flash.
But it is at my discretion and not the web page designers.If it wasn't for flash block, I would spend all day waiting for news sites to load instead of actually reading the news.
I hardly ever watch the flash on those types of sites, and they are probably the worse offenders of loading up the crap flash.
Now other sites, which by the nature of the site presents its content via flash.
yes, I do watch it.
But, only after I have clicked the specific flash object I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659760</id>
	<title>Newsflash!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1269888600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Company employee defends company product! The internets staggered! Anarchy in the streets!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Company employee defends company product !
The internets staggered !
Anarchy in the streets !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company employee defends company product!
The internets staggered!
Anarchy in the streets!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658886</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.</p></div><p>Really, though, that <i>is</i> what Flash is about. If you were to go around and uninstall Flash Player from all the PCs in the world, almost all of the complaints would be "I can't watch YouTube, I can't watch Hulu, I can't watch CNN.com."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash is n't just about video , even if it 's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.Really , though , that is what Flash is about .
If you were to go around and uninstall Flash Player from all the PCs in the world , almost all of the complaints would be " I ca n't watch YouTube , I ca n't watch Hulu , I ca n't watch CNN.com .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.Really, though, that is what Flash is about.
If you were to go around and uninstall Flash Player from all the PCs in the world, almost all of the complaints would be "I can't watch YouTube, I can't watch Hulu, I can't watch CNN.com.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658984</id>
	<title>I hope this think hasn't a future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the typical think of broadcast media. It's the think of bombings:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative's webpage. With these cheaper devices we'll be reaching far more people, and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on." The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we're going to see</p></div><p>I don't care about your droppings <em>reaching</em> me, whatever you think <em>that</em> means. For me, the Internet is a means of communicating with my peers. Go away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the typical think of broadcast media .
It 's the think of bombings : It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative 's webpage .
With these cheaper devices we 'll be reaching far more people , and with pocket devices we 'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when " logged-on .
" The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we 're going to seeI do n't care about your droppings reaching me , whatever you think that means .
For me , the Internet is a means of communicating with my peers .
Go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the typical think of broadcast media.
It's the think of bombings:It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative's webpage.
With these cheaper devices we'll be reaching far more people, and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on.
" The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we're going to seeI don't care about your droppings reaching me, whatever you think that means.
For me, the Internet is a means of communicating with my peers.
Go away.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659378</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>postbigbang</author>
	<datestamp>1269886920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there you go again.</p><p>The market forces include Silverlight-ish stuff, Flash, open-source wannabees, Fraunhofer Institute codec creations, and there's actually a wealth of stuff.</p><p>Some of it, however, is indeed encumbered by licensing problems. It's a big deal: we don't like to pay codec royalties. We're not enamored with Microsoft's Silverlight constraints. We worry about what Oracle will do to the Java Continuum.</p><p>And so HTML 5 isn't going to be a train wreck, but there are many details to sort thru as you cite. And so it's no wonder why Adobe feels like it can slipstream just about any angle that the center of the market future turns to. Fat and happy; nothing to see here; move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there you go again.The market forces include Silverlight-ish stuff , Flash , open-source wannabees , Fraunhofer Institute codec creations , and there 's actually a wealth of stuff.Some of it , however , is indeed encumbered by licensing problems .
It 's a big deal : we do n't like to pay codec royalties .
We 're not enamored with Microsoft 's Silverlight constraints .
We worry about what Oracle will do to the Java Continuum.And so HTML 5 is n't going to be a train wreck , but there are many details to sort thru as you cite .
And so it 's no wonder why Adobe feels like it can slipstream just about any angle that the center of the market future turns to .
Fat and happy ; nothing to see here ; move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there you go again.The market forces include Silverlight-ish stuff, Flash, open-source wannabees, Fraunhofer Institute codec creations, and there's actually a wealth of stuff.Some of it, however, is indeed encumbered by licensing problems.
It's a big deal: we don't like to pay codec royalties.
We're not enamored with Microsoft's Silverlight constraints.
We worry about what Oracle will do to the Java Continuum.And so HTML 5 isn't going to be a train wreck, but there are many details to sort thru as you cite.
And so it's no wonder why Adobe feels like it can slipstream just about any angle that the center of the market future turns to.
Fat and happy; nothing to see here; move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31666312</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269882120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pff, go got a acoustic coupler to hold to your ear, and a whistle, grandpa! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pff , go got a acoustic coupler to hold to your ear , and a whistle , grandpa !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pff, go got a acoustic coupler to hold to your ear, and a whistle, grandpa!
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946</id>
	<title>Stinking badgers</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1269885240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once someone ports <a href="http://badgerbadgerbadger.com/" title="badgerbadgerbadger.com">Badgers</a> [badgerbadgerbadger.com] to HTML5 Canvas, <em>then</em> it'll be safe to put Flash to sleep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once someone ports Badgers [ badgerbadgerbadger.com ] to HTML5 Canvas , then it 'll be safe to put Flash to sleep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once someone ports Badgers [badgerbadgerbadger.com] to HTML5 Canvas, then it'll be safe to put Flash to sleep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659236</id>
	<title>swf might die</title>
	<author>jlebrech</author>
	<datestamp>1269886440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fla will ever die. Adobe can change the output file to html5+js when it is mature enough. It's the authoring software that they make the most money on and not the players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt .fla will ever die .
Adobe can change the output file to html5 + js when it is mature enough .
It 's the authoring software that they make the most money on and not the players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt .fla will ever die.
Adobe can change the output file to html5+js when it is mature enough.
It's the authoring software that they make the most money on and not the players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31665118</id>
	<title>Marketing is EVERYTHING</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1269872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to promote your product that lacks a feature people are <b>asking</b>, well <i>begging</i>, for, then call that feature inferior. Typical marketing strategy.
<br>
<br>
Look, if you're a company that's spending lots of marketing cash and blog speak to bad mouth a technology,
that's a waste your money unless you have a specific agenda. Palm didn't put down the Newton--it knew it was inferior and just let it run its course, which it did.
<br>
<br>
Apple isn't trying to prove Flash is bad, it is <b>creating a perception</b> that flash is bad since customers <b>are demanding it</b> and Apple technology wasn't designed for it. Period. Ya'll CS gurus 'know' flash is technically bad, but look at Windows XP, it's just as 'bad' and runs 90\% of the computers out there (i.e. it <i>does the job</i>).  It the tech works, yes we maybe screwed for a few year from perfection, but hey, that's what tech is all about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to promote your product that lacks a feature people are asking , well begging , for , then call that feature inferior .
Typical marketing strategy .
Look , if you 're a company that 's spending lots of marketing cash and blog speak to bad mouth a technology , that 's a waste your money unless you have a specific agenda .
Palm did n't put down the Newton--it knew it was inferior and just let it run its course , which it did .
Apple is n't trying to prove Flash is bad , it is creating a perception that flash is bad since customers are demanding it and Apple technology was n't designed for it .
Period. Ya 'll CS gurus 'know ' flash is technically bad , but look at Windows XP , it 's just as 'bad ' and runs 90 \ % of the computers out there ( i.e .
it does the job ) .
It the tech works , yes we maybe screwed for a few year from perfection , but hey , that 's what tech is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to promote your product that lacks a feature people are asking, well begging, for, then call that feature inferior.
Typical marketing strategy.
Look, if you're a company that's spending lots of marketing cash and blog speak to bad mouth a technology,
that's a waste your money unless you have a specific agenda.
Palm didn't put down the Newton--it knew it was inferior and just let it run its course, which it did.
Apple isn't trying to prove Flash is bad, it is creating a perception that flash is bad since customers are demanding it and Apple technology wasn't designed for it.
Period. Ya'll CS gurus 'know' flash is technically bad, but look at Windows XP, it's just as 'bad' and runs 90\% of the computers out there (i.e.
it does the job).
It the tech works, yes we maybe screwed for a few year from perfection, but hey, that's what tech is all about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661260</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1269895560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Things you write in Flash do not work on all browsers. They only work on browsers that have the Flash plug-in.</p></div><p>But at least it exists.  We still have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Completion" title="wikipedia.org">12 years to wait for HTML5</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Things you write in Flash do not work on all browsers .
They only work on browsers that have the Flash plug-in.But at least it exists .
We still have 12 years to wait for HTML5 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things you write in Flash do not work on all browsers.
They only work on browsers that have the Flash plug-in.But at least it exists.
We still have 12 years to wait for HTML5 [wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31664376</id>
	<title>Re:Stinking badgers</title>
	<author>game kid</author>
	<datestamp>1269867900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck canvas--it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas\_element#Intellectual\_property\_over\_canvas" title="wikipedia.org">patented Apple crap</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable\_Vector\_Graphics" title="wikipedia.org">redundant</a> [wikipedia.org].  Gimme my Scalable Vector Badgers.  <a href="http://www.weebls-stuff.com/songs/kenya/" title="weebls-stuff.com">Forget Norway.</a> [weebls-stuff.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck canvas--it 's patented Apple crap [ wikipedia.org ] and redundant [ wikipedia.org ] .
Gim me my Scalable Vector Badgers .
Forget Norway .
[ weebls-stuff.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck canvas--it's patented Apple crap [wikipedia.org] and redundant [wikipedia.org].
Gimme my Scalable Vector Badgers.
Forget Norway.
[weebls-stuff.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660770</id>
	<title>What, me worry?</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1269893280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is sensible not to worry about something you cannot control.  Comparing Flash to HTML5 is like comparing Windows to POSIX.  You don't make money on standards; the money is in the products that may use them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is sensible not to worry about something you can not control .
Comparing Flash to HTML5 is like comparing Windows to POSIX .
You do n't make money on standards ; the money is in the products that may use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is sensible not to worry about something you cannot control.
Comparing Flash to HTML5 is like comparing Windows to POSIX.
You don't make money on standards; the money is in the products that may use them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31665606</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1269875760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He or she probably thinks that HTML5 is the be-all and end-all of browser programming, and has wet dreams about Javascript one day pulling off something more complicated than a fade in/fade out effect.</p></div><p>Females really have wet dreams?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He or she probably thinks that HTML5 is the be-all and end-all of browser programming , and has wet dreams about Javascript one day pulling off something more complicated than a fade in/fade out effect.Females really have wet dreams ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He or she probably thinks that HTML5 is the be-all and end-all of browser programming, and has wet dreams about Javascript one day pulling off something more complicated than a fade in/fade out effect.Females really have wet dreams?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659264</id>
	<title>Subdued flavors of 1984?</title>
	<author>Neuroelectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1269886560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps someone at Adobe was told they have a golden opportunity to be a major player in the future of multimedia distribution.  That someone probably doesn't want to see a decentralized or open multimedia distribution framework, and they would make sure Adobe has the opportunity to bring it to fruition themselves and be very profitable while they do it.</p><blockquote><div><p>"One of the things I talk a lot about is the necessity to juggle all of the constituencies that have an interest in the business: shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, and the communities in which we operate. Those constituencies are all mildly in conflict with one another in terms of what's best for them. Your job as a leader in a company is to find an appropriate way to juggle those conflicting interests so everybody feels like they're getting a fair deal, without letting any one dominate the others because they'll drag your company down."</p></div></blockquote><p>This long list of people who have a financial and power interest in the outcome of this little world; what they fail to see is that their customers and the artists are both used to getting things for free and the technology is only a placeholder for the culture. As soon as the technology is not capable of supporting it, they will find something else that will. Adobe is going to find that they didn't sell a multimedia format, they sold a SDK (Flash Pro, iirc) that offered the cheapest way for artists to work.  When I say "sold" I mean provided to the market in one way or another.</p><p>I'm sure what will happen is Adobe will try to leverage their existing technologies to create a rights management framework on top or alongside the multimedia framework, something that will pay artists and charge customers.  Most artists will find that not enough people are going to pay to play or not enough to pay for their investment.  Adobe will be able to enforce use of their SDK using this rights management framework and will find soon afterward that artists can't pay either.  With little customers left and a large number of artists looking for something to play with, I think you'll find that there will be plenty of people willing to create an artist friendly SDK on top of HTML5 that doesn't offer Adobe's DRM "services".  Adobe will not be able to pay for the development of the monstrosity Flash will become when trying to mix security, super-DRM, other non-customer requested features, cross-platform support and a friendly UI.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps someone at Adobe was told they have a golden opportunity to be a major player in the future of multimedia distribution .
That someone probably does n't want to see a decentralized or open multimedia distribution framework , and they would make sure Adobe has the opportunity to bring it to fruition themselves and be very profitable while they do it .
" One of the things I talk a lot about is the necessity to juggle all of the constituencies that have an interest in the business : shareholders , customers , employees , vendors , and the communities in which we operate .
Those constituencies are all mildly in conflict with one another in terms of what 's best for them .
Your job as a leader in a company is to find an appropriate way to juggle those conflicting interests so everybody feels like they 're getting a fair deal , without letting any one dominate the others because they 'll drag your company down .
" This long list of people who have a financial and power interest in the outcome of this little world ; what they fail to see is that their customers and the artists are both used to getting things for free and the technology is only a placeholder for the culture .
As soon as the technology is not capable of supporting it , they will find something else that will .
Adobe is going to find that they did n't sell a multimedia format , they sold a SDK ( Flash Pro , iirc ) that offered the cheapest way for artists to work .
When I say " sold " I mean provided to the market in one way or another.I 'm sure what will happen is Adobe will try to leverage their existing technologies to create a rights management framework on top or alongside the multimedia framework , something that will pay artists and charge customers .
Most artists will find that not enough people are going to pay to play or not enough to pay for their investment .
Adobe will be able to enforce use of their SDK using this rights management framework and will find soon afterward that artists ca n't pay either .
With little customers left and a large number of artists looking for something to play with , I think you 'll find that there will be plenty of people willing to create an artist friendly SDK on top of HTML5 that does n't offer Adobe 's DRM " services " .
Adobe will not be able to pay for the development of the monstrosity Flash will become when trying to mix security , super-DRM , other non-customer requested features , cross-platform support and a friendly UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps someone at Adobe was told they have a golden opportunity to be a major player in the future of multimedia distribution.
That someone probably doesn't want to see a decentralized or open multimedia distribution framework, and they would make sure Adobe has the opportunity to bring it to fruition themselves and be very profitable while they do it.
"One of the things I talk a lot about is the necessity to juggle all of the constituencies that have an interest in the business: shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, and the communities in which we operate.
Those constituencies are all mildly in conflict with one another in terms of what's best for them.
Your job as a leader in a company is to find an appropriate way to juggle those conflicting interests so everybody feels like they're getting a fair deal, without letting any one dominate the others because they'll drag your company down.
"This long list of people who have a financial and power interest in the outcome of this little world; what they fail to see is that their customers and the artists are both used to getting things for free and the technology is only a placeholder for the culture.
As soon as the technology is not capable of supporting it, they will find something else that will.
Adobe is going to find that they didn't sell a multimedia format, they sold a SDK (Flash Pro, iirc) that offered the cheapest way for artists to work.
When I say "sold" I mean provided to the market in one way or another.I'm sure what will happen is Adobe will try to leverage their existing technologies to create a rights management framework on top or alongside the multimedia framework, something that will pay artists and charge customers.
Most artists will find that not enough people are going to pay to play or not enough to pay for their investment.
Adobe will be able to enforce use of their SDK using this rights management framework and will find soon afterward that artists can't pay either.
With little customers left and a large number of artists looking for something to play with, I think you'll find that there will be plenty of people willing to create an artist friendly SDK on top of HTML5 that doesn't offer Adobe's DRM "services".
Adobe will not be able to pay for the development of the monstrosity Flash will become when trying to mix security, super-DRM, other non-customer requested features, cross-platform support and a friendly UI.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660304</id>
	<title>I am a web developer...</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1269891120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a web developer here in New Zealand. Here is why I do not need Flash:
<br> <br>
- To purchase Flash is about $1000 dollars for something I may only use a few times a year.<br>
- For movies either ondemand or live dreamweaver generates code for the Player SWF and you get your movie elsewhere.<br>
- By elsewhere, encoded via free tools.<br>
- I dont do games, only some animation when needed. By when needed we did a site for a pre-scool and it had a cartoon theme. <br>
- We do bot do "Digging Man Under Construction" animations.
 <br> <br>With due respect to the Adobe Company Man but HTML 5 will make Flash irrelevant. If anyone has looked at canvas demos a few months ago, I suggest they look again. Things have leap-frogged already to the "how-is-this-possible" stage. Flashs one hope is as wysiwig to make HTML 5 output. That will be a needed tool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a web developer here in New Zealand .
Here is why I do not need Flash : - To purchase Flash is about $ 1000 dollars for something I may only use a few times a year .
- For movies either ondemand or live dreamweaver generates code for the Player SWF and you get your movie elsewhere .
- By elsewhere , encoded via free tools .
- I dont do games , only some animation when needed .
By when needed we did a site for a pre-scool and it had a cartoon theme .
- We do bot do " Digging Man Under Construction " animations .
With due respect to the Adobe Company Man but HTML 5 will make Flash irrelevant .
If anyone has looked at canvas demos a few months ago , I suggest they look again .
Things have leap-frogged already to the " how-is-this-possible " stage .
Flashs one hope is as wysiwig to make HTML 5 output .
That will be a needed tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a web developer here in New Zealand.
Here is why I do not need Flash:
 
- To purchase Flash is about $1000 dollars for something I may only use a few times a year.
- For movies either ondemand or live dreamweaver generates code for the Player SWF and you get your movie elsewhere.
- By elsewhere, encoded via free tools.
- I dont do games, only some animation when needed.
By when needed we did a site for a pre-scool and it had a cartoon theme.
- We do bot do "Digging Man Under Construction" animations.
With due respect to the Adobe Company Man but HTML 5 will make Flash irrelevant.
If anyone has looked at canvas demos a few months ago, I suggest they look again.
Things have leap-frogged already to the "how-is-this-possible" stage.
Flashs one hope is as wysiwig to make HTML 5 output.
That will be a needed tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660696</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>mjbkinx</author>
	<datestamp>1269892980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additionally, the Flash Player will let you save a lot of bandwidth cost through P2P streaming.</p><p>HTML5 is great, and it will replace Flash in some areas. But it's already years behind, and it's not even properly adapted yet.<br>
And that's the latest iteration of HTML. When do you think HTML6 will be out? Meanwhile, Flash evolves further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , the Flash Player will let you save a lot of bandwidth cost through P2P streaming.HTML5 is great , and it will replace Flash in some areas .
But it 's already years behind , and it 's not even properly adapted yet .
And that 's the latest iteration of HTML .
When do you think HTML6 will be out ?
Meanwhile , Flash evolves further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, the Flash Player will let you save a lot of bandwidth cost through P2P streaming.HTML5 is great, and it will replace Flash in some areas.
But it's already years behind, and it's not even properly adapted yet.
And that's the latest iteration of HTML.
When do you think HTML6 will be out?
Meanwhile, Flash evolves further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659976</id>
	<title>Just don't put flash on the home page</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1269889620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good for video, and can't think of any other use for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good for video , and ca n't think of any other use for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good for video, and can't think of any other use for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31666554</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269884640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh my God! You're everything that's wrong with the internet!"<br>I was going to rant against the parent as well but you've summed up my feelings about flash and the asshats who develop/commission flash sites. When has anyone ever visited a site and thought, "gee, I wish this site used more flash."? I look forward to the death/marginalization of flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh my God !
You 're everything that 's wrong with the internet !
" I was going to rant against the parent as well but you 've summed up my feelings about flash and the asshats who develop/commission flash sites .
When has anyone ever visited a site and thought , " gee , I wish this site used more flash. " ?
I look forward to the death/marginalization of flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh my God!
You're everything that's wrong with the internet!
"I was going to rant against the parent as well but you've summed up my feelings about flash and the asshats who develop/commission flash sites.
When has anyone ever visited a site and thought, "gee, I wish this site used more flash."?
I look forward to the death/marginalization of flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</id>
	<title>Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269886440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever I'm handed mod-points, the FAQ is quick to point out that I should not mod posts based on my opinion, in fact, I should be as impartial as possible. Considering the submitter's opinion is blatant to see, I'll just go and brazenly smash my point of view into his open-source skull. His, and everyone else's who think that Flash has everything to do with you-tube, and nothing to do with artistic license:<br> <br>

The submitter is a cretin. An arrogant fool. He or she probably thinks that HTML5 is the be-all and end-all of browser programming, and has wet dreams about Javascript one day pulling off something more complicated than a fade in/fade out effect. Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!". Yes, it is possible to commit atrocities with Flash, but don't blame Adobe for that, the next time you see someone using AS1/2, tell them to use Flex instead.<br> <br>

Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting, it's what lets me tell the designers "yes! I can render our company's portfolio in 3D". It lets people do stupid little games and animations that make things interesting. So, until one of your open source tree humping hippy tossers makes something as extensible, easy to use and creativity empowering as Flash, well, I'm sorry but Flash is going to be here to stay. Because let's face it, not everyone browses the web through Steve Job's little slab of crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I 'm handed mod-points , the FAQ is quick to point out that I should not mod posts based on my opinion , in fact , I should be as impartial as possible .
Considering the submitter 's opinion is blatant to see , I 'll just go and brazenly smash my point of view into his open-source skull .
His , and everyone else 's who think that Flash has everything to do with you-tube , and nothing to do with artistic license : The submitter is a cretin .
An arrogant fool .
He or she probably thinks that HTML5 is the be-all and end-all of browser programming , and has wet dreams about Javascript one day pulling off something more complicated than a fade in/fade out effect .
Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms , and fluid , interesting and deeply creative content ; Something that tells your customers and competitors " hey , we have style ! " .
Yes , it is possible to commit atrocities with Flash , but do n't blame Adobe for that , the next time you see someone using AS1/2 , tell them to use Flex instead .
Flash makes the web interesting , it 's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs , it 's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting , it 's what lets me tell the designers " yes !
I can render our company 's portfolio in 3D " .
It lets people do stupid little games and animations that make things interesting .
So , until one of your open source tree humping hippy tossers makes something as extensible , easy to use and creativity empowering as Flash , well , I 'm sorry but Flash is going to be here to stay .
Because let 's face it , not everyone browses the web through Steve Job 's little slab of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I'm handed mod-points, the FAQ is quick to point out that I should not mod posts based on my opinion, in fact, I should be as impartial as possible.
Considering the submitter's opinion is blatant to see, I'll just go and brazenly smash my point of view into his open-source skull.
His, and everyone else's who think that Flash has everything to do with you-tube, and nothing to do with artistic license: 

The submitter is a cretin.
An arrogant fool.
He or she probably thinks that HTML5 is the be-all and end-all of browser programming, and has wet dreams about Javascript one day pulling off something more complicated than a fade in/fade out effect.
Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!".
Yes, it is possible to commit atrocities with Flash, but don't blame Adobe for that, the next time you see someone using AS1/2, tell them to use Flex instead.
Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting, it's what lets me tell the designers "yes!
I can render our company's portfolio in 3D".
It lets people do stupid little games and animations that make things interesting.
So, until one of your open source tree humping hippy tossers makes something as extensible, easy to use and creativity empowering as Flash, well, I'm sorry but Flash is going to be here to stay.
Because let's face it, not everyone browses the web through Steve Job's little slab of crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660036</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>psbrogna</author>
	<datestamp>1269889800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Things you write in Flash do not work on all browsers. They only work on browsers that have the Flash plug-in.
<br> <br>
Let's not gloss over that: HTML5 may support a subset of Flash today, but it could eventually encompass all of it (or, gasp- exceed Flash functionality) and will do so in all HTML5 browsers without relying on a proprietary plug-in and closed eco-system of authoring tools. I think many people prefer this approach because Adobe is neglecting their platform and also because existing authoring tools from the vendor don't provide the functionality needed at the price desired.
<br> <br>
I emphasize the above obvious point because your post seemed to gloss over the whole point of the HTML5 vs. Flash debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Things you write in Flash do not work on all browsers .
They only work on browsers that have the Flash plug-in .
Let 's not gloss over that : HTML5 may support a subset of Flash today , but it could eventually encompass all of it ( or , gasp- exceed Flash functionality ) and will do so in all HTML5 browsers without relying on a proprietary plug-in and closed eco-system of authoring tools .
I think many people prefer this approach because Adobe is neglecting their platform and also because existing authoring tools from the vendor do n't provide the functionality needed at the price desired .
I emphasize the above obvious point because your post seemed to gloss over the whole point of the HTML5 vs. Flash debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things you write in Flash do not work on all browsers.
They only work on browsers that have the Flash plug-in.
Let's not gloss over that: HTML5 may support a subset of Flash today, but it could eventually encompass all of it (or, gasp- exceed Flash functionality) and will do so in all HTML5 browsers without relying on a proprietary plug-in and closed eco-system of authoring tools.
I think many people prefer this approach because Adobe is neglecting their platform and also because existing authoring tools from the vendor don't provide the functionality needed at the price desired.
I emphasize the above obvious point because your post seemed to gloss over the whole point of the HTML5 vs. Flash debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</id>
	<title>Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>KeithIrwin</author>
	<datestamp>1269885900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you really look at it, there's no reason that Adobe shouldn't embrace HTML 5.  Fundamentally, maintaining a cross-platform plug-in is not a profit center for them, it's a cost.  They don't make money on the plug-ins, they make money on the Creative Suite product which allows designers to create animations, games, and the like easily.  All this work of maintaining their own actionscript standards and standard library just serves to make their pay products more useful.</p><p>Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5". Would this make their product less useful?  Of course not.  Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices, including several, like the iPhone, from which they have previously been locked out.  And it wouldn't even be surprising if over time they transitioned entirely to HTML 5, giving up the work involved in maintaining Flash.  They probably won't do this in the short run, but in the long run, it's entirely plausible.</p><p>I'm sure some people will point out that the move to HTML 5 opens them up to more competitors, and it does.  But they've already got competitors even with the Flash ecosystem.  There are a variety of ways to make swfs, including swftools, FlashDevelop, and the free Actionscript compiler which Adobe itself released as part of the Flex SDK.  There are even a few other pay products out there.  So, essentially, they already are in a market where there are a bunch of other tools which are cheaper but either can't produce complex content or require a bunch of coding to produce similar content.  If they switch over to HTML5, they will likely be in the same boat, just in a bigger lake.  Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever, but they'll have a clear and immediate advantage when it comes to "Flash-like" stuff such as animations and games.</p><p>So in summary, if they manage the transition properly, moving towards HTML5 means less costs and a bigger market.  That sounds to me like a pretty clear win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you really look at it , there 's no reason that Adobe should n't embrace HTML 5 .
Fundamentally , maintaining a cross-platform plug-in is not a profit center for them , it 's a cost .
They do n't make money on the plug-ins , they make money on the Creative Suite product which allows designers to create animations , games , and the like easily .
All this work of maintaining their own actionscript standards and standard library just serves to make their pay products more useful.Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future , Adobe has a new option on the menu " Export to HTML5 " .
Would this make their product less useful ?
Of course not .
Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices , including several , like the iPhone , from which they have previously been locked out .
And it would n't even be surprising if over time they transitioned entirely to HTML 5 , giving up the work involved in maintaining Flash .
They probably wo n't do this in the short run , but in the long run , it 's entirely plausible.I 'm sure some people will point out that the move to HTML 5 opens them up to more competitors , and it does .
But they 've already got competitors even with the Flash ecosystem .
There are a variety of ways to make swfs , including swftools , FlashDevelop , and the free Actionscript compiler which Adobe itself released as part of the Flex SDK .
There are even a few other pay products out there .
So , essentially , they already are in a market where there are a bunch of other tools which are cheaper but either ca n't produce complex content or require a bunch of coding to produce similar content .
If they switch over to HTML5 , they will likely be in the same boat , just in a bigger lake .
Sure they 'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever , but they 'll have a clear and immediate advantage when it comes to " Flash-like " stuff such as animations and games.So in summary , if they manage the transition properly , moving towards HTML5 means less costs and a bigger market .
That sounds to me like a pretty clear win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you really look at it, there's no reason that Adobe shouldn't embrace HTML 5.
Fundamentally, maintaining a cross-platform plug-in is not a profit center for them, it's a cost.
They don't make money on the plug-ins, they make money on the Creative Suite product which allows designers to create animations, games, and the like easily.
All this work of maintaining their own actionscript standards and standard library just serves to make their pay products more useful.Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5".
Would this make their product less useful?
Of course not.
Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices, including several, like the iPhone, from which they have previously been locked out.
And it wouldn't even be surprising if over time they transitioned entirely to HTML 5, giving up the work involved in maintaining Flash.
They probably won't do this in the short run, but in the long run, it's entirely plausible.I'm sure some people will point out that the move to HTML 5 opens them up to more competitors, and it does.
But they've already got competitors even with the Flash ecosystem.
There are a variety of ways to make swfs, including swftools, FlashDevelop, and the free Actionscript compiler which Adobe itself released as part of the Flex SDK.
There are even a few other pay products out there.
So, essentially, they already are in a market where there are a bunch of other tools which are cheaper but either can't produce complex content or require a bunch of coding to produce similar content.
If they switch over to HTML5, they will likely be in the same boat, just in a bigger lake.
Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever, but they'll have a clear and immediate advantage when it comes to "Flash-like" stuff such as animations and games.So in summary, if they manage the transition properly, moving towards HTML5 means less costs and a bigger market.
That sounds to me like a pretty clear win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660260</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1269890880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Playstation and an XBox 360, but my kids spend more time with Flash games on the web.  I think they get more fun from the endless novelty of new flash games, than from a smaller number of console games purchased on DVD, even if the console games do have much better graphics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Playstation and an XBox 360 , but my kids spend more time with Flash games on the web .
I think they get more fun from the endless novelty of new flash games , than from a smaller number of console games purchased on DVD , even if the console games do have much better graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Playstation and an XBox 360, but my kids spend more time with Flash games on the web.
I think they get more fun from the endless novelty of new flash games, than from a smaller number of console games purchased on DVD, even if the console games do have much better graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660066</id>
	<title>Re:Stinking badgers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269890040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha that was the best thing I've seen for ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha that was the best thing I 've seen for ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha that was the best thing I've seen for ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659966</id>
	<title>Re:SVG+video in IE 9 is the death blow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269889560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash dies once XP dies.</p></div><p>In other words, you're saying Flash will live forever?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash dies once XP dies.In other words , you 're saying Flash will live forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash dies once XP dies.In other words, you're saying Flash will live forever?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658944</id>
	<title>If you think pocket device are the future</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269885180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then release Flash for the G1 already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then release Flash for the G1 already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then release Flash for the G1 already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662122</id>
	<title>Adobe is evil.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plain and simple - As draconian as Microsoft, Apple &amp; Disney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain and simple - As draconian as Microsoft , Apple &amp; Disney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain and simple - As draconian as Microsoft, Apple &amp; Disney.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658920</id>
	<title>Their strategy is embedded Flash?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269885120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heavy and either reliant on a browser or stuck in a walled garden, Flash really doesn't have any fully realizable use.</p><p>Let's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device. That means that a browser is already necessary, it being embedded, it's probably going to be based on Webkit, and thus it will have extraordinary support for HTML5 and all those goodies. With Youtube being the benchmark Flash site, its migration to HTML5-based content will take away Adobe's claim to rights in this area.</p><p>On the other hand, as a UI solution, it provides an interesting mix of high-end functionality and high memory usage. While it may be quite capable to provide a great UI, the cost on the hardware side, plus the high cost of Flash Lite licenses makes it really difficult to justify.</p><p>Flash as it is today is done. And the open licensing "program" they've got running is first an foremost their last attempt to try to retain customers. What's more, the OpenScreen project isn't as "open" as they make it out to be, with incredibly strange restrictions that no OEM with anything to lose would be willing to sign on to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heavy and either reliant on a browser or stuck in a walled garden , Flash really does n't have any fully realizable use.Let 's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device .
That means that a browser is already necessary , it being embedded , it 's probably going to be based on Webkit , and thus it will have extraordinary support for HTML5 and all those goodies .
With Youtube being the benchmark Flash site , its migration to HTML5-based content will take away Adobe 's claim to rights in this area.On the other hand , as a UI solution , it provides an interesting mix of high-end functionality and high memory usage .
While it may be quite capable to provide a great UI , the cost on the hardware side , plus the high cost of Flash Lite licenses makes it really difficult to justify.Flash as it is today is done .
And the open licensing " program " they 've got running is first an foremost their last attempt to try to retain customers .
What 's more , the OpenScreen project is n't as " open " as they make it out to be , with incredibly strange restrictions that no OEM with anything to lose would be willing to sign on to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heavy and either reliant on a browser or stuck in a walled garden, Flash really doesn't have any fully realizable use.Let's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device.
That means that a browser is already necessary, it being embedded, it's probably going to be based on Webkit, and thus it will have extraordinary support for HTML5 and all those goodies.
With Youtube being the benchmark Flash site, its migration to HTML5-based content will take away Adobe's claim to rights in this area.On the other hand, as a UI solution, it provides an interesting mix of high-end functionality and high memory usage.
While it may be quite capable to provide a great UI, the cost on the hardware side, plus the high cost of Flash Lite licenses makes it really difficult to justify.Flash as it is today is done.
And the open licensing "program" they've got running is first an foremost their last attempt to try to retain customers.
What's more, the OpenScreen project isn't as "open" as they make it out to be, with incredibly strange restrictions that no OEM with anything to lose would be willing to sign on to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662458</id>
	<title>Re:Ultimately, users care about use and content</title>
	<author>Pieroxy</author>
	<datestamp>1269857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smoother than flash? Shocking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoother than flash ?
Shocking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smoother than flash?
Shocking!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662662</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering the submitter's opinion is blatant to see, I'll just go and brazenly smash my point of view into his open-source skull.</p></div><p>I think this is your problem more than the submitter's. You're letting bigotry guide your thinking. Open source was never mentioned. It seems to me that the submitter was more interested in open standards and open formats - both of which benefit closed source software as much as they do open source software.</p><p>It really comes down to the kind of market you want. You can have a closed, feudal market which protects the incumbents with single vendor lock in and high barriers to entry. Or you can have an open, competitive market with no vendor lock in and low barriers to entry for new competitors.</p><p>Open standards and open formats build competition. <i>That's</i> why they're important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the submitter 's opinion is blatant to see , I 'll just go and brazenly smash my point of view into his open-source skull.I think this is your problem more than the submitter 's .
You 're letting bigotry guide your thinking .
Open source was never mentioned .
It seems to me that the submitter was more interested in open standards and open formats - both of which benefit closed source software as much as they do open source software.It really comes down to the kind of market you want .
You can have a closed , feudal market which protects the incumbents with single vendor lock in and high barriers to entry .
Or you can have an open , competitive market with no vendor lock in and low barriers to entry for new competitors.Open standards and open formats build competition .
That 's why they 're important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the submitter's opinion is blatant to see, I'll just go and brazenly smash my point of view into his open-source skull.I think this is your problem more than the submitter's.
You're letting bigotry guide your thinking.
Open source was never mentioned.
It seems to me that the submitter was more interested in open standards and open formats - both of which benefit closed source software as much as they do open source software.It really comes down to the kind of market you want.
You can have a closed, feudal market which protects the incumbents with single vendor lock in and high barriers to entry.
Or you can have an open, competitive market with no vendor lock in and low barriers to entry for new competitors.Open standards and open formats build competition.
That's why they're important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659554</id>
	<title>Inside the Manager's Meeting at Adobe</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1269887700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boss:  So, HTML5 and such?  Thoughts?  Concerns?</p><p>Monkey 1:  HAH!  Every fucking site worth a damn already uses Flash for no fucking reason.</p><p>Monkey 2:  Yeah, good luck getting everyone to switch all their content and frameworks to HTML!</p><p>Token Female Monkey:  Yes!  I will hoot and holler along with you to assert that I fit in here!</p><p>Boss:  So it's agreed - we're entrenched so firmly up the web's ass that we don't need to worry about performance, security, features, etc.?</p><p>Token Female Monkey:  Yup!</p><p>Monkey 1:  Right-o, boss!</p><p>Monkey 2:  Business as usual!</p><p>Boss:  Good meeting guys, good meeting!  Have the baboon with the hot ass write something on our, what is it?  Facetwit?  Livebook?</p><p>Monkey 2:  Who gives a shit?</p><p>Token Female Monkey:  I do!  Heads up!<br><i>Token Female Monkey squats, shits in her hand, and flings the steamy dregs at Monkey 2.</i></p><p>Monkey 2 (<i>playfully</i>):  Oh you bitch!  Now you're gonna get it!</p><p><i>The scene devolves into a shit-throwing, ass-chasing fest between Monkey 1, Monkey 2, and Token Female Monkey, with incessant hooting and hollering.  Boss sits at the head of the table, looking over his employees.  Boss nods approvingly and calmly smokes a cigar, ignoring the specks of shit that ricochet onto his face.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boss : So , HTML5 and such ?
Thoughts ? Concerns ? Monkey 1 : HAH !
Every fucking site worth a damn already uses Flash for no fucking reason.Monkey 2 : Yeah , good luck getting everyone to switch all their content and frameworks to HTML ! Token Female Monkey : Yes !
I will hoot and holler along with you to assert that I fit in here ! Boss : So it 's agreed - we 're entrenched so firmly up the web 's ass that we do n't need to worry about performance , security , features , etc .
? Token Female Monkey : Yup ! Monkey 1 : Right-o , boss ! Monkey 2 : Business as usual ! Boss : Good meeting guys , good meeting !
Have the baboon with the hot ass write something on our , what is it ?
Facetwit ? Livebook ? Monkey 2 : Who gives a shit ? Token Female Monkey : I do !
Heads up ! Token Female Monkey squats , shits in her hand , and flings the steamy dregs at Monkey 2.Monkey 2 ( playfully ) : Oh you bitch !
Now you 're gon na get it ! The scene devolves into a shit-throwing , ass-chasing fest between Monkey 1 , Monkey 2 , and Token Female Monkey , with incessant hooting and hollering .
Boss sits at the head of the table , looking over his employees .
Boss nods approvingly and calmly smokes a cigar , ignoring the specks of shit that ricochet onto his face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boss:  So, HTML5 and such?
Thoughts?  Concerns?Monkey 1:  HAH!
Every fucking site worth a damn already uses Flash for no fucking reason.Monkey 2:  Yeah, good luck getting everyone to switch all their content and frameworks to HTML!Token Female Monkey:  Yes!
I will hoot and holler along with you to assert that I fit in here!Boss:  So it's agreed - we're entrenched so firmly up the web's ass that we don't need to worry about performance, security, features, etc.
?Token Female Monkey:  Yup!Monkey 1:  Right-o, boss!Monkey 2:  Business as usual!Boss:  Good meeting guys, good meeting!
Have the baboon with the hot ass write something on our, what is it?
Facetwit?  Livebook?Monkey 2:  Who gives a shit?Token Female Monkey:  I do!
Heads up!Token Female Monkey squats, shits in her hand, and flings the steamy dregs at Monkey 2.Monkey 2 (playfully):  Oh you bitch!
Now you're gonna get it!The scene devolves into a shit-throwing, ass-chasing fest between Monkey 1, Monkey 2, and Token Female Monkey, with incessant hooting and hollering.
Boss sits at the head of the table, looking over his employees.
Boss nods approvingly and calmly smokes a cigar, ignoring the specks of shit that ricochet onto his face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660254</id>
	<title>flash - will never die</title>
	<author>hornedrat</author>
	<datestamp>1269890880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>flash is the saviour of the universe consequently it should never go away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>flash is the saviour of the universe consequently it should never go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>flash is the saviour of the universe consequently it should never go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660868</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269893580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever...</p></div><p>You do know what company owns the DreamWeaver HTML authoring tool, don't you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they 'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever...You do know what company owns the DreamWeaver HTML authoring tool , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever...You do know what company owns the DreamWeaver HTML authoring tool, don't you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659730</id>
	<title>No more flash and we can move to 64 bit browsing</title>
	<author>falconcy</author>
	<datestamp>1269888480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting rid of flash completely will finally allow 64 bit web browsers to take off. It's only the need for flash that has held back most users from going fully 64 bit. Sure, Adobe have an alpha 64 bit linux version of the flash plugin availabe for quite a while now, they just never seemed to port it to any other platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting rid of flash completely will finally allow 64 bit web browsers to take off .
It 's only the need for flash that has held back most users from going fully 64 bit .
Sure , Adobe have an alpha 64 bit linux version of the flash plugin availabe for quite a while now , they just never seemed to port it to any other platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting rid of flash completely will finally allow 64 bit web browsers to take off.
It's only the need for flash that has held back most users from going fully 64 bit.
Sure, Adobe have an alpha 64 bit linux version of the flash plugin availabe for quite a while now, they just never seemed to port it to any other platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658892</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LIES! Flash is video! Flash didn't exist before video was popular online!  YOU WILL TOE THE SLASHDOT PARTY LINE!  Flash exists just for Hulu and Youtube and DON'T YOU FORGET IT.</p><p>- Anonymous Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LIES !
Flash is video !
Flash did n't exist before video was popular online !
YOU WILL TOE THE SLASHDOT PARTY LINE !
Flash exists just for Hulu and Youtube and DO N'T YOU FORGET IT.- Anonymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LIES!
Flash is video!
Flash didn't exist before video was popular online!
YOU WILL TOE THE SLASHDOT PARTY LINE!
Flash exists just for Hulu and Youtube and DON'T YOU FORGET IT.- Anonymous Coward</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660230</id>
	<title>Mr. Dowdell's opinion isn't Adobe's opinion</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1269890820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I find it instructive as to Adobe's perspective.</p></div><p>That would be a bad idea.</p><p>John Dowdell is a "user relations" guy at Adobe. He answers to users on support forums, writes a blog on Adobe topics and reads customer feedback at Adobe.</p><p>He doesn't speak for Adobe's strategy, nor is his opinion to be considered that of Adobe. In fact it says so on his blog: "Views are my own".</p><p>Plus, Adobe's been saying for the past few years "there's no HTML vs Flash" war namely since they don't want to position Flash as an HTML alternative (which is stupid in 2010) but as necessary extension to HTML.</p><p>You see? It's subtle. HTML won't replace Flash, but you still need Flash together with HTML in your browser and your mobile device (by the way: Flash 10.1 coming to a cellphones pretty soon). It's just another step in a survival strategy that will keep Flash from becoming irrelevant.</p><p>All their latest features focus on the unique strengths of a proprietary binary plugin that a public standard like HTML can't deliver quickly, or at all, which is: fully consistent performance across platforms, quick innovation, highly specialized features (such as pixel shaders, is this coming in HTML5? No. I thought so). We need that ingredient too, next to HTML5, to form a healthy ecosystem on the web, as much as some people hate to admit it.</p><p>But John Dowdell still doesn't speak for Adobe's strategy, so accept his blog for what it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it instructive as to Adobe 's perspective.That would be a bad idea.John Dowdell is a " user relations " guy at Adobe .
He answers to users on support forums , writes a blog on Adobe topics and reads customer feedback at Adobe.He does n't speak for Adobe 's strategy , nor is his opinion to be considered that of Adobe .
In fact it says so on his blog : " Views are my own " .Plus , Adobe 's been saying for the past few years " there 's no HTML vs Flash " war namely since they do n't want to position Flash as an HTML alternative ( which is stupid in 2010 ) but as necessary extension to HTML.You see ?
It 's subtle .
HTML wo n't replace Flash , but you still need Flash together with HTML in your browser and your mobile device ( by the way : Flash 10.1 coming to a cellphones pretty soon ) .
It 's just another step in a survival strategy that will keep Flash from becoming irrelevant.All their latest features focus on the unique strengths of a proprietary binary plugin that a public standard like HTML ca n't deliver quickly , or at all , which is : fully consistent performance across platforms , quick innovation , highly specialized features ( such as pixel shaders , is this coming in HTML5 ?
No. I thought so ) .
We need that ingredient too , next to HTML5 , to form a healthy ecosystem on the web , as much as some people hate to admit it.But John Dowdell still does n't speak for Adobe 's strategy , so accept his blog for what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I find it instructive as to Adobe's perspective.That would be a bad idea.John Dowdell is a "user relations" guy at Adobe.
He answers to users on support forums, writes a blog on Adobe topics and reads customer feedback at Adobe.He doesn't speak for Adobe's strategy, nor is his opinion to be considered that of Adobe.
In fact it says so on his blog: "Views are my own".Plus, Adobe's been saying for the past few years "there's no HTML vs Flash" war namely since they don't want to position Flash as an HTML alternative (which is stupid in 2010) but as necessary extension to HTML.You see?
It's subtle.
HTML won't replace Flash, but you still need Flash together with HTML in your browser and your mobile device (by the way: Flash 10.1 coming to a cellphones pretty soon).
It's just another step in a survival strategy that will keep Flash from becoming irrelevant.All their latest features focus on the unique strengths of a proprietary binary plugin that a public standard like HTML can't deliver quickly, or at all, which is: fully consistent performance across platforms, quick innovation, highly specialized features (such as pixel shaders, is this coming in HTML5?
No. I thought so).
We need that ingredient too, next to HTML5, to form a healthy ecosystem on the web, as much as some people hate to admit it.But John Dowdell still doesn't speak for Adobe's strategy, so accept his blog for what it is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661234</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1269895440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but <em>this time</em> it's going to be different, you'll see. HTML5 will be adopted by all browsers within a year, IE6, 7 and 8 will die a horrible death in 6 months, the MPEG consortium will open-source H264 and everyone will be able to make awesome html5 games with 10 lines of code (or less). Flash will be become a relic of the past, like animated gifs.</p><p>Interactive, annoyingly loud animated html5 banner ads will become the new standard. They'll be based on open standards and we'll love them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but this time it 's going to be different , you 'll see .
HTML5 will be adopted by all browsers within a year , IE6 , 7 and 8 will die a horrible death in 6 months , the MPEG consortium will open-source H264 and everyone will be able to make awesome html5 games with 10 lines of code ( or less ) .
Flash will be become a relic of the past , like animated gifs.Interactive , annoyingly loud animated html5 banner ads will become the new standard .
They 'll be based on open standards and we 'll love them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but this time it's going to be different, you'll see.
HTML5 will be adopted by all browsers within a year, IE6, 7 and 8 will die a horrible death in 6 months, the MPEG consortium will open-source H264 and everyone will be able to make awesome html5 games with 10 lines of code (or less).
Flash will be become a relic of the past, like animated gifs.Interactive, annoyingly loud animated html5 banner ads will become the new standard.
They'll be based on open standards and we'll love them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662584</id>
	<title>Slow News Day !!</title>
	<author>Rotorua</author>
	<datestamp>1269858420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like who really gives a shit !!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like who really gives a shit ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like who really gives a shit !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659454</id>
	<title>Will Not Miss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269887220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will not miss Flash, eventually all of its capabilities will be replaced with open standard / open implementation efforts.  Really waiting for that time.</p><p>Some of my projects with BellTV were about removing Flash components from the site, everything that was done in Flash was changed to Javascript + DOM manipulation + some images.</p><p>Once Youtube is in HTML5, I will never have to use Flash again ever in my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will not miss Flash , eventually all of its capabilities will be replaced with open standard / open implementation efforts .
Really waiting for that time.Some of my projects with BellTV were about removing Flash components from the site , everything that was done in Flash was changed to Javascript + DOM manipulation + some images.Once Youtube is in HTML5 , I will never have to use Flash again ever in my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will not miss Flash, eventually all of its capabilities will be replaced with open standard / open implementation efforts.
Really waiting for that time.Some of my projects with BellTV were about removing Flash components from the site, everything that was done in Flash was changed to Javascript + DOM manipulation + some images.Once Youtube is in HTML5, I will never have to use Flash again ever in my life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31666458</id>
	<title>the biggest complaint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269883740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Flash vs HTML5 argument is one of the most amusing arguments I've seen for a while in the tech industry.. Steve jobs has a huge invested interest in making sure that Flash does not and will not ever exist or work properly on any apple products for the simple reason that by having Flash working properly on apple products there is a risk to his all important appstore revenue... I have to agree that Flash is buggy and Adobe is resting on its laurels when it should be really working hard to optimise and improve the security and managability of flash.. but of course adobe being adobe they have their heads stuck in the sand which is the same as so many other tech companies in the past which have failed..</p><p>The reality is that anyone who wants to write an application should be able to have a choice in what language they want to write it in.. having a diverse choice of languages gives people flexibility because no single language can provide everything for everyone.. if it wasn't the case then we could all still be coding in C or whatever came before that...</p><p>Being vocal about flash's short comings is important to hopefully raise awareness of where Adobe needs to improve to keep the market.. I have serious doubts that they will listen fast enough to keep their number one market position as it stands today.. especially with renewed competition from Microsoft and more 'open' standards like HTML5 and the associated languages/tools/inputs.<br>Steve Jobs needs to shut the hell up.. The more I hear him rant the more I think the guy's a waste of space... (yes i understand there are many mac fanbois who can't stand to hear their "god like" leader be slandered but that's life.. the reality is that apple users are all just lemmings in the apple profit wheel)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Flash vs HTML5 argument is one of the most amusing arguments I 've seen for a while in the tech industry.. Steve jobs has a huge invested interest in making sure that Flash does not and will not ever exist or work properly on any apple products for the simple reason that by having Flash working properly on apple products there is a risk to his all important appstore revenue... I have to agree that Flash is buggy and Adobe is resting on its laurels when it should be really working hard to optimise and improve the security and managability of flash.. but of course adobe being adobe they have their heads stuck in the sand which is the same as so many other tech companies in the past which have failed..The reality is that anyone who wants to write an application should be able to have a choice in what language they want to write it in.. having a diverse choice of languages gives people flexibility because no single language can provide everything for everyone.. if it was n't the case then we could all still be coding in C or whatever came before that...Being vocal about flash 's short comings is important to hopefully raise awareness of where Adobe needs to improve to keep the market.. I have serious doubts that they will listen fast enough to keep their number one market position as it stands today.. especially with renewed competition from Microsoft and more 'open ' standards like HTML5 and the associated languages/tools/inputs.Steve Jobs needs to shut the hell up.. The more I hear him rant the more I think the guy 's a waste of space... ( yes i understand there are many mac fanbois who ca n't stand to hear their " god like " leader be slandered but that 's life.. the reality is that apple users are all just lemmings in the apple profit wheel )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Flash vs HTML5 argument is one of the most amusing arguments I've seen for a while in the tech industry.. Steve jobs has a huge invested interest in making sure that Flash does not and will not ever exist or work properly on any apple products for the simple reason that by having Flash working properly on apple products there is a risk to his all important appstore revenue... I have to agree that Flash is buggy and Adobe is resting on its laurels when it should be really working hard to optimise and improve the security and managability of flash.. but of course adobe being adobe they have their heads stuck in the sand which is the same as so many other tech companies in the past which have failed..The reality is that anyone who wants to write an application should be able to have a choice in what language they want to write it in.. having a diverse choice of languages gives people flexibility because no single language can provide everything for everyone.. if it wasn't the case then we could all still be coding in C or whatever came before that...Being vocal about flash's short comings is important to hopefully raise awareness of where Adobe needs to improve to keep the market.. I have serious doubts that they will listen fast enough to keep their number one market position as it stands today.. especially with renewed competition from Microsoft and more 'open' standards like HTML5 and the associated languages/tools/inputs.Steve Jobs needs to shut the hell up.. The more I hear him rant the more I think the guy's a waste of space... (yes i understand there are many mac fanbois who can't stand to hear their "god like" leader be slandered but that's life.. the reality is that apple users are all just lemmings in the apple profit wheel)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816</id>
	<title>Consistency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269888840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It surprises me that in all of the discussions about how HTML5 is going to murder Flash, the one thing that everyone overlooks is the exact reason why Flash continues to be popular - Cross-browser consistency.</p><p>I mean, right now, you cannot expect any of the five browsers to display CSS2 consistently, and that spec has been around since 1998. Why is it that everyone expects HTML5 to be perfect out of the box on every platform?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It surprises me that in all of the discussions about how HTML5 is going to murder Flash , the one thing that everyone overlooks is the exact reason why Flash continues to be popular - Cross-browser consistency.I mean , right now , you can not expect any of the five browsers to display CSS2 consistently , and that spec has been around since 1998 .
Why is it that everyone expects HTML5 to be perfect out of the box on every platform ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It surprises me that in all of the discussions about how HTML5 is going to murder Flash, the one thing that everyone overlooks is the exact reason why Flash continues to be popular - Cross-browser consistency.I mean, right now, you cannot expect any of the five browsers to display CSS2 consistently, and that spec has been around since 1998.
Why is it that everyone expects HTML5 to be perfect out of the box on every platform?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31664704</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>tomasf</author>
	<datestamp>1269869640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?).</p></div><p>Just wanted to mention there's Live HTTP Streaming: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP\_Live\_Streaming" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> </a> [wikipedia.org]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP\_Live\_Streaming" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP\_Live\_Streaming</a> [wikipedia.org] , which does both of those things.</p><p>It only works on OS X Snow Leopard and iPhone so far, but it's a start.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons , such as dynamic bitrates ( connection quality goes down , the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate ) , and real-time seeking ( ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded ?
) .Just wanted to mention there 's Live HTTP Streaming : [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP \ _Live \ _Streaming [ wikipedia.org ] , which does both of those things.It only works on OS X Snow Leopard and iPhone so far , but it 's a start .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?
).Just wanted to mention there's Live HTTP Streaming:   [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP\_Live\_Streaming [wikipedia.org] , which does both of those things.It only works on OS X Snow Leopard and iPhone so far, but it's a start.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659572</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269887820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5". Would this make their product less useful?  Of course not.</p> </div><p>Oh man, you are clearly thinking about things the right way. If they only have to maintain a compiler and let browsers be browsers, then they may lose a major cost center of their model. I wonder if that is their plan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future , Adobe has a new option on the menu " Export to HTML5 " .
Would this make their product less useful ?
Of course not .
Oh man , you are clearly thinking about things the right way .
If they only have to maintain a compiler and let browsers be browsers , then they may lose a major cost center of their model .
I wonder if that is their plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5".
Would this make their product less useful?
Of course not.
Oh man, you are clearly thinking about things the right way.
If they only have to maintain a compiler and let browsers be browsers, then they may lose a major cost center of their model.
I wonder if that is their plan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659388</id>
	<title>m2s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269886980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PERTAMAX!!!</p><p><a href="http://movie2satu.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">movie2satu | download all movie</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PERTAMAX ! !
! movie2satu | download all movie [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PERTAMAX!!
!movie2satu | download all movie [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>nahdude812</author>
	<datestamp>1269885360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely, there's a whole realm of rich applications for which HTML5 can only just barely begin to dream.</p><p>But beyond this, even in the arena of video (which as you point out, seems to be the only corner of the Flash world the doomsayers want to talk about), HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency.  There isn't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5 (Mozilla won't support H.264 for patent reasons), and even if there <em>were</em>, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?).</p><p>Plus it's still missing camera and microphone controls.</p><p>Let's not forget that ActionScript is a much stronger language than JavaScript, and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS's if they work on your desktop, while JavaScript and interacting with the browser's DOM to this day is widely different in each browser, and sometimes even different in the same browser on different OS's.  So the testing surface area in Flash is <em>n</em> (where n is the complexity of the application), while it's <em>n</em>*<em>bv</em>*<em>o</em> for HTML5 (where <em>bv</em> is the set of browsers and browser versions you want to support, and <em>o</em> is the set of OS's you want to support).</p><p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HTML5 is moving in the right direction.  But it's a long, <em>long</em> distance from seriously competing with Flash except ideologically.  It will be five years before it's a serious competitor, and only if the backers of HTML5 all start pulling in the same direction (today they're pulling in different directions on things as simple as what codec video should use).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely , there 's a whole realm of rich applications for which HTML5 can only just barely begin to dream.But beyond this , even in the arena of video ( which as you point out , seems to be the only corner of the Flash world the doomsayers want to talk about ) , HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency .
There is n't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5 ( Mozilla wo n't support H.264 for patent reasons ) , and even if there were , it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons , such as dynamic bitrates ( connection quality goes down , the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate ) , and real-time seeking ( ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded ?
) .Plus it 's still missing camera and microphone controls.Let 's not forget that ActionScript is a much stronger language than JavaScript , and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS 's if they work on your desktop , while JavaScript and interacting with the browser 's DOM to this day is widely different in each browser , and sometimes even different in the same browser on different OS 's .
So the testing surface area in Flash is n ( where n is the complexity of the application ) , while it 's n * bv * o for HTML5 ( where bv is the set of browsers and browser versions you want to support , and o is the set of OS 's you want to support ) .I 've said it before , and I 'll say it again .
HTML5 is moving in the right direction .
But it 's a long , long distance from seriously competing with Flash except ideologically .
It will be five years before it 's a serious competitor , and only if the backers of HTML5 all start pulling in the same direction ( today they 're pulling in different directions on things as simple as what codec video should use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely, there's a whole realm of rich applications for which HTML5 can only just barely begin to dream.But beyond this, even in the arena of video (which as you point out, seems to be the only corner of the Flash world the doomsayers want to talk about), HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency.
There isn't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5 (Mozilla won't support H.264 for patent reasons), and even if there were, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?
).Plus it's still missing camera and microphone controls.Let's not forget that ActionScript is a much stronger language than JavaScript, and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS's if they work on your desktop, while JavaScript and interacting with the browser's DOM to this day is widely different in each browser, and sometimes even different in the same browser on different OS's.
So the testing surface area in Flash is n (where n is the complexity of the application), while it's n*bv*o for HTML5 (where bv is the set of browsers and browser versions you want to support, and o is the set of OS's you want to support).I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
HTML5 is moving in the right direction.
But it's a long, long distance from seriously competing with Flash except ideologically.
It will be five years before it's a serious competitor, and only if the backers of HTML5 all start pulling in the same direction (today they're pulling in different directions on things as simple as what codec video should use).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659032</id>
	<title>The fact that they're talking about it says a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you have to explain that you're not scared about a trend that could hurt your product, it means you ARE scared of the trend.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you have to explain that you 're not scared about a trend that could hurt your product , it means you ARE scared of the trend .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you have to explain that you're not scared about a trend that could hurt your product, it means you ARE scared of the trend.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659904</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1269889260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that there will be (are?) good FOSS tools to create HTML5 video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that there will be ( are ?
) good FOSS tools to create HTML5 video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that there will be (are?
) good FOSS tools to create HTML5 video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659168</id>
	<title>Of course they aren't worried.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269886200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's how it will go down: "Flash CS4 - Now with HTML5!"</p><p>They will fall back on their design environment to create HTML 5 compliant applications and continue to sell to the more design-oriented customer. So of course they aren't worried. They'll just use HTML 5 output and sell to their already established base.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how it will go down : " Flash CS4 - Now with HTML5 !
" They will fall back on their design environment to create HTML 5 compliant applications and continue to sell to the more design-oriented customer .
So of course they are n't worried .
They 'll just use HTML 5 output and sell to their already established base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how it will go down: "Flash CS4 - Now with HTML5!
"They will fall back on their design environment to create HTML 5 compliant applications and continue to sell to the more design-oriented customer.
So of course they aren't worried.
They'll just use HTML 5 output and sell to their already established base.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659130</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1269886080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true, and while I dislike Flash in general, it is a very powerful and accessible web platform.</p><p>Probably the best 'ramp' to Web 3.0 (gag) I've ever seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true , and while I dislike Flash in general , it is a very powerful and accessible web platform.Probably the best 'ramp ' to Web 3.0 ( gag ) I 've ever seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true, and while I dislike Flash in general, it is a very powerful and accessible web platform.Probably the best 'ramp' to Web 3.0 (gag) I've ever seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659368</id>
	<title>archival quality Internet, please</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1269886920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't care less what new gizmos and glitz the web has<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what I care about is that if I create apps, just like documents and databases, I want to still be able to access and use them 20 or 40 years from now without recoding and reformatting them. The gold rush is over. What I want now is bulletproof base of archival-quality standards, not ones that reinvent themselves every product cycle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't care less what new gizmos and glitz the web has ... what I care about is that if I create apps , just like documents and databases , I want to still be able to access and use them 20 or 40 years from now without recoding and reformatting them .
The gold rush is over .
What I want now is bulletproof base of archival-quality standards , not ones that reinvent themselves every product cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't care less what new gizmos and glitz the web has ... what I care about is that if I create apps, just like documents and databases, I want to still be able to access and use them 20 or 40 years from now without recoding and reformatting them.
The gold rush is over.
What I want now is bulletproof base of archival-quality standards, not ones that reinvent themselves every product cycle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659426</id>
	<title>Re:Stinking badgers</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1269887160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think perhaps you meant to type <a href="http://www.homestarrunner.com/" title="homestarrunner.com">HomeStar Runner</a> [homestarrunner.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think perhaps you meant to type HomeStar Runner [ homestarrunner.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think perhaps you meant to type HomeStar Runner [homestarrunner.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663364</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>moreati</author>
	<datestamp>1269862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!".</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm curious, could you point to a site that exemplifies this?</p><p>I agree there's a gap that currently only Flash fills - namely delivering content that is a game, an animation, an audio track or a video. I've yet to see a site where I thought Flash used as a design element was an improvement, so I'm interested to see your take on it. Regards, Alex.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms , and fluid , interesting and deeply creative content ; Something that tells your customers and competitors " hey , we have style !
" .I 'm curious , could you point to a site that exemplifies this ? I agree there 's a gap that currently only Flash fills - namely delivering content that is a game , an animation , an audio track or a video .
I 've yet to see a site where I thought Flash used as a design element was an improvement , so I 'm interested to see your take on it .
Regards , Alex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!
".I'm curious, could you point to a site that exemplifies this?I agree there's a gap that currently only Flash fills - namely delivering content that is a game, an animation, an audio track or a video.
I've yet to see a site where I thought Flash used as a design element was an improvement, so I'm interested to see your take on it.
Regards, Alex.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31668190</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>noscript can already block  and  elements</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>noscript can already block and elements</tokentext>
<sentencetext>noscript can already block  and  elements</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662362</id>
	<title>Laid Back</title>
	<author>cmacb</author>
	<datestamp>1269857520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This company is so laid back about "the future of their products" I think they must have industrial strength bongs stationed next to the air handlers.</p><p>Everything will be cool man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This company is so laid back about " the future of their products " I think they must have industrial strength bongs stationed next to the air handlers.Everything will be cool man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This company is so laid back about "the future of their products" I think they must have industrial strength bongs stationed next to the air handlers.Everything will be cool man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660300</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1269891120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency. </i> <br>
Except that at one time so did flash.  It's just a matter of time before HTML 5 is ubiquitous.  I don't know what you mean about consistency, haven't seen a problem there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency .
Except that at one time so did flash .
It 's just a matter of time before HTML 5 is ubiquitous .
I do n't know what you mean about consistency , have n't seen a problem there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency.
Except that at one time so did flash.
It's just a matter of time before HTML 5 is ubiquitous.
I don't know what you mean about consistency, haven't seen a problem there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663576</id>
	<title>Re:SVG+video in IE 9 is the death blow</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1269863580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash dies once <b>SVG gets a frame-by-frame editor</b>.</p></div><p>There, I fixed it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash dies once SVG gets a frame-by-frame editor.There , I fixed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash dies once SVG gets a frame-by-frame editor.There, I fixed it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660950</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1269893940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So many negative comments from what seems to be brainwashed corporate drones.</p><p>I completely agree with you.  *I* control what I read and watch, and not only on the web.  Any technology that makes this more difficult will not be used by me.  Luckily, a blocker like exists for flash should not be too hard to build.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many negative comments from what seems to be brainwashed corporate drones.I completely agree with you .
* I * control what I read and watch , and not only on the web .
Any technology that makes this more difficult will not be used by me .
Luckily , a blocker like exists for flash should not be too hard to build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many negative comments from what seems to be brainwashed corporate drones.I completely agree with you.
*I* control what I read and watch, and not only on the web.
Any technology that makes this more difficult will not be used by me.
Luckily, a blocker like exists for flash should not be too hard to build.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659896</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269889260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe already owns Dreamweaver. They got it when they acquired Macromedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe already owns Dreamweaver .
They got it when they acquired Macromedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe already owns Dreamweaver.
They got it when they acquired Macromedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31668112</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1269946800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post sounds quite reasonable on its surface - but I've been using FlashBlock for quite some time now and it's given me a very good idea of what I'd be giving up if Flash disappeared one day. The answer: not very much at all. The sites where I've whitelisted Flash are video sites - other than that, I don't see a lot of annoying ads and cutesy bouncing BS that some web designer thought made his site look impressive. It doesn't, you know - design for usability for a change, would you?</p><p>
For now, Flash is still necessary for *a few* things. Much as RealPlayer was a necessary plugin for many years; it's gone, good riddance. For me, if my browser supports video then I'll uninstall Flash and I won't miss it either. You'll notice I haven't said anything about Steve Jobs here - that's not the issue no matter how some would like to make it one. If he's guilty of anything it's seeing the future and that it doesn't include Flash plugins in the browser. Heck, the iPhone has been out for how many years now and viewing web pages without Flash? How about all those other smartphones? How many of them have Flash? The list of portable devices with web capability is growing every day and for many valid reasons they don't support Flash. No mouse, tiny screen, not even a standard aspect ratio much less any kind of standard resolution. Flash as it is just isn't useful for these devices. How were you going to get your Flash game to work on a 320x320 screen anyway? Slow network connections and various processors of varying capability make targeting a player to these devices impractical - even Adobe would refuse this task.</p><p>
In a world where virtually everyone was browsing the web on a Intel based computer running Windows - Flash works pretty doggone well here. It could be better but I digress; the world is changing. It's already started changing and the change continues. More and more people will be accessing the web from their cell phones, tablets, cars, and in other new and interesting ways that haven't hit the street yet. Flash may still be around (much as RealPlayer was) but the real question you're going to have to ask yourself is if you're going to keep on making your fancy 3D presentations in Flash and ignore the rapidly growing number of web browsers that don't support your favorite toy? What will you tell the designers when they ask why the page looks like crap when they view it on their PDA / phone / tablet / whatever?</p><p>
The writing is on the wall for those who wish to see it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post sounds quite reasonable on its surface - but I 've been using FlashBlock for quite some time now and it 's given me a very good idea of what I 'd be giving up if Flash disappeared one day .
The answer : not very much at all .
The sites where I 've whitelisted Flash are video sites - other than that , I do n't see a lot of annoying ads and cutesy bouncing BS that some web designer thought made his site look impressive .
It does n't , you know - design for usability for a change , would you ?
For now , Flash is still necessary for * a few * things .
Much as RealPlayer was a necessary plugin for many years ; it 's gone , good riddance .
For me , if my browser supports video then I 'll uninstall Flash and I wo n't miss it either .
You 'll notice I have n't said anything about Steve Jobs here - that 's not the issue no matter how some would like to make it one .
If he 's guilty of anything it 's seeing the future and that it does n't include Flash plugins in the browser .
Heck , the iPhone has been out for how many years now and viewing web pages without Flash ?
How about all those other smartphones ?
How many of them have Flash ?
The list of portable devices with web capability is growing every day and for many valid reasons they do n't support Flash .
No mouse , tiny screen , not even a standard aspect ratio much less any kind of standard resolution .
Flash as it is just is n't useful for these devices .
How were you going to get your Flash game to work on a 320x320 screen anyway ?
Slow network connections and various processors of varying capability make targeting a player to these devices impractical - even Adobe would refuse this task .
In a world where virtually everyone was browsing the web on a Intel based computer running Windows - Flash works pretty doggone well here .
It could be better but I digress ; the world is changing .
It 's already started changing and the change continues .
More and more people will be accessing the web from their cell phones , tablets , cars , and in other new and interesting ways that have n't hit the street yet .
Flash may still be around ( much as RealPlayer was ) but the real question you 're going to have to ask yourself is if you 're going to keep on making your fancy 3D presentations in Flash and ignore the rapidly growing number of web browsers that do n't support your favorite toy ?
What will you tell the designers when they ask why the page looks like crap when they view it on their PDA / phone / tablet / whatever ?
The writing is on the wall for those who wish to see it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post sounds quite reasonable on its surface - but I've been using FlashBlock for quite some time now and it's given me a very good idea of what I'd be giving up if Flash disappeared one day.
The answer: not very much at all.
The sites where I've whitelisted Flash are video sites - other than that, I don't see a lot of annoying ads and cutesy bouncing BS that some web designer thought made his site look impressive.
It doesn't, you know - design for usability for a change, would you?
For now, Flash is still necessary for *a few* things.
Much as RealPlayer was a necessary plugin for many years; it's gone, good riddance.
For me, if my browser supports video then I'll uninstall Flash and I won't miss it either.
You'll notice I haven't said anything about Steve Jobs here - that's not the issue no matter how some would like to make it one.
If he's guilty of anything it's seeing the future and that it doesn't include Flash plugins in the browser.
Heck, the iPhone has been out for how many years now and viewing web pages without Flash?
How about all those other smartphones?
How many of them have Flash?
The list of portable devices with web capability is growing every day and for many valid reasons they don't support Flash.
No mouse, tiny screen, not even a standard aspect ratio much less any kind of standard resolution.
Flash as it is just isn't useful for these devices.
How were you going to get your Flash game to work on a 320x320 screen anyway?
Slow network connections and various processors of varying capability make targeting a player to these devices impractical - even Adobe would refuse this task.
In a world where virtually everyone was browsing the web on a Intel based computer running Windows - Flash works pretty doggone well here.
It could be better but I digress; the world is changing.
It's already started changing and the change continues.
More and more people will be accessing the web from their cell phones, tablets, cars, and in other new and interesting ways that haven't hit the street yet.
Flash may still be around (much as RealPlayer was) but the real question you're going to have to ask yourself is if you're going to keep on making your fancy 3D presentations in Flash and ignore the rapidly growing number of web browsers that don't support your favorite toy?
What will you tell the designers when they ask why the page looks like crap when they view it on their PDA / phone / tablet / whatever?
The writing is on the wall for those who wish to see it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660622</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1269892680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; There isn't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5<br>&gt; (Mozilla won't support H.264 for patent reasons), and even if there were, it still lacks<br>&gt; functions</p><p>ffmpeg pretty much blows this absurd little idea clear out of the water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There is n't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5 &gt; ( Mozilla wo n't support H.264 for patent reasons ) , and even if there were , it still lacks &gt; functionsffmpeg pretty much blows this absurd little idea clear out of the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There isn't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5&gt; (Mozilla won't support H.264 for patent reasons), and even if there were, it still lacks&gt; functionsffmpeg pretty much blows this absurd little idea clear out of the water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660294</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they aren't worried.</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1269891120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're more right than you know, but it's not HTML 5 that is the target, it's the iphone.  <br> <br>Flash CS5 (in alpha or beta at the moment) has the ability to publish to native iphone compiled code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're more right than you know , but it 's not HTML 5 that is the target , it 's the iphone .
Flash CS5 ( in alpha or beta at the moment ) has the ability to publish to native iphone compiled code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're more right than you know, but it's not HTML 5 that is the target, it's the iphone.
Flash CS5 (in alpha or beta at the moment) has the ability to publish to native iphone compiled code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806</id>
	<title>What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269884640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one.</p></div><p>Except that it's pain in the ass to create Flash-like games with HTML5. You have to use all kinds of hacks to accomplish that, while designers and Flash game creators are familiar and love Flash authoring tools.</p><p>Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'm not worried about the future of Flash either .
I do n't think it has one.Except that it 's pain in the ass to create Flash-like games with HTML5 .
You have to use all kinds of hacks to accomplish that , while designers and Flash game creators are familiar and love Flash authoring tools.Flash is n't just about video , even if it 's the most talked part of it here on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either.
I don't think it has one.Except that it's pain in the ass to create Flash-like games with HTML5.
You have to use all kinds of hacks to accomplish that, while designers and Flash game creators are familiar and love Flash authoring tools.Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658992</id>
	<title>Perhaps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I'm out of touch with technews but...</p><p>youtube.com. beatport.com newgrounds.com etc. There are still very valid markets for flash out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm out of touch with technews but...youtube.com .
beatport.com newgrounds.com etc .
There are still very valid markets for flash out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm out of touch with technews but...youtube.com.
beatport.com newgrounds.com etc.
There are still very valid markets for flash out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659176</id>
	<title>WWW in past tense.</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1269886260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when I first saw the WWW in action back in Spring of '94. It was a Meyers-Briggs test you took with radio-buttons, perhaps the UR-ancestor of quizilla in a'borning.  My immediate reaction was, "Cool. It's like gopher with inline graphics and mouse navigation. Damn shame it's so slow."</p><p>What we do on the web today bears little resemblance to Web 1.0, and the HTML5/ubiquitous-fast-wilreless/cheap-netbooks&amp;spart-phones future will wander even farther.  While I think his turn of phrase was marketing spin, the ripple affects of a number of enabling trends and technologies of the past decade continue to coalesce in new ways; both forseen and unforseen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when I first saw the WWW in action back in Spring of '94 .
It was a Meyers-Briggs test you took with radio-buttons , perhaps the UR-ancestor of quizilla in a'borning .
My immediate reaction was , " Cool .
It 's like gopher with inline graphics and mouse navigation .
Damn shame it 's so slow .
" What we do on the web today bears little resemblance to Web 1.0 , and the HTML5/ubiquitous-fast-wilreless/cheap-netbooks&amp;spart-phones future will wander even farther .
While I think his turn of phrase was marketing spin , the ripple affects of a number of enabling trends and technologies of the past decade continue to coalesce in new ways ; both forseen and unforseen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when I first saw the WWW in action back in Spring of '94.
It was a Meyers-Briggs test you took with radio-buttons, perhaps the UR-ancestor of quizilla in a'borning.
My immediate reaction was, "Cool.
It's like gopher with inline graphics and mouse navigation.
Damn shame it's so slow.
"What we do on the web today bears little resemblance to Web 1.0, and the HTML5/ubiquitous-fast-wilreless/cheap-netbooks&amp;spart-phones future will wander even farther.
While I think his turn of phrase was marketing spin, the ripple affects of a number of enabling trends and technologies of the past decade continue to coalesce in new ways; both forseen and unforseen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31667820</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht</title>
	<author>cypherfusion</author>
	<datestamp>1269942780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NoScript stops HTML5 video from playing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScript stops HTML5 video from playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScript stops HTML5 video from playing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659602</id>
	<title>It'll be a long death, if it ever happens</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1269887940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, look at how long it took before CSS 2 became supported widely enough on browsers so that web developers could actually make use of it.  That's probably about how long it'll take before HTML 5 becomes widely supported enough to be able to challenge Flash.</p><p>Next, consider how many flash objects have been built already, and recognize that they're most likely not going away.<br>While you're at it, consider how many sites are built out of HTML 4 or XHTML 1.x, and consider that many if not most of these are not going away either, but may still need to deliver a flash-like experience.</p><p>So, maybe in 20-25 years?</p><p>Keep in mind, too, that as long as the W3C continues to advance the standards at the glacial pace that they have been, that it will leave the door open for proprietary solutions that do more to supplant the open standards.  W3C runs a serious risk of becoming irrelevant if they are not able to provide progress on the open standards that we rely upon for the open WWW.  If Flash or, gob forbid, Silverlight eats their lunch, it'll only be because they failed to get there in a reasonable amount of time, and developers got sick of waiting around to build the next generation web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , look at how long it took before CSS 2 became supported widely enough on browsers so that web developers could actually make use of it .
That 's probably about how long it 'll take before HTML 5 becomes widely supported enough to be able to challenge Flash.Next , consider how many flash objects have been built already , and recognize that they 're most likely not going away.While you 're at it , consider how many sites are built out of HTML 4 or XHTML 1.x , and consider that many if not most of these are not going away either , but may still need to deliver a flash-like experience.So , maybe in 20-25 years ? Keep in mind , too , that as long as the W3C continues to advance the standards at the glacial pace that they have been , that it will leave the door open for proprietary solutions that do more to supplant the open standards .
W3C runs a serious risk of becoming irrelevant if they are not able to provide progress on the open standards that we rely upon for the open WWW .
If Flash or , gob forbid , Silverlight eats their lunch , it 'll only be because they failed to get there in a reasonable amount of time , and developers got sick of waiting around to build the next generation web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, look at how long it took before CSS 2 became supported widely enough on browsers so that web developers could actually make use of it.
That's probably about how long it'll take before HTML 5 becomes widely supported enough to be able to challenge Flash.Next, consider how many flash objects have been built already, and recognize that they're most likely not going away.While you're at it, consider how many sites are built out of HTML 4 or XHTML 1.x, and consider that many if not most of these are not going away either, but may still need to deliver a flash-like experience.So, maybe in 20-25 years?Keep in mind, too, that as long as the W3C continues to advance the standards at the glacial pace that they have been, that it will leave the door open for proprietary solutions that do more to supplant the open standards.
W3C runs a serious risk of becoming irrelevant if they are not able to provide progress on the open standards that we rely upon for the open WWW.
If Flash or, gob forbid, Silverlight eats their lunch, it'll only be because they failed to get there in a reasonable amount of time, and developers got sick of waiting around to build the next generation web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659530</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269887580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...and even if there <em>were</em>, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?).</p></div><p>These 'features' as you call them, are not helping me at all. What help is a dynamic bitrate going to do when your connection is dropped? It used to be I could just start the stream and it would buffer the whole video in the background while I was viewing it, so if my connection was dropped, I already had the whole thing in buffer. Nowadays it seems only a a few seconds or minutes is buffered and the rest is only gotten when it is needed (despite the fact that I have a fast broadband connection and loads of memory that could be used to buffer the whole thing at once) which is inconvenient when your connection just had a hiccup. And there is no way to specify in the flash settings that I want to buffer the entire file as fast a possible. Realtime seeking would also be very easy if the whole file was buffered, so no need for funky streaming techniques.</p><p>They might do this for cost reasons or DRM. Whatever it is, it pisses me off! The whole streaming thing is annoying as it takes control away from you and you are forced to use a custom flash video player with a louse interface while accessing it via your preferred media player software would be so much better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and even if there were , it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons , such as dynamic bitrates ( connection quality goes down , the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate ) , and real-time seeking ( ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded ?
) .These 'features ' as you call them , are not helping me at all .
What help is a dynamic bitrate going to do when your connection is dropped ?
It used to be I could just start the stream and it would buffer the whole video in the background while I was viewing it , so if my connection was dropped , I already had the whole thing in buffer .
Nowadays it seems only a a few seconds or minutes is buffered and the rest is only gotten when it is needed ( despite the fact that I have a fast broadband connection and loads of memory that could be used to buffer the whole thing at once ) which is inconvenient when your connection just had a hiccup .
And there is no way to specify in the flash settings that I want to buffer the entire file as fast a possible .
Realtime seeking would also be very easy if the whole file was buffered , so no need for funky streaming techniques.They might do this for cost reasons or DRM .
Whatever it is , it pisses me off !
The whole streaming thing is annoying as it takes control away from you and you are forced to use a custom flash video player with a louse interface while accessing it via your preferred media player software would be so much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and even if there were, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?
).These 'features' as you call them, are not helping me at all.
What help is a dynamic bitrate going to do when your connection is dropped?
It used to be I could just start the stream and it would buffer the whole video in the background while I was viewing it, so if my connection was dropped, I already had the whole thing in buffer.
Nowadays it seems only a a few seconds or minutes is buffered and the rest is only gotten when it is needed (despite the fact that I have a fast broadband connection and loads of memory that could be used to buffer the whole thing at once) which is inconvenient when your connection just had a hiccup.
And there is no way to specify in the flash settings that I want to buffer the entire file as fast a possible.
Realtime seeking would also be very easy if the whole file was buffered, so no need for funky streaming techniques.They might do this for cost reasons or DRM.
Whatever it is, it pisses me off!
The whole streaming thing is annoying as it takes control away from you and you are forced to use a custom flash video player with a louse interface while accessing it via your preferred media player software would be so much better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660076</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense, Actually</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269890040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5".</p> </div><p>That's probably a very strong possibility, given that ActionScript is just an alternative JavaScript implementation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever</p></div><p>Ahem, DreamWeaver <i>is</i> Adobe.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future , Adobe has a new option on the menu " Export to HTML5 " .
That 's probably a very strong possibility , given that ActionScript is just an alternative JavaScript implementation.Sure they 'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoeverAhem , DreamWeaver is Adobe .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5".
That's probably a very strong possibility, given that ActionScript is just an alternative JavaScript implementation.Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoeverAhem, DreamWeaver is Adobe.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661474</id>
	<title>Flash Developer here - this is rumor / BS control</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1269853560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, gee, YA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Flash discussion, yet again heaploads of non-sense and misconceptions<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Ok, here we go:</p><p>Hoi Slashdot.</p><p>Veteran Flash Developer here, this is rumor / BS control - here are the facts:</p><p>At oh-sixhundred an EEV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, sorry, wrong script<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>1) Flash is by far the most ubiqious end user plattform in existance. Period. It has been for a good decade. Since deployment of Java as end user app delivery method still sucks as much as it did already in 1999 and ActionScript 2 and AS3 have improved the Flash stack in leaps and bounds and are practically indistinguishable for Java in power and versatility, everybody in web technology who has more than two braincells is still betting his money and his pocket cash on Flash as a rich client plattform. All others have failed, and they have failed miserably. Everyone knows why, nobody is learning from it. And thus Flash remains.</p><p>And since JavaFX still is the typical Type-A botchjob Sun like do pull when they try to push Java into the appspace it was initially meant for, Flash can stay as crappy as it is and it still has nothing to fear. I wonder if Oracle can change this. They said they'll continue with JavaFX, but that can just so mean they'll continue to screw around like Sun did for 12 years in a row.</p><p>2) The web is - if anything - even more diversified than 5 years ago. Mobile doesn't help it. The first Flash Player for Android will have Flash at a solid #1 position again, for another 5 years at least. Not that I really love that, but we have to face the truth<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It will probably even give Android another solid boost vs. iPhone, which, strangely, would actually be a good thing.</p><p>3) The FOSS community is pushing Ajax Frameworks with a bizar amount of manhours and developer force, yet for Fonts, Animation and Sound there is no alternative. And if I look at the fuss I have to put up with to get a decent Ajax RIA running across browsers I can tell you this: For anything than the most well planned asynchronous built-to-fit purpose in a single webform, Ajax quickly becomes unbearably cumbersome.</p><p>And for tried and true decoupled business apps <a href="http://developer.tibco.com/gi/" title="tibco.com">Tibco Gi</a> [tibco.com] is Ajax as about as good as it gets, but needs an experienced devteam to make use of - and then still are there only a few browsers supported. Ergo: Fallback to Flash (or Flex in this case).</p><p>4) RIA webapps are square pegs in a round hole. The web is document driven. Yet again and again people are going to try and carve the next nifty thing out of it, no matter what bizar hacks it <a href="http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr" title="mikeindustries.com">takes</a> [mikeindustries.com]. That's the way we are  and it won't change. Not as long as my customers pay me good money to build Flash Applications. The last one took us two years and a team of 25, 7 of which were doing Flash/AS full time on the project. Just to give you an impression of the critical mass advantage Flash has over anything else. MS Silverlight included.</p><p>As long as everything else on the web is 10 years behind in enabling something like <a href="http://www.monstersaga.de/" title="monstersaga.de">this</a> [monstersaga.de], Flash will remain Number One. And no, Chrome with some OpenQL experiments or Ajax/HTML won't cut it. Trust me on this one.</p><p>5) Flash is not a security issue. Not compared to anything else on the web. ActiveX is, Flash is not. In fact, Flash has gained inroads in white-collar space based on its extremely conservative approach to security issues. Calling Flash a vector for exploits is just plain silly. Stop doing that, that's bad karma. Flash has other flaws that are plenty enough to rant about.</p><p>6) Flash has had serious flaws and shortcomings for 10 years now. Build a FOSS RIA kit that does away with them and Flash is dead in an instant, and the web is ours. Until then quit the non-sense. Ads aren't what drives Flash. Opinion leaders are. And those with the cash. And as long as the best webdesigners on the planet earn no more th</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , gee , YA / .
Flash discussion , yet again heaploads of non-sense and misconceptions ... Ok , here we go : Hoi Slashdot.Veteran Flash Developer here , this is rumor / BS control - here are the facts : At oh-sixhundred an EEV ... oh , sorry , wrong script ...1 ) Flash is by far the most ubiqious end user plattform in existance .
Period. It has been for a good decade .
Since deployment of Java as end user app delivery method still sucks as much as it did already in 1999 and ActionScript 2 and AS3 have improved the Flash stack in leaps and bounds and are practically indistinguishable for Java in power and versatility , everybody in web technology who has more than two braincells is still betting his money and his pocket cash on Flash as a rich client plattform .
All others have failed , and they have failed miserably .
Everyone knows why , nobody is learning from it .
And thus Flash remains.And since JavaFX still is the typical Type-A botchjob Sun like do pull when they try to push Java into the appspace it was initially meant for , Flash can stay as crappy as it is and it still has nothing to fear .
I wonder if Oracle can change this .
They said they 'll continue with JavaFX , but that can just so mean they 'll continue to screw around like Sun did for 12 years in a row.2 ) The web is - if anything - even more diversified than 5 years ago .
Mobile does n't help it .
The first Flash Player for Android will have Flash at a solid # 1 position again , for another 5 years at least .
Not that I really love that , but we have to face the truth ... It will probably even give Android another solid boost vs. iPhone , which , strangely , would actually be a good thing.3 ) The FOSS community is pushing Ajax Frameworks with a bizar amount of manhours and developer force , yet for Fonts , Animation and Sound there is no alternative .
And if I look at the fuss I have to put up with to get a decent Ajax RIA running across browsers I can tell you this : For anything than the most well planned asynchronous built-to-fit purpose in a single webform , Ajax quickly becomes unbearably cumbersome.And for tried and true decoupled business apps Tibco Gi [ tibco.com ] is Ajax as about as good as it gets , but needs an experienced devteam to make use of - and then still are there only a few browsers supported .
Ergo : Fallback to Flash ( or Flex in this case ) .4 ) RIA webapps are square pegs in a round hole .
The web is document driven .
Yet again and again people are going to try and carve the next nifty thing out of it , no matter what bizar hacks it takes [ mikeindustries.com ] .
That 's the way we are and it wo n't change .
Not as long as my customers pay me good money to build Flash Applications .
The last one took us two years and a team of 25 , 7 of which were doing Flash/AS full time on the project .
Just to give you an impression of the critical mass advantage Flash has over anything else .
MS Silverlight included.As long as everything else on the web is 10 years behind in enabling something like this [ monstersaga.de ] , Flash will remain Number One .
And no , Chrome with some OpenQL experiments or Ajax/HTML wo n't cut it .
Trust me on this one.5 ) Flash is not a security issue .
Not compared to anything else on the web .
ActiveX is , Flash is not .
In fact , Flash has gained inroads in white-collar space based on its extremely conservative approach to security issues .
Calling Flash a vector for exploits is just plain silly .
Stop doing that , that 's bad karma .
Flash has other flaws that are plenty enough to rant about.6 ) Flash has had serious flaws and shortcomings for 10 years now .
Build a FOSS RIA kit that does away with them and Flash is dead in an instant , and the web is ours .
Until then quit the non-sense .
Ads are n't what drives Flash .
Opinion leaders are .
And those with the cash .
And as long as the best webdesigners on the planet earn no more th</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, gee, YA /.
Flash discussion, yet again heaploads of non-sense and misconceptions ... Ok, here we go:Hoi Slashdot.Veteran Flash Developer here, this is rumor / BS control - here are the facts:At oh-sixhundred an EEV ... oh, sorry, wrong script ...1) Flash is by far the most ubiqious end user plattform in existance.
Period. It has been for a good decade.
Since deployment of Java as end user app delivery method still sucks as much as it did already in 1999 and ActionScript 2 and AS3 have improved the Flash stack in leaps and bounds and are practically indistinguishable for Java in power and versatility, everybody in web technology who has more than two braincells is still betting his money and his pocket cash on Flash as a rich client plattform.
All others have failed, and they have failed miserably.
Everyone knows why, nobody is learning from it.
And thus Flash remains.And since JavaFX still is the typical Type-A botchjob Sun like do pull when they try to push Java into the appspace it was initially meant for, Flash can stay as crappy as it is and it still has nothing to fear.
I wonder if Oracle can change this.
They said they'll continue with JavaFX, but that can just so mean they'll continue to screw around like Sun did for 12 years in a row.2) The web is - if anything - even more diversified than 5 years ago.
Mobile doesn't help it.
The first Flash Player for Android will have Flash at a solid #1 position again, for another 5 years at least.
Not that I really love that, but we have to face the truth ... It will probably even give Android another solid boost vs. iPhone, which, strangely, would actually be a good thing.3) The FOSS community is pushing Ajax Frameworks with a bizar amount of manhours and developer force, yet for Fonts, Animation and Sound there is no alternative.
And if I look at the fuss I have to put up with to get a decent Ajax RIA running across browsers I can tell you this: For anything than the most well planned asynchronous built-to-fit purpose in a single webform, Ajax quickly becomes unbearably cumbersome.And for tried and true decoupled business apps Tibco Gi [tibco.com] is Ajax as about as good as it gets, but needs an experienced devteam to make use of - and then still are there only a few browsers supported.
Ergo: Fallback to Flash (or Flex in this case).4) RIA webapps are square pegs in a round hole.
The web is document driven.
Yet again and again people are going to try and carve the next nifty thing out of it, no matter what bizar hacks it takes [mikeindustries.com].
That's the way we are  and it won't change.
Not as long as my customers pay me good money to build Flash Applications.
The last one took us two years and a team of 25, 7 of which were doing Flash/AS full time on the project.
Just to give you an impression of the critical mass advantage Flash has over anything else.
MS Silverlight included.As long as everything else on the web is 10 years behind in enabling something like this [monstersaga.de], Flash will remain Number One.
And no, Chrome with some OpenQL experiments or Ajax/HTML won't cut it.
Trust me on this one.5) Flash is not a security issue.
Not compared to anything else on the web.
ActiveX is, Flash is not.
In fact, Flash has gained inroads in white-collar space based on its extremely conservative approach to security issues.
Calling Flash a vector for exploits is just plain silly.
Stop doing that, that's bad karma.
Flash has other flaws that are plenty enough to rant about.6) Flash has had serious flaws and shortcomings for 10 years now.
Build a FOSS RIA kit that does away with them and Flash is dead in an instant, and the web is ours.
Until then quit the non-sense.
Ads aren't what drives Flash.
Opinion leaders are.
And those with the cash.
And as long as the best webdesigners on the planet earn no more th</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31673930</id>
	<title>3DVIA</title>
	<author>nikkipolya</author>
	<datestamp>1269973860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you folks think about 3DVIA [www.3dvia.com]? It is good with 3D but is it even a contender for flash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you folks think about 3DVIA [ www.3dvia.com ] ?
It is good with 3D but is it even a contender for flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you folks think about 3DVIA [www.3dvia.com]?
It is good with 3D but is it even a contender for flash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659706</id>
	<title>Re:What about Flash games and other stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269888360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``... and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS's if they work on your desktop''</p><p>Let me introduce you to this fine Flash Snow Leopard bug: http://www.opencoder.co.uk/2009/09/bug-in-flash-player-filereference-browse-affecting-macs/</p><p>Yeah. That's awesome. Very cross-platform. The best part is, it's only on 32-bit BROWSERS! On the other hand, DOM differences? jQuery. Prototype. Etc. Are there still some issues? Yes, there are, but roughly as many as with Flash. Your testing area is always large, because you're never sure. As with Java and Javascript, Flash is write once, debug everywhere.</p><p>Which isn't to say that HTML5 can yet supplant Flash completely. Just that Flash isn't the panacea as a platform that a lot of people seem to espouse it as. No, testing isn't that much easier. Yes, it is that much slower on any OS other than Windows. Yes, it (Flex, anyway) idles at anywhere between 5 and 20\% CPU when it is doing nothing at all. It still has capabilities HTML5 doesn't, but those are slowly dwindling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` ... and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS 's if they work on your desktop''Let me introduce you to this fine Flash Snow Leopard bug : http : //www.opencoder.co.uk/2009/09/bug-in-flash-player-filereference-browse-affecting-macs/Yeah .
That 's awesome .
Very cross-platform .
The best part is , it 's only on 32-bit BROWSERS !
On the other hand , DOM differences ?
jQuery. Prototype .
Etc. Are there still some issues ?
Yes , there are , but roughly as many as with Flash .
Your testing area is always large , because you 're never sure .
As with Java and Javascript , Flash is write once , debug everywhere.Which is n't to say that HTML5 can yet supplant Flash completely .
Just that Flash is n't the panacea as a platform that a lot of people seem to espouse it as .
No , testing is n't that much easier .
Yes , it is that much slower on any OS other than Windows .
Yes , it ( Flex , anyway ) idles at anywhere between 5 and 20 \ % CPU when it is doing nothing at all .
It still has capabilities HTML5 does n't , but those are slowly dwindling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``... and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS's if they work on your desktop''Let me introduce you to this fine Flash Snow Leopard bug: http://www.opencoder.co.uk/2009/09/bug-in-flash-player-filereference-browse-affecting-macs/Yeah.
That's awesome.
Very cross-platform.
The best part is, it's only on 32-bit BROWSERS!
On the other hand, DOM differences?
jQuery. Prototype.
Etc. Are there still some issues?
Yes, there are, but roughly as many as with Flash.
Your testing area is always large, because you're never sure.
As with Java and Javascript, Flash is write once, debug everywhere.Which isn't to say that HTML5 can yet supplant Flash completely.
Just that Flash isn't the panacea as a platform that a lot of people seem to espouse it as.
No, testing isn't that much easier.
Yes, it is that much slower on any OS other than Windows.
Yes, it (Flex, anyway) idles at anywhere between 5 and 20\% CPU when it is doing nothing at all.
It still has capabilities HTML5 doesn't, but those are slowly dwindling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658930</id>
	<title>SVG+video in IE 9 is the death blow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll take a while, because IE 9 doesn't support XP, but it'll happen. Flash dies once XP dies.</p><p>Microsoft would like to fully control the interfaces, but when they fail at that they'd at least like to stop any other company from controlling the interfaces. Microsoft will settle for open standards as required to kill things like flash.</p><p>We can thank Adobe for IE 9 getting SVG and HTML 5 video support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll take a while , because IE 9 does n't support XP , but it 'll happen .
Flash dies once XP dies.Microsoft would like to fully control the interfaces , but when they fail at that they 'd at least like to stop any other company from controlling the interfaces .
Microsoft will settle for open standards as required to kill things like flash.We can thank Adobe for IE 9 getting SVG and HTML 5 video support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll take a while, because IE 9 doesn't support XP, but it'll happen.
Flash dies once XP dies.Microsoft would like to fully control the interfaces, but when they fail at that they'd at least like to stop any other company from controlling the interfaces.
Microsoft will settle for open standards as required to kill things like flash.We can thank Adobe for IE 9 getting SVG and HTML 5 video support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659520</id>
	<title>Creatives?</title>
	<author>rochrist</author>
	<datestamp>1269887520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm fairly certain that refering to 'reaching creatives' qualifies you for immediate douchehood.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain that refering to 'reaching creatives ' qualifies you for immediate douchehood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain that refering to 'reaching creatives' qualifies you for immediate douchehood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660332</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>Arkham</author>
	<datestamp>1269891300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!"</p></div><p>
The problem is, we don't care if you have "style" or not.  When I go to your site, and I can't read the text because of all the pseudo-scroll widgets and fake tabs, you failed to reach your target audience.  Style is simple elegance.  The perfect web site doesn't need drop shadows and background music -- the content speaks for itself.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting, it's what lets me tell the designers "yes! I can render our company's portfolio in 3D"</p></div><p>
Oh my God!  You're everything that's wrong with the internet!  People HATE those stupid widgets on the sides of blogs -- in fact most of us use Flash blockers specifically for things like that.  Anyone who's not a marketing weenie avoids that sort of thing as much as their technical prowess (or lack thereof) allows them to.
</p><p>
We don't care about stupid online beer commercials.  We don't want to see your company's portfolio in 3D.  I'm quite sure it's no more compelling that way -- only slower, uglier, and looks like crap on my mobile device, if it renders at all.  Content is king, not the stupid fluff you're promoting.  Flash is the realm of porn browsers and morons, and the content created using it clearly caters to this subsection of online society.  I for one will be more than happy when it is banished to the realm of popularity where Java applets live these days.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms , and fluid , interesting and deeply creative content ; Something that tells your customers and competitors " hey , we have style !
" The problem is , we do n't care if you have " style " or not .
When I go to your site , and I ca n't read the text because of all the pseudo-scroll widgets and fake tabs , you failed to reach your target audience .
Style is simple elegance .
The perfect web site does n't need drop shadows and background music -- the content speaks for itself .
Flash makes the web interesting , it 's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs , it 's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting , it 's what lets me tell the designers " yes !
I can render our company 's portfolio in 3D " Oh my God !
You 're everything that 's wrong with the internet !
People HATE those stupid widgets on the sides of blogs -- in fact most of us use Flash blockers specifically for things like that .
Anyone who 's not a marketing weenie avoids that sort of thing as much as their technical prowess ( or lack thereof ) allows them to .
We do n't care about stupid online beer commercials .
We do n't want to see your company 's portfolio in 3D .
I 'm quite sure it 's no more compelling that way -- only slower , uglier , and looks like crap on my mobile device , if it renders at all .
Content is king , not the stupid fluff you 're promoting .
Flash is the realm of porn browsers and morons , and the content created using it clearly caters to this subsection of online society .
I for one will be more than happy when it is banished to the realm of popularity where Java applets live these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!
"
The problem is, we don't care if you have "style" or not.
When I go to your site, and I can't read the text because of all the pseudo-scroll widgets and fake tabs, you failed to reach your target audience.
Style is simple elegance.
The perfect web site doesn't need drop shadows and background music -- the content speaks for itself.
Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting, it's what lets me tell the designers "yes!
I can render our company's portfolio in 3D"
Oh my God!
You're everything that's wrong with the internet!
People HATE those stupid widgets on the sides of blogs -- in fact most of us use Flash blockers specifically for things like that.
Anyone who's not a marketing weenie avoids that sort of thing as much as their technical prowess (or lack thereof) allows them to.
We don't care about stupid online beer commercials.
We don't want to see your company's portfolio in 3D.
I'm quite sure it's no more compelling that way -- only slower, uglier, and looks like crap on my mobile device, if it renders at all.
Content is king, not the stupid fluff you're promoting.
Flash is the realm of porn browsers and morons, and the content created using it clearly caters to this subsection of online society.
I for one will be more than happy when it is banished to the realm of popularity where Java applets live these days.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659750</id>
	<title>Re:Oi, hippy, shut it.</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1269888540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't have said it in such an inflammatory way, but I have to agree.
<br> <br>
Now, what I would like to see Adobe do with flash is to enter the game market.  All of pieces are there.  They have a rich development environment.  They have thousands of experienced developers.  They have hundreds of thousands of titles already running in flash.  They should have a partner manufacture a device similar to the Roku, but that loads as tiny of a linux as it can to boot and still run a full screen flash player.  Then add joystick support.  Maybe open an app store.  They just might be able to push a game system out to market in a sub $100 price range with very little development.
<br> <br>
Of course, this system wouldn't have the graphics or CPU horsepower of the Wii/PS3/Xbox360, but it would have thousands free software titles on the day the device was released.  It would also be very friendly to small developers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't have said it in such an inflammatory way , but I have to agree .
Now , what I would like to see Adobe do with flash is to enter the game market .
All of pieces are there .
They have a rich development environment .
They have thousands of experienced developers .
They have hundreds of thousands of titles already running in flash .
They should have a partner manufacture a device similar to the Roku , but that loads as tiny of a linux as it can to boot and still run a full screen flash player .
Then add joystick support .
Maybe open an app store .
They just might be able to push a game system out to market in a sub $ 100 price range with very little development .
Of course , this system would n't have the graphics or CPU horsepower of the Wii/PS3/Xbox360 , but it would have thousands free software titles on the day the device was released .
It would also be very friendly to small developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't have said it in such an inflammatory way, but I have to agree.
Now, what I would like to see Adobe do with flash is to enter the game market.
All of pieces are there.
They have a rich development environment.
They have thousands of experienced developers.
They have hundreds of thousands of titles already running in flash.
They should have a partner manufacture a device similar to the Roku, but that loads as tiny of a linux as it can to boot and still run a full screen flash player.
Then add joystick support.
Maybe open an app store.
They just might be able to push a game system out to market in a sub $100 price range with very little development.
Of course, this system wouldn't have the graphics or CPU horsepower of the Wii/PS3/Xbox360, but it would have thousands free software titles on the day the device was released.
It would also be very friendly to small developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659282</id>
	<title>Flash authoring will live on; Flash Player may die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269886620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe doesn't give a rat's ass if everyone switches to HTML5 overnight. They will eventually have native HTML5 support within their Flash authoring tools, allowing content creators to export a Flash SWF, an HTML5 microsite, an AIR app etc. Flash player licensing revenue is insignificant compared to Creative Suite software revenues--as long as Adobe owns the authoring tools they'll continue to do well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe does n't give a rat 's ass if everyone switches to HTML5 overnight .
They will eventually have native HTML5 support within their Flash authoring tools , allowing content creators to export a Flash SWF , an HTML5 microsite , an AIR app etc .
Flash player licensing revenue is insignificant compared to Creative Suite software revenues--as long as Adobe owns the authoring tools they 'll continue to do well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe doesn't give a rat's ass if everyone switches to HTML5 overnight.
They will eventually have native HTML5 support within their Flash authoring tools, allowing content creators to export a Flash SWF, an HTML5 microsite, an AIR app etc.
Flash player licensing revenue is insignificant compared to Creative Suite software revenues--as long as Adobe owns the authoring tools they'll continue to do well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659836</id>
	<title>Re:Ultimately, users care about use and content</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269888900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash.</p></div><p>Only on a fast connection,  Flash can auto-adjust the bitrate.  HTML5 can't, so anybody who's connection isn't quite up to snuff will have a worse experience in HTML5.</p><p>Also, HTML5 is missing a couple nice Flash features, like the ability to skip ahead in a video stream.  Not necessary, but it's like gravy on mashed potatoes.</p><p>Last, but definitely not least, HTML5 has a half dozen different companies arguing over what should be in it, and none of the current HTML5 implementations are the same.  For example, FireFox won't do H.264 video for licensing reasons.  Any updates to the HTML spec will be a battle, while Flash can move with the market and update as needed.  Case in point - H.264 video.  Flash has had it for 2 years now.</p><p>Flash can always update to compete, and those updates will be uniform across all platforms, regardless of OS or browser version.  HTML5, however, is at the whim of the browser implementation, and we will see the same problems we saw with JavaScript long ago, where web authors had to write four different versions of the same website just to maintain uniformity across browsers.</p><p>Flash has none of those problems, and is already well known - I can't see it going anywhere as long as Adobe keeps updating it.  It has far too many upsides and not enough downsides compared to HTML5 to make the switch worth it for most websites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash.Only on a fast connection , Flash can auto-adjust the bitrate .
HTML5 ca n't , so anybody who 's connection is n't quite up to snuff will have a worse experience in HTML5.Also , HTML5 is missing a couple nice Flash features , like the ability to skip ahead in a video stream .
Not necessary , but it 's like gravy on mashed potatoes.Last , but definitely not least , HTML5 has a half dozen different companies arguing over what should be in it , and none of the current HTML5 implementations are the same .
For example , FireFox wo n't do H.264 video for licensing reasons .
Any updates to the HTML spec will be a battle , while Flash can move with the market and update as needed .
Case in point - H.264 video .
Flash has had it for 2 years now.Flash can always update to compete , and those updates will be uniform across all platforms , regardless of OS or browser version .
HTML5 , however , is at the whim of the browser implementation , and we will see the same problems we saw with JavaScript long ago , where web authors had to write four different versions of the same website just to maintain uniformity across browsers.Flash has none of those problems , and is already well known - I ca n't see it going anywhere as long as Adobe keeps updating it .
It has far too many upsides and not enough downsides compared to HTML5 to make the switch worth it for most websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash.Only on a fast connection,  Flash can auto-adjust the bitrate.
HTML5 can't, so anybody who's connection isn't quite up to snuff will have a worse experience in HTML5.Also, HTML5 is missing a couple nice Flash features, like the ability to skip ahead in a video stream.
Not necessary, but it's like gravy on mashed potatoes.Last, but definitely not least, HTML5 has a half dozen different companies arguing over what should be in it, and none of the current HTML5 implementations are the same.
For example, FireFox won't do H.264 video for licensing reasons.
Any updates to the HTML spec will be a battle, while Flash can move with the market and update as needed.
Case in point - H.264 video.
Flash has had it for 2 years now.Flash can always update to compete, and those updates will be uniform across all platforms, regardless of OS or browser version.
HTML5, however, is at the whim of the browser implementation, and we will see the same problems we saw with JavaScript long ago, where web authors had to write four different versions of the same website just to maintain uniformity across browsers.Flash has none of those problems, and is already well known - I can't see it going anywhere as long as Adobe keeps updating it.
It has far too many upsides and not enough downsides compared to HTML5 to make the switch worth it for most websites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658948</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31665606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31664704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31664376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31667828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31666312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31666554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31668112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31667820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31668190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31671392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_165220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31665606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31666554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31668112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31664376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31664704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31661474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31663202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31666312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31667820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31660950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31668190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31667828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31671392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_165220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31658948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31659836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_165220.31662458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
