<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_23_1925228</id>
	<title>Dutch Gov. Wants To Tax Online Media To Fund Print</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245747240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:slashdot@allessalreg.com" rel="nofollow">Godefricus</a> writes <i>"Outrage ensued among Dutch techie and media websites, after a government report advised that the <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&amp;hl=en&amp;js=n&amp;u=http://tweakers.net/nieuws/60860/commissie-bepleit-internetheffing-voor-innovatie-bij-kranten.html&amp;sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;history\_state0=">dwindling print media industry should be financially supported by the online industry</a> (Google translation; <a href="http://tweakers.net/nieuws/60860/commissie-bepleit-internetheffing-voor-innovatie-bij-kranten.html">Dutch original here</a>). The idea is to help the old media fund 'innovative initiatives.' The suggested implementation of the plan is by taxing a percentage of each ISP subscription, and give the money to the papers. The report, which was solicited by the Dutch parliament and written by a committee of its members, specifically states that 'news and the gathering of news stories is not free, and the public must be made aware of that.' The report is not conclusive, but from here it's just one step toward a legislative proposal. Both industries are largely privately owned in The Netherlands, and the current government is center-left wing. Who needs an RIAA if you can build one into your government? And hey, why invest in the future if you can invest in the past?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Godefricus writes " Outrage ensued among Dutch techie and media websites , after a government report advised that the dwindling print media industry should be financially supported by the online industry ( Google translation ; Dutch original here ) .
The idea is to help the old media fund 'innovative initiatives .
' The suggested implementation of the plan is by taxing a percentage of each ISP subscription , and give the money to the papers .
The report , which was solicited by the Dutch parliament and written by a committee of its members , specifically states that 'news and the gathering of news stories is not free , and the public must be made aware of that .
' The report is not conclusive , but from here it 's just one step toward a legislative proposal .
Both industries are largely privately owned in The Netherlands , and the current government is center-left wing .
Who needs an RIAA if you can build one into your government ?
And hey , why invest in the future if you can invest in the past ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Godefricus writes "Outrage ensued among Dutch techie and media websites, after a government report advised that the dwindling print media industry should be financially supported by the online industry (Google translation; Dutch original here).
The idea is to help the old media fund 'innovative initiatives.
' The suggested implementation of the plan is by taxing a percentage of each ISP subscription, and give the money to the papers.
The report, which was solicited by the Dutch parliament and written by a committee of its members, specifically states that 'news and the gathering of news stories is not free, and the public must be made aware of that.
' The report is not conclusive, but from here it's just one step toward a legislative proposal.
Both industries are largely privately owned in The Netherlands, and the current government is center-left wing.
Who needs an RIAA if you can build one into your government?
And hey, why invest in the future if you can invest in the past?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445585</id>
	<title>Question re: Dutch Govt...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245752580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this what the Dutch citizens want their government to do? Or is the Dutch govt the "master over the people" instead of the "servant of the people" like the way that far too many western Europe countries have become?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this what the Dutch citizens want their government to do ?
Or is the Dutch govt the " master over the people " instead of the " servant of the people " like the way that far too many western Europe countries have become ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this what the Dutch citizens want their government to do?
Or is the Dutch govt the "master over the people" instead of the "servant of the people" like the way that far too many western Europe countries have become?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28464121</id>
	<title>Fill in the gap</title>
	<author>s1lverl0rd</author>
	<datestamp>1245923580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you think that disappearing quality dead-tree newspapers will eventually be replaced by quality bits-n-bytes news sources? There will always be a need for quality news coverage, be it digital or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you think that disappearing quality dead-tree newspapers will eventually be replaced by quality bits-n-bytes news sources ?
There will always be a need for quality news coverage , be it digital or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you think that disappearing quality dead-tree newspapers will eventually be replaced by quality bits-n-bytes news sources?
There will always be a need for quality news coverage, be it digital or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28459483</id>
	<title>Re:Why link it to online?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's long past time to tax the automakers so we can subsidize the buggywhip manufacturers, who are being driven (pun intended) out of business by these new-fangled horseless carriages! If God had intended Man to drive around without horses, He would have put wheels on our feet!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p><p>Newspaper publishers can't figure out how to make money from their product (which is mostly stolen wholesale from other newspapers anyhow, there's no real cost in plagarism), and now they want the barely-profitable-but-orders-of-magnitude-faster competition to pay for their lush lifestyle? Suck it, newspapers. Die in a fire. At least we can read about your death *on* *the* *same* *day* *it* *happens* through the Internet.</p><p>Maybe you could sell your newsprint as birdcage liners, and save all that money being wasted on "reporters" who do nothing but cut-and-paste from Internet sources, and on printing, which does nothing but delay the delivery until it's irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's long past time to tax the automakers so we can subsidize the buggywhip manufacturers , who are being driven ( pun intended ) out of business by these new-fangled horseless carriages !
If God had intended Man to drive around without horses , He would have put wheels on our feet !
/sarcasmNewspaper publishers ca n't figure out how to make money from their product ( which is mostly stolen wholesale from other newspapers anyhow , there 's no real cost in plagarism ) , and now they want the barely-profitable-but-orders-of-magnitude-faster competition to pay for their lush lifestyle ?
Suck it , newspapers .
Die in a fire .
At least we can read about your death * on * * the * * same * * day * * it * * happens * through the Internet.Maybe you could sell your newsprint as birdcage liners , and save all that money being wasted on " reporters " who do nothing but cut-and-paste from Internet sources , and on printing , which does nothing but delay the delivery until it 's irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's long past time to tax the automakers so we can subsidize the buggywhip manufacturers, who are being driven (pun intended) out of business by these new-fangled horseless carriages!
If God had intended Man to drive around without horses, He would have put wheels on our feet!
/sarcasmNewspaper publishers can't figure out how to make money from their product (which is mostly stolen wholesale from other newspapers anyhow, there's no real cost in plagarism), and now they want the barely-profitable-but-orders-of-magnitude-faster competition to pay for their lush lifestyle?
Suck it, newspapers.
Die in a fire.
At least we can read about your death *on* *the* *same* *day* *it* *happens* through the Internet.Maybe you could sell your newsprint as birdcage liners, and save all that money being wasted on "reporters" who do nothing but cut-and-paste from Internet sources, and on printing, which does nothing but delay the delivery until it's irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28451255</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is, as usual, behind the times</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1245851220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i was about to rant but the 'no' is ok lol<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... someone should explain the benefits of the 'new' media to these ppl. No millions of webpages thrown away everyday on the streets, no webpage that's outdated at the time of print (depending on the author ofc)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no newspaper that can be read / commented / discussed by thousands of ppl at once<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... etc , i'm sure you people know, but someone is apparently missing the point, or just progress-o-phobic (is there a word for that ?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>i was about to rant but the 'no ' is ok lol ... someone should explain the benefits of the 'new ' media to these ppl .
No millions of webpages thrown away everyday on the streets , no webpage that 's outdated at the time of print ( depending on the author ofc ) ... no newspaper that can be read / commented / discussed by thousands of ppl at once ... etc , i 'm sure you people know , but someone is apparently missing the point , or just progress-o-phobic ( is there a word for that ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was about to rant but the 'no' is ok lol ... someone should explain the benefits of the 'new' media to these ppl.
No millions of webpages thrown away everyday on the streets, no webpage that's outdated at the time of print (depending on the author ofc) ... no newspaper that can be read / commented / discussed by thousands of ppl at once ... etc , i'm sure you people know, but someone is apparently missing the point, or just progress-o-phobic (is there a word for that ?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445779</id>
	<title>fro5t pist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245753360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>would @you like to</htmltext>
<tokenext>would @ you like to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would @you like to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445139</id>
	<title>Buggy Whip Subsidies</title>
	<author>JonBuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245751020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes about as much sense as the government taxing automobiles to keep buggy whip manufacturers alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes about as much sense as the government taxing automobiles to keep buggy whip manufacturers alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes about as much sense as the government taxing automobiles to keep buggy whip manufacturers alive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445405</id>
	<title>Re:Dutch Govt to tax cars to feed horses too?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245751920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Anything stored digitally can be altered, often without a trace.</i> Ever heard of the <a href="http://www.archive.org/index.php" title="archive.org">Wayback machine</a> [archive.org]? If information is made available for free, and massively redundant copies are made of it, then revisionism is very easy to detect by doing diffs against the copies. You can only run a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry\_of\_Truth" title="wikipedia.org">Ministry of Truth</a> [wikipedia.org] if you control ALL the copies of the information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything stored digitally can be altered , often without a trace .
Ever heard of the Wayback machine [ archive.org ] ?
If information is made available for free , and massively redundant copies are made of it , then revisionism is very easy to detect by doing diffs against the copies .
You can only run a Ministry of Truth [ wikipedia.org ] if you control ALL the copies of the information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything stored digitally can be altered, often without a trace.
Ever heard of the Wayback machine [archive.org]?
If information is made available for free, and massively redundant copies are made of it, then revisionism is very easy to detect by doing diffs against the copies.
You can only run a Ministry of Truth [wikipedia.org] if you control ALL the copies of the information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446443</id>
	<title>Re:Dutch Govt to tax cars to feed horses too?</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1245756300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we already saved thousands if not millions of trees since on-line media came about. Give yourself a nice tap in the back if you didn't print this. We don't have paper-less offices but offices with a lot less paper. I think this is just inevitable industry displacement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we already saved thousands if not millions of trees since on-line media came about .
Give yourself a nice tap in the back if you did n't print this .
We do n't have paper-less offices but offices with a lot less paper .
I think this is just inevitable industry displacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we already saved thousands if not millions of trees since on-line media came about.
Give yourself a nice tap in the back if you didn't print this.
We don't have paper-less offices but offices with a lot less paper.
I think this is just inevitable industry displacement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449439</id>
	<title>Re:Dutch Govt to tax cars to feed horses too?</title>
	<author>Baki</author>
	<datestamp>1245782940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact: alsmost yes. New cars are taxed with about 40\% "luxury" tax. After the EU has finally forbidden this, it is being abolished over the timeframe of 12 years, but as a replacement new taxes are being invented on car traffic. The enormous amount of tax from cars is being used for many other things, mainly not for roads and car infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact : alsmost yes .
New cars are taxed with about 40 \ % " luxury " tax .
After the EU has finally forbidden this , it is being abolished over the timeframe of 12 years , but as a replacement new taxes are being invented on car traffic .
The enormous amount of tax from cars is being used for many other things , mainly not for roads and car infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact: alsmost yes.
New cars are taxed with about 40\% "luxury" tax.
After the EU has finally forbidden this, it is being abolished over the timeframe of 12 years, but as a replacement new taxes are being invented on car traffic.
The enormous amount of tax from cars is being used for many other things, mainly not for roads and car infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449957</id>
	<title>Re:Why link it to online?</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1245875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taxing ISPs specifically, seems ass-backwards.  If you're going to subsidize an outdated industry (which, hey, is done all over the place) why not fund it out of tax revenue generally, rather than putting a brake specifically on the internet?  How about a new tax on cigarettes?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>I have two more questions:</p><p>1. Every day, 3 or 4 completely free newspapers are being spread in every trainstation (and many other places) here in the Netherlands. If "news cannot be free", as the commission claims, does this mean we need to raise an extra public transportation tax to compensate for this free news as well?</p><p>2. If the newspapers are being hurt so badly by free news available on the internet, why do they put their own content on the internet? And given that this pain is apparently self-inflicted, why would everybody need to pay for it?</p><p>The claim that "news cannot be free" is bogus: news on the internet is paid for by advertising. It is hard to believe that a website such as <a href="http://www.nu.nl/" title="www.nu.nl">nu.nl</a> [www.nu.nl] would exist for so long without any revenue. The existence of free newspapers furthermore proves that paid subscriptions are not a necessity for running a newspaper.</p><p>Also, the claim that quality journalism is a necessity for democracy is laughable. Well, actually it isn't - it's just that I see too many cut'n'paste jobs of ANP news in too many newspapers every day. This quality investigative journalism of which they speak seems to be a mythological ideal, rather than reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxing ISPs specifically , seems ass-backwards .
If you 're going to subsidize an outdated industry ( which , hey , is done all over the place ) why not fund it out of tax revenue generally , rather than putting a brake specifically on the internet ?
How about a new tax on cigarettes ?
: - ) I have two more questions : 1 .
Every day , 3 or 4 completely free newspapers are being spread in every trainstation ( and many other places ) here in the Netherlands .
If " news can not be free " , as the commission claims , does this mean we need to raise an extra public transportation tax to compensate for this free news as well ? 2 .
If the newspapers are being hurt so badly by free news available on the internet , why do they put their own content on the internet ?
And given that this pain is apparently self-inflicted , why would everybody need to pay for it ? The claim that " news can not be free " is bogus : news on the internet is paid for by advertising .
It is hard to believe that a website such as nu.nl [ www.nu.nl ] would exist for so long without any revenue .
The existence of free newspapers furthermore proves that paid subscriptions are not a necessity for running a newspaper.Also , the claim that quality journalism is a necessity for democracy is laughable .
Well , actually it is n't - it 's just that I see too many cut'n'paste jobs of ANP news in too many newspapers every day .
This quality investigative journalism of which they speak seems to be a mythological ideal , rather than reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxing ISPs specifically, seems ass-backwards.
If you're going to subsidize an outdated industry (which, hey, is done all over the place) why not fund it out of tax revenue generally, rather than putting a brake specifically on the internet?
How about a new tax on cigarettes?
:-)I have two more questions:1.
Every day, 3 or 4 completely free newspapers are being spread in every trainstation (and many other places) here in the Netherlands.
If "news cannot be free", as the commission claims, does this mean we need to raise an extra public transportation tax to compensate for this free news as well?2.
If the newspapers are being hurt so badly by free news available on the internet, why do they put their own content on the internet?
And given that this pain is apparently self-inflicted, why would everybody need to pay for it?The claim that "news cannot be free" is bogus: news on the internet is paid for by advertising.
It is hard to believe that a website such as nu.nl [www.nu.nl] would exist for so long without any revenue.
The existence of free newspapers furthermore proves that paid subscriptions are not a necessity for running a newspaper.Also, the claim that quality journalism is a necessity for democracy is laughable.
Well, actually it isn't - it's just that I see too many cut'n'paste jobs of ANP news in too many newspapers every day.
This quality investigative journalism of which they speak seems to be a mythological ideal, rather than reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447113</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245759720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can call it the Dead Tree tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can call it the Dead Tree tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can call it the Dead Tree tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445793</id>
	<title>Coming next: milk tax!</title>
	<author>iwulinux</author>
	<datestamp>1245753480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should go complain that nobody wants to pay me to hand-deliver milk in glass bottles door-to-door anymore, and see if I can get them to tax milk and give me the proceeds!</p><p>Of course, this is functionally the same as the blank CD/DVD "anti-piracy" levy: government intervening to prop up an outdated, failing business model with tax money, rather than letting it die and allowing evolution to take its natural course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should go complain that nobody wants to pay me to hand-deliver milk in glass bottles door-to-door anymore , and see if I can get them to tax milk and give me the proceeds ! Of course , this is functionally the same as the blank CD/DVD " anti-piracy " levy : government intervening to prop up an outdated , failing business model with tax money , rather than letting it die and allowing evolution to take its natural course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should go complain that nobody wants to pay me to hand-deliver milk in glass bottles door-to-door anymore, and see if I can get them to tax milk and give me the proceeds!Of course, this is functionally the same as the blank CD/DVD "anti-piracy" levy: government intervening to prop up an outdated, failing business model with tax money, rather than letting it die and allowing evolution to take its natural course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28456799</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1245874080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the death of reel to reel wasn't the death of (for example) symphonic music. It was just a transition from one format to another.</p></div><p>But that's just it. We shouldn't be interested in saving reel-to-reel, but rather supporting symphonic music. Similarly, we shouldn't care about saving newspapers, but rather supporting investigative journalism.<br> <br>

We need to decouple investigative journalism from the dead-weight of print media. We need to find a way for journalists to do their thing, and be paid to do it. They can then sell their stories/research/articles to whoever (print media, websites, TV stations, etc.).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[print media are the] only ones who can afford to, because it's fricking expensive to do it right. So far, it's too expensive to support with online ad revenue as well, hence the problem.</p></div><p>I think what you meant to say was that they <b>were</b> the only ones who could afford to. It is demonstrably no longer the case, if they need government money to survive. As such, we need to find another way to support independent investigative journalists.<br> <br>

I don't have the answer, mind you. It will require some serious thought, debate, trial-and-error, and probably a mix of regulation and free-market-magic. But what I am pretty sure of is that it is wrong-headed to support the print media industry just because they were <i>historically</i> the people who funded investigative journalism. Those days are gone. Let's work towards a useful future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the death of reel to reel was n't the death of ( for example ) symphonic music .
It was just a transition from one format to another.But that 's just it .
We should n't be interested in saving reel-to-reel , but rather supporting symphonic music .
Similarly , we should n't care about saving newspapers , but rather supporting investigative journalism .
We need to decouple investigative journalism from the dead-weight of print media .
We need to find a way for journalists to do their thing , and be paid to do it .
They can then sell their stories/research/articles to whoever ( print media , websites , TV stations , etc. ) .
[ print media are the ] only ones who can afford to , because it 's fricking expensive to do it right .
So far , it 's too expensive to support with online ad revenue as well , hence the problem.I think what you meant to say was that they were the only ones who could afford to .
It is demonstrably no longer the case , if they need government money to survive .
As such , we need to find another way to support independent investigative journalists .
I do n't have the answer , mind you .
It will require some serious thought , debate , trial-and-error , and probably a mix of regulation and free-market-magic .
But what I am pretty sure of is that it is wrong-headed to support the print media industry just because they were historically the people who funded investigative journalism .
Those days are gone .
Let 's work towards a useful future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the death of reel to reel wasn't the death of (for example) symphonic music.
It was just a transition from one format to another.But that's just it.
We shouldn't be interested in saving reel-to-reel, but rather supporting symphonic music.
Similarly, we shouldn't care about saving newspapers, but rather supporting investigative journalism.
We need to decouple investigative journalism from the dead-weight of print media.
We need to find a way for journalists to do their thing, and be paid to do it.
They can then sell their stories/research/articles to whoever (print media, websites, TV stations, etc.).
[print media are the] only ones who can afford to, because it's fricking expensive to do it right.
So far, it's too expensive to support with online ad revenue as well, hence the problem.I think what you meant to say was that they were the only ones who could afford to.
It is demonstrably no longer the case, if they need government money to survive.
As such, we need to find another way to support independent investigative journalists.
I don't have the answer, mind you.
It will require some serious thought, debate, trial-and-error, and probably a mix of regulation and free-market-magic.
But what I am pretty sure of is that it is wrong-headed to support the print media industry just because they were historically the people who funded investigative journalism.
Those days are gone.
Let's work towards a useful future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445783</id>
	<title>I'm doing the same</title>
	<author>HerrBohm</author>
	<datestamp>1245753420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this would succeed, would my chance, of saying that my core business fails because of the internet and that needs to give me money from the taxes to keep my company alive, be any good?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this would succeed , would my chance , of saying that my core business fails because of the internet and that needs to give me money from the taxes to keep my company alive , be any good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this would succeed, would my chance, of saying that my core business fails because of the internet and that needs to give me money from the taxes to keep my company alive, be any good?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28455647</id>
	<title>Marketers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a counterpoint, see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW\_Hj2K0wo" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Bill Hicks on marketers</a> [youtube.com]. Personally, turning journalists into marketers may pay some bills, but the personal and public affects are being ignored.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a counterpoint , see Bill Hicks on marketers [ youtube.com ] .
Personally , turning journalists into marketers may pay some bills , but the personal and public affects are being ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a counterpoint, see Bill Hicks on marketers [youtube.com].
Personally, turning journalists into marketers may pay some bills, but the personal and public affects are being ignored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28451257</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245851280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with the possible death of the print media industry, is that they're the only ones who do real, in-depth, reliable, reporting these days...They're the only ones who can <em>afford</em> to, because it's fricking expensive to do it right.</p></div><p>I do not agree. I have been a working as a print journalist for more than a decade, and now I am doing exactly the same job, with the difference that I publish the stories for free on my blog. No, it does not earn me anything, but my stuff is being read. And I have a part-time job to support my reporting. And people start offering me money to write books and give talks. Giving away my stories for free is the best choice I ever made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the possible death of the print media industry , is that they 're the only ones who do real , in-depth , reliable , reporting these days...They 're the only ones who can afford to , because it 's fricking expensive to do it right.I do not agree .
I have been a working as a print journalist for more than a decade , and now I am doing exactly the same job , with the difference that I publish the stories for free on my blog .
No , it does not earn me anything , but my stuff is being read .
And I have a part-time job to support my reporting .
And people start offering me money to write books and give talks .
Giving away my stories for free is the best choice I ever made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the possible death of the print media industry, is that they're the only ones who do real, in-depth, reliable, reporting these days...They're the only ones who can afford to, because it's fricking expensive to do it right.I do not agree.
I have been a working as a print journalist for more than a decade, and now I am doing exactly the same job, with the difference that I publish the stories for free on my blog.
No, it does not earn me anything, but my stuff is being read.
And I have a part-time job to support my reporting.
And people start offering me money to write books and give talks.
Giving away my stories for free is the best choice I ever made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446319</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245755760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being Dutch, I felt like chipping in these two bits:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.</p></div><p>- Tax attitude: everyone tries to deduct as much as they can.</p><p>- Fuck the Dutch: that's why we have the <a href="http://redlightdistrict.com/" title="redlightdistrict.com" rel="nofollow">red light district</a> [redlightdistrict.com]. Come fuck us as much as you want. You will have to pay for the privilege, though.</p><p>(disclaimer: i have no clue what's behind that link. It's probably NSFW though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being Dutch , I felt like chipping in these two bits : Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes , though.- Tax attitude : everyone tries to deduct as much as they can.- Fuck the Dutch : that 's why we have the red light district [ redlightdistrict.com ] .
Come fuck us as much as you want .
You will have to pay for the privilege , though .
( disclaimer : i have no clue what 's behind that link .
It 's probably NSFW though ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being Dutch, I felt like chipping in these two bits:Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.- Tax attitude: everyone tries to deduct as much as they can.- Fuck the Dutch: that's why we have the red light district [redlightdistrict.com].
Come fuck us as much as you want.
You will have to pay for the privilege, though.
(disclaimer: i have no clue what's behind that link.
It's probably NSFW though ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446159</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245754980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did people have to pay car tax to fund horses and carts when cars become mainstream?</p></div><p>Did cars drive on the back of horses? These analogies that keep being made about "did people have to pay tax when $current\_tech obseleted $old\_tech" don't have any sway here, unless $current\_tech USED $old\_tech (without paying for the privilege). Which is what we see in online media.</p><p>Scabby news aggregator sites (:-P) don't do an ounce of real journalism (apart from the odd book review) but take income away from the very newspapers (etc) that they aggregate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did people have to pay car tax to fund horses and carts when cars become mainstream ? Did cars drive on the back of horses ?
These analogies that keep being made about " did people have to pay tax when $ current \ _tech obseleted $ old \ _tech " do n't have any sway here , unless $ current \ _tech USED $ old \ _tech ( without paying for the privilege ) .
Which is what we see in online media.Scabby news aggregator sites ( : -P ) do n't do an ounce of real journalism ( apart from the odd book review ) but take income away from the very newspapers ( etc ) that they aggregate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did people have to pay car tax to fund horses and carts when cars become mainstream?Did cars drive on the back of horses?
These analogies that keep being made about "did people have to pay tax when $current\_tech obseleted $old\_tech" don't have any sway here, unless $current\_tech USED $old\_tech (without paying for the privilege).
Which is what we see in online media.Scabby news aggregator sites (:-P) don't do an ounce of real journalism (apart from the odd book review) but take income away from the very newspapers (etc) that they aggregate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450259</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>hab136</author>
	<datestamp>1245835860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Newspapers have always cared about ad revenue, but subscriber revenue and numbers were important enough to allow larger papers to effectively ignore the complaints of their advertisers...What were they going to do? Print pamphlets?</p></div></blockquote><p>Subscriber revenues paid for the printing, nothing more.  Classifieds were the real money maker.  Ads were gravy on top.</p><p>Now the classifieds are gone, and ads are down.  Sucks to be them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers have always cared about ad revenue , but subscriber revenue and numbers were important enough to allow larger papers to effectively ignore the complaints of their advertisers...What were they going to do ?
Print pamphlets ? Subscriber revenues paid for the printing , nothing more .
Classifieds were the real money maker .
Ads were gravy on top.Now the classifieds are gone , and ads are down .
Sucks to be them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers have always cared about ad revenue, but subscriber revenue and numbers were important enough to allow larger papers to effectively ignore the complaints of their advertisers...What were they going to do?
Print pamphlets?Subscriber revenues paid for the printing, nothing more.
Classifieds were the real money maker.
Ads were gravy on top.Now the classifieds are gone, and ads are down.
Sucks to be them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28453569</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>mattsday</author>
	<datestamp>1245862800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the BBC?</p><p>They have a public service remit and I get all my news and editorials from them. Whilst they always are accused of bias from all sides of the political spectrum, I find them as good as any national or local newspaper for general news and coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the BBC ? They have a public service remit and I get all my news and editorials from them .
Whilst they always are accused of bias from all sides of the political spectrum , I find them as good as any national or local newspaper for general news and coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the BBC?They have a public service remit and I get all my news and editorials from them.
Whilst they always are accused of bias from all sides of the political spectrum, I find them as good as any national or local newspaper for general news and coverage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445557</id>
	<title>Dutch government just propsed another law...</title>
	<author>VinylRecords</author>
	<datestamp>1245752520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this time all sales of CDs will go towards the 8-track tape industry and sales of DVDs and BDs will go to VHS and Laser Disc companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this time all sales of CDs will go towards the 8-track tape industry and sales of DVDs and BDs will go to VHS and Laser Disc companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this time all sales of CDs will go towards the 8-track tape industry and sales of DVDs and BDs will go to VHS and Laser Disc companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445917</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245753960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.</i> You could always move. Me might even let you into the states, provided you clean up your language!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes , though .
You could always move .
Me might even let you into the states , provided you clean up your language !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.
You could always move.
Me might even let you into the states, provided you clean up your language!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446925</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245758760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and it isn't even the same class of companies they're taxing. It isn't so much horse-'n-buggy vs car, it's like you're asking Pentium retailers to prop up the 286 manufacturers. And then there is the thing that they didn't so much get obsoleted like horse-'n-buggy manufacturers, but they largely obsoleted themselves. I used to read newspapers (I've switched papers several times) but frankly the Dutch newspapers had it coming. If you're looking for neutral, investigative yet socially engaged journalism you'd better skip the papers; I think it's safe to say that if you've just read a Dutch newspaper, you actually know less than you did before. And if they are outcompeted by digital media, that just means that they should have gone into that market themselves and subsidising them just rewards bad decision making. Fortunately, the minister allegedly thought the idea was stupid and told the commission: "Ga toch fietsen."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and it is n't even the same class of companies they 're taxing .
It is n't so much horse-'n-buggy vs car , it 's like you 're asking Pentium retailers to prop up the 286 manufacturers .
And then there is the thing that they did n't so much get obsoleted like horse-'n-buggy manufacturers , but they largely obsoleted themselves .
I used to read newspapers ( I 've switched papers several times ) but frankly the Dutch newspapers had it coming .
If you 're looking for neutral , investigative yet socially engaged journalism you 'd better skip the papers ; I think it 's safe to say that if you 've just read a Dutch newspaper , you actually know less than you did before .
And if they are outcompeted by digital media , that just means that they should have gone into that market themselves and subsidising them just rewards bad decision making .
Fortunately , the minister allegedly thought the idea was stupid and told the commission : " Ga toch fietsen .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and it isn't even the same class of companies they're taxing.
It isn't so much horse-'n-buggy vs car, it's like you're asking Pentium retailers to prop up the 286 manufacturers.
And then there is the thing that they didn't so much get obsoleted like horse-'n-buggy manufacturers, but they largely obsoleted themselves.
I used to read newspapers (I've switched papers several times) but frankly the Dutch newspapers had it coming.
If you're looking for neutral, investigative yet socially engaged journalism you'd better skip the papers; I think it's safe to say that if you've just read a Dutch newspaper, you actually know less than you did before.
And if they are outcompeted by digital media, that just means that they should have gone into that market themselves and subsidising them just rewards bad decision making.
Fortunately, the minister allegedly thought the idea was stupid and told the commission: "Ga toch fietsen.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445533</id>
	<title>Summer School Homework</title>
	<author>DirtyCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245752460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excerpt from a work in progress assignment for my summer university course:</p><p>Early conjecture on the future of Newspapers and print media foretold of a future of embraced digital publications. Early literature on this movement includes Digitizing the News (Boczkowski, 2005) which begins by tracing early consumer non-print publishing initiatives to the rise of the internet in the mid 1990s. The books examination shifts to reviews of various online content provided by newspapers in the second half of the 1990s, which varies from direct reproduction of printed newspapers to interactive web based content that complimented the printed news. The book then progresses into examining three specific accounts of newspaper adaptation of the internet. The first example is a Technology section of the New York Times which started as an experiment to test new grounds for online media. The second example is the Virtual Voyager project of the HoustonCronicles.com (Boczkowski, 2005) of which reporters pioneered the evolution of multimedia journalism. The third example provided is the Community connection initiative of New Jersey Online (Boczkowski, 2005) which chronicles the birth of user generated content. This literature came out at around the same time as The Vanishing News Paper by Philip Meyer, which makes various assumptions of the state of Newspapers in the mid 2000&#226;(TM)s and the way they are headed. The book begins with reprisal of early work Meyer did on newspapers being &#226;oein the influence business&#226; (Meyer, 2005) rather then the news and information business. His 2nd chapter focuses on the business model of &#226;oeHow Newspapers Make Money&#226; (Meyer, 2005) which focuses on how newspapers are &#226;oevictims of easy money.&#226; (Meyer, 2005). In the 11th chapter, after outlining issues surrounding current models Meyer suggests that the death of Newspapers is near. In this chapter he essentially digs the grave for newspapers and predicts the death of newspapers if action is not taken. In Meyers final chapter he says &#226;oeThe time has come to think about the things that we on the ground can do while traditional news media struggle for survival.&#226; (Meyer, 2005) Giving various solutions to the current track that printed newspapers are on.<br>
    These two books show early attitudes that are rather contrasting. While Boczkowski is conscious of the evolution of newspapers and migration to digital media he is still optimistic. His book is more of a glorification of progress rather than a cautionary tale. Meyer&#226;(TM)s on the other hand is very aware of the inevitability of newspapers if they do not undergo drastic change.  These books thus give a capsule for attitudes in the mid 2000&#226;(TM)s with regards to newspapers. One attitude was optimistic and the other a prerequisite of upcoming doom. Which book was more accurate? Only time would tell.</p><p>The Contemporary Complexion<br>At this point it is very clear as to who was right and who was wrong with regards to previously reviewed literature. The sense of urgency illustrated by Madigan and Meyer could have never had so much relevance. With the demise of the economy we see an acceleration of the death of newspaper that nobody predicted. Currently we see some Journals contradicting previous assumptions. Such is the case with The Rebirth of News (Peters, 2009) written in the Spring of 2009 this article in the Economist completely changes its tone from the previously reviewed article. In 2006 the Economist said &#226;oeA cause for concern, but not for panic&#226; (Martin, 2006) but only 2.5 years later we see mass panic. The latest article stating that &#226;oeMost industries are suffering at present, but few are doing as badly as the news business.&#226; (Peters, 2009) This revelation comes at a time when newspapers are dropping at almost a daily rate. The article goes on the suggest reasons for the demise, including loss of ad revenue and readership. The article however informative still does not address the problems outli</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excerpt from a work in progress assignment for my summer university course : Early conjecture on the future of Newspapers and print media foretold of a future of embraced digital publications .
Early literature on this movement includes Digitizing the News ( Boczkowski , 2005 ) which begins by tracing early consumer non-print publishing initiatives to the rise of the internet in the mid 1990s .
The books examination shifts to reviews of various online content provided by newspapers in the second half of the 1990s , which varies from direct reproduction of printed newspapers to interactive web based content that complimented the printed news .
The book then progresses into examining three specific accounts of newspaper adaptation of the internet .
The first example is a Technology section of the New York Times which started as an experiment to test new grounds for online media .
The second example is the Virtual Voyager project of the HoustonCronicles.com ( Boczkowski , 2005 ) of which reporters pioneered the evolution of multimedia journalism .
The third example provided is the Community connection initiative of New Jersey Online ( Boczkowski , 2005 ) which chronicles the birth of user generated content .
This literature came out at around the same time as The Vanishing News Paper by Philip Meyer , which makes various assumptions of the state of Newspapers in the mid 2000   ( TM ) s and the way they are headed .
The book begins with reprisal of early work Meyer did on newspapers being   oein the influence business   ( Meyer , 2005 ) rather then the news and information business .
His 2nd chapter focuses on the business model of   oeHow Newspapers Make Money   ( Meyer , 2005 ) which focuses on how newspapers are   oevictims of easy money.   ( Meyer , 2005 ) .
In the 11th chapter , after outlining issues surrounding current models Meyer suggests that the death of Newspapers is near .
In this chapter he essentially digs the grave for newspapers and predicts the death of newspapers if action is not taken .
In Meyers final chapter he says   oeThe time has come to think about the things that we on the ground can do while traditional news media struggle for survival.   ( Meyer , 2005 ) Giving various solutions to the current track that printed newspapers are on .
These two books show early attitudes that are rather contrasting .
While Boczkowski is conscious of the evolution of newspapers and migration to digital media he is still optimistic .
His book is more of a glorification of progress rather than a cautionary tale .
Meyer   ( TM ) s on the other hand is very aware of the inevitability of newspapers if they do not undergo drastic change .
These books thus give a capsule for attitudes in the mid 2000   ( TM ) s with regards to newspapers .
One attitude was optimistic and the other a prerequisite of upcoming doom .
Which book was more accurate ?
Only time would tell.The Contemporary ComplexionAt this point it is very clear as to who was right and who was wrong with regards to previously reviewed literature .
The sense of urgency illustrated by Madigan and Meyer could have never had so much relevance .
With the demise of the economy we see an acceleration of the death of newspaper that nobody predicted .
Currently we see some Journals contradicting previous assumptions .
Such is the case with The Rebirth of News ( Peters , 2009 ) written in the Spring of 2009 this article in the Economist completely changes its tone from the previously reviewed article .
In 2006 the Economist said   oeA cause for concern , but not for panic   ( Martin , 2006 ) but only 2.5 years later we see mass panic .
The latest article stating that   oeMost industries are suffering at present , but few are doing as badly as the news business.   ( Peters , 2009 ) This revelation comes at a time when newspapers are dropping at almost a daily rate .
The article goes on the suggest reasons for the demise , including loss of ad revenue and readership .
The article however informative still does not address the problems outli</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excerpt from a work in progress assignment for my summer university course:Early conjecture on the future of Newspapers and print media foretold of a future of embraced digital publications.
Early literature on this movement includes Digitizing the News (Boczkowski, 2005) which begins by tracing early consumer non-print publishing initiatives to the rise of the internet in the mid 1990s.
The books examination shifts to reviews of various online content provided by newspapers in the second half of the 1990s, which varies from direct reproduction of printed newspapers to interactive web based content that complimented the printed news.
The book then progresses into examining three specific accounts of newspaper adaptation of the internet.
The first example is a Technology section of the New York Times which started as an experiment to test new grounds for online media.
The second example is the Virtual Voyager project of the HoustonCronicles.com (Boczkowski, 2005) of which reporters pioneered the evolution of multimedia journalism.
The third example provided is the Community connection initiative of New Jersey Online (Boczkowski, 2005) which chronicles the birth of user generated content.
This literature came out at around the same time as The Vanishing News Paper by Philip Meyer, which makes various assumptions of the state of Newspapers in the mid 2000â(TM)s and the way they are headed.
The book begins with reprisal of early work Meyer did on newspapers being âoein the influence businessâ (Meyer, 2005) rather then the news and information business.
His 2nd chapter focuses on the business model of âoeHow Newspapers Make Moneyâ (Meyer, 2005) which focuses on how newspapers are âoevictims of easy money.â (Meyer, 2005).
In the 11th chapter, after outlining issues surrounding current models Meyer suggests that the death of Newspapers is near.
In this chapter he essentially digs the grave for newspapers and predicts the death of newspapers if action is not taken.
In Meyers final chapter he says âoeThe time has come to think about the things that we on the ground can do while traditional news media struggle for survival.â (Meyer, 2005) Giving various solutions to the current track that printed newspapers are on.
These two books show early attitudes that are rather contrasting.
While Boczkowski is conscious of the evolution of newspapers and migration to digital media he is still optimistic.
His book is more of a glorification of progress rather than a cautionary tale.
Meyerâ(TM)s on the other hand is very aware of the inevitability of newspapers if they do not undergo drastic change.
These books thus give a capsule for attitudes in the mid 2000â(TM)s with regards to newspapers.
One attitude was optimistic and the other a prerequisite of upcoming doom.
Which book was more accurate?
Only time would tell.The Contemporary ComplexionAt this point it is very clear as to who was right and who was wrong with regards to previously reviewed literature.
The sense of urgency illustrated by Madigan and Meyer could have never had so much relevance.
With the demise of the economy we see an acceleration of the death of newspaper that nobody predicted.
Currently we see some Journals contradicting previous assumptions.
Such is the case with The Rebirth of News (Peters, 2009) written in the Spring of 2009 this article in the Economist completely changes its tone from the previously reviewed article.
In 2006 the Economist said âoeA cause for concern, but not for panicâ (Martin, 2006) but only 2.5 years later we see mass panic.
The latest article stating that âoeMost industries are suffering at present, but few are doing as badly as the news business.â (Peters, 2009) This revelation comes at a time when newspapers are dropping at almost a daily rate.
The article goes on the suggest reasons for the demise, including loss of ad revenue and readership.
The article however informative still does not address the problems outli</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1245752100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did people have to pay car tax to fund horses and carts when cars become mainstream?</p><p>Things change, old media dies. We don't listen to music on reel to reel tape recorders anymore, are people trying to preserve such things? nope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did people have to pay car tax to fund horses and carts when cars become mainstream ? Things change , old media dies .
We do n't listen to music on reel to reel tape recorders anymore , are people trying to preserve such things ?
nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did people have to pay car tax to fund horses and carts when cars become mainstream?Things change, old media dies.
We don't listen to music on reel to reel tape recorders anymore, are people trying to preserve such things?
nope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450985</id>
	<title>Re:How about a tax on the word "fuck" . . . ?</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1245848220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF?! Gordon Ramsey's on slashdot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ? !
Gordon Ramsey 's on slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?!
Gordon Ramsey's on slashdot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446659</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1245757380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.</i></p><p>Nigel Powers, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes , though.Nigel Powers , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.Nigel Powers, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450089</id>
	<title>Re:Why not create the newspaper equiv of the BBC?</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1245876600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Surely this is a way for government to clip the wings of a struggling section of the fourth estate? Governments - anyone in power - generally does not look all that kindly on aggressive newspapers that speak truth to power and hold governments to account.</i></p><p>Considering both the amount of political parties as well as the wide spread of political ideologies in our parliament, for every nutcase that would love the above there's an opposing nutcase to scream about it.</p><p>Our press is still free to make fun of the government, and whoever happens to be running the opposition loves it that way. Heck, where would Wilders be without the press? (Not gonna link the guy, his haircut is horribly NSFW or anywhere else)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely this is a way for government to clip the wings of a struggling section of the fourth estate ?
Governments - anyone in power - generally does not look all that kindly on aggressive newspapers that speak truth to power and hold governments to account.Considering both the amount of political parties as well as the wide spread of political ideologies in our parliament , for every nutcase that would love the above there 's an opposing nutcase to scream about it.Our press is still free to make fun of the government , and whoever happens to be running the opposition loves it that way .
Heck , where would Wilders be without the press ?
( Not gon na link the guy , his haircut is horribly NSFW or anywhere else )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely this is a way for government to clip the wings of a struggling section of the fourth estate?
Governments - anyone in power - generally does not look all that kindly on aggressive newspapers that speak truth to power and hold governments to account.Considering both the amount of political parties as well as the wide spread of political ideologies in our parliament, for every nutcase that would love the above there's an opposing nutcase to scream about it.Our press is still free to make fun of the government, and whoever happens to be running the opposition loves it that way.
Heck, where would Wilders be without the press?
(Not gonna link the guy, his haircut is horribly NSFW or anywhere else)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445127</id>
	<title>Lobbyists</title>
	<author>MathFox</author>
	<datestamp>1245750960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually it is a report from the newspaper lobby and the responsible minister has already spoken out against the proposal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it is a report from the newspaper lobby and the responsible minister has already spoken out against the proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it is a report from the newspaper lobby and the responsible minister has already spoken out against the proposal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295</id>
	<title>Bad idea.</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245751500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beginning Disclaimer: I work for a print newspaper.</p><p>This sounds like about the worst idea I've ever heard. We've been living on the gravy train for decades, and as a consequence, we piss away money like it's water. Now things have gotten tight, and we're cutting and cutting deep, and a lot of outlets may go under, but <em>so be it</em>.</p><p>This whole "the print media industry needs government help!" crap is making me nuts. First off, there are very few independent papers left, so you're <em>really</em> talking about bailing out another industry with overpaid CEOs who can't make a decent business decision to save their lives. The same people who really <em>really</em> thought the solution to their industrys internet problem was to give away their product for free. Right. Second, the news media has only one real legitmate function: to inform you about the actions the government is taking in your name. Having the government bail them out is a little bit <em>problematic</em> for that reason.</p><p>The industry is changing. It's evolving. It will become something else. Trying to persist the current model is bound to fail, and propping them up with public cash does nothing but compromise their mission and prevent them from figuring out how to accurately <em>make</em> their transition. Jesus, just look at GM if you want to know what public money does to a private company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beginning Disclaimer : I work for a print newspaper.This sounds like about the worst idea I 've ever heard .
We 've been living on the gravy train for decades , and as a consequence , we piss away money like it 's water .
Now things have gotten tight , and we 're cutting and cutting deep , and a lot of outlets may go under , but so be it.This whole " the print media industry needs government help !
" crap is making me nuts .
First off , there are very few independent papers left , so you 're really talking about bailing out another industry with overpaid CEOs who ca n't make a decent business decision to save their lives .
The same people who really really thought the solution to their industrys internet problem was to give away their product for free .
Right. Second , the news media has only one real legitmate function : to inform you about the actions the government is taking in your name .
Having the government bail them out is a little bit problematic for that reason.The industry is changing .
It 's evolving .
It will become something else .
Trying to persist the current model is bound to fail , and propping them up with public cash does nothing but compromise their mission and prevent them from figuring out how to accurately make their transition .
Jesus , just look at GM if you want to know what public money does to a private company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beginning Disclaimer: I work for a print newspaper.This sounds like about the worst idea I've ever heard.
We've been living on the gravy train for decades, and as a consequence, we piss away money like it's water.
Now things have gotten tight, and we're cutting and cutting deep, and a lot of outlets may go under, but so be it.This whole "the print media industry needs government help!
" crap is making me nuts.
First off, there are very few independent papers left, so you're really talking about bailing out another industry with overpaid CEOs who can't make a decent business decision to save their lives.
The same people who really really thought the solution to their industrys internet problem was to give away their product for free.
Right. Second, the news media has only one real legitmate function: to inform you about the actions the government is taking in your name.
Having the government bail them out is a little bit problematic for that reason.The industry is changing.
It's evolving.
It will become something else.
Trying to persist the current model is bound to fail, and propping them up with public cash does nothing but compromise their mission and prevent them from figuring out how to accurately make their transition.
Jesus, just look at GM if you want to know what public money does to a private company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149</id>
	<title>Why link it to online?</title>
	<author>Fuseboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245751020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxing ISPs specifically, seems ass-backwards.  If you're going to subsidize an outdated industry (which, hey, is done all over the place) why not fund it out of tax revenue generally, rather than putting a brake specifically on the internet?  How about a new tax on cigarettes?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxing ISPs specifically , seems ass-backwards .
If you 're going to subsidize an outdated industry ( which , hey , is done all over the place ) why not fund it out of tax revenue generally , rather than putting a brake specifically on the internet ?
How about a new tax on cigarettes ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxing ISPs specifically, seems ass-backwards.
If you're going to subsidize an outdated industry (which, hey, is done all over the place) why not fund it out of tax revenue generally, rather than putting a brake specifically on the internet?
How about a new tax on cigarettes?
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446561</id>
	<title>Re:Why not create the newspaper equiv of the BBC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245756900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not tax paper and create a print equivalent of the BBC? One could call it "Truth" or simply "News". Hmmm.</p></div><p>We actually used to have that. It was called the "staatscourant", and it was privatized like everything else around here (telephony infrastructure, snailmail service, national railroad network, energy market).</p><p>It was fun while it lasted, though. The NS (railroads) at its lowest hit a punctuality rate of 72\% (meaning 28\% of all trains were more than 10 minutes late) due to mismanagement; the newspapers are going belly-up because they failed to innovate; the companies that operate our energy grid are being bought by international corporations; Internet via telephone line occurs a &euro;10 per month "private tax" because KPN owns every last-mile connection in the country ("it's for maintenance").</p><p>Due to the recent credit crunch, two of our banks (abn amro and fortis) were nationalized; no doubt several newspapers will end up being bought by the government, like you suggest; the government is considering partially reverting the privatization of the energy market in order to keep grid maintenance under national control; the railroads are still private, but the NS is under tight supervision by the minister of transport</p><p>It's refreshing to see that despite the many shortcomings of many modern governments, that private organizations still are able to outdo the government in messing things up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not tax paper and create a print equivalent of the BBC ?
One could call it " Truth " or simply " News " .
Hmmm.We actually used to have that .
It was called the " staatscourant " , and it was privatized like everything else around here ( telephony infrastructure , snailmail service , national railroad network , energy market ) .It was fun while it lasted , though .
The NS ( railroads ) at its lowest hit a punctuality rate of 72 \ % ( meaning 28 \ % of all trains were more than 10 minutes late ) due to mismanagement ; the newspapers are going belly-up because they failed to innovate ; the companies that operate our energy grid are being bought by international corporations ; Internet via telephone line occurs a    10 per month " private tax " because KPN owns every last-mile connection in the country ( " it 's for maintenance " ) .Due to the recent credit crunch , two of our banks ( abn amro and fortis ) were nationalized ; no doubt several newspapers will end up being bought by the government , like you suggest ; the government is considering partially reverting the privatization of the energy market in order to keep grid maintenance under national control ; the railroads are still private , but the NS is under tight supervision by the minister of transportIt 's refreshing to see that despite the many shortcomings of many modern governments , that private organizations still are able to outdo the government in messing things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not tax paper and create a print equivalent of the BBC?
One could call it "Truth" or simply "News".
Hmmm.We actually used to have that.
It was called the "staatscourant", and it was privatized like everything else around here (telephony infrastructure, snailmail service, national railroad network, energy market).It was fun while it lasted, though.
The NS (railroads) at its lowest hit a punctuality rate of 72\% (meaning 28\% of all trains were more than 10 minutes late) due to mismanagement; the newspapers are going belly-up because they failed to innovate; the companies that operate our energy grid are being bought by international corporations; Internet via telephone line occurs a €10 per month "private tax" because KPN owns every last-mile connection in the country ("it's for maintenance").Due to the recent credit crunch, two of our banks (abn amro and fortis) were nationalized; no doubt several newspapers will end up being bought by the government, like you suggest; the government is considering partially reverting the privatization of the energy market in order to keep grid maintenance under national control; the railroads are still private, but the NS is under tight supervision by the minister of transportIt's refreshing to see that despite the many shortcomings of many modern governments, that private organizations still are able to outdo the government in messing things up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445201</id>
	<title>Explosion in the irony factory...</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1245751200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The report, which was solicited by the Dutch parliament and written by a committee of its members, specifically states that 'news and the gathering of news stories is not free, and the public must be made aware of that.'</p></div><p>It's a shame those newspapers don't have any means of getting this kind of information out to the public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The report , which was solicited by the Dutch parliament and written by a committee of its members , specifically states that 'news and the gathering of news stories is not free , and the public must be made aware of that .
'It 's a shame those newspapers do n't have any means of getting this kind of information out to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The report, which was solicited by the Dutch parliament and written by a committee of its members, specifically states that 'news and the gathering of news stories is not free, and the public must be made aware of that.
'It's a shame those newspapers don't have any means of getting this kind of information out to the public.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28448803</id>
	<title>Re:Why link it to online?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245775500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this goes against groupthink, but it may actually be a good thing, at least in the short-to-intermediate term. Online media comes in two distinct forms - firstly, as a branch of traditional media (eg, online newspapers), and secondly, as independent web-only reports (blogs). Now, the blogs are almost exclusively rehashes of traditional media - so if traditional media completely dies, what will the blogs do? That's why it's a good thing in the short-to-medium term to keep traditional media alive. And because traditional media is being harmed by "The Internet", some short-sighted bureaucrat or politician thought "hey, why not punish The Internet" (without realising that content providers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/=/ ISPs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/=/ "The Internet", or the inherent problems in regulatory CPR). </p><p>Long term is a completely different story. My personal belief of what would happen if traditional media collapsed would be one of two possibilities - either traditional media will manage to somehow survive in an online format (despite their content being mirrored by other blogs which may not have whatever inconvenience the traditional media's revenue model has), or blogs will actually implement the egalitarian idea of "many eyes" reporting (blogs reporting on their local scene, and all the interesting stories being scraped by other blogs). The first would mean that news reporting would be just as bad as it is now, but the second could go either way. Either the lack of QC in the original post will mean that the low quality will reverberate in every subsequent repost, OR, people will seek out high calibre scrapes, which will favour high quality original reports (not that quality and popularity are necessarily synonymous in news reporting). Thus a market-driven QC, and everyone's happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this goes against groupthink , but it may actually be a good thing , at least in the short-to-intermediate term .
Online media comes in two distinct forms - firstly , as a branch of traditional media ( eg , online newspapers ) , and secondly , as independent web-only reports ( blogs ) .
Now , the blogs are almost exclusively rehashes of traditional media - so if traditional media completely dies , what will the blogs do ?
That 's why it 's a good thing in the short-to-medium term to keep traditional media alive .
And because traditional media is being harmed by " The Internet " , some short-sighted bureaucrat or politician thought " hey , why not punish The Internet " ( without realising that content providers / = / ISPs / = / " The Internet " , or the inherent problems in regulatory CPR ) .
Long term is a completely different story .
My personal belief of what would happen if traditional media collapsed would be one of two possibilities - either traditional media will manage to somehow survive in an online format ( despite their content being mirrored by other blogs which may not have whatever inconvenience the traditional media 's revenue model has ) , or blogs will actually implement the egalitarian idea of " many eyes " reporting ( blogs reporting on their local scene , and all the interesting stories being scraped by other blogs ) .
The first would mean that news reporting would be just as bad as it is now , but the second could go either way .
Either the lack of QC in the original post will mean that the low quality will reverberate in every subsequent repost , OR , people will seek out high calibre scrapes , which will favour high quality original reports ( not that quality and popularity are necessarily synonymous in news reporting ) .
Thus a market-driven QC , and everyone 's happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this goes against groupthink, but it may actually be a good thing, at least in the short-to-intermediate term.
Online media comes in two distinct forms - firstly, as a branch of traditional media (eg, online newspapers), and secondly, as independent web-only reports (blogs).
Now, the blogs are almost exclusively rehashes of traditional media - so if traditional media completely dies, what will the blogs do?
That's why it's a good thing in the short-to-medium term to keep traditional media alive.
And because traditional media is being harmed by "The Internet", some short-sighted bureaucrat or politician thought "hey, why not punish The Internet" (without realising that content providers /=/ ISPs /=/ "The Internet", or the inherent problems in regulatory CPR).
Long term is a completely different story.
My personal belief of what would happen if traditional media collapsed would be one of two possibilities - either traditional media will manage to somehow survive in an online format (despite their content being mirrored by other blogs which may not have whatever inconvenience the traditional media's revenue model has), or blogs will actually implement the egalitarian idea of "many eyes" reporting (blogs reporting on their local scene, and all the interesting stories being scraped by other blogs).
The first would mean that news reporting would be just as bad as it is now, but the second could go either way.
Either the lack of QC in the original post will mean that the low quality will reverberate in every subsequent repost, OR, people will seek out high calibre scrapes, which will favour high quality original reports (not that quality and popularity are necessarily synonymous in news reporting).
Thus a market-driven QC, and everyone's happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197</id>
	<title>Dutch Govt to tax cars to feed horses too?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245751140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What other newer technologies support older ones I have to wonder?  I won't say that print media is "out" because I think it is still a very important thing to maintain.  After all, once a newspaper commits to print, it can't effectively be changed.  It was said and published, for better or for worse, whatever it was it will always be.  With digital, there is a risk that few people take into account -- archives and editing.  Anything stored digitally can be altered, often without a trace.  History of events can be changed to suit whatever interests are pushing their agenda.  The best you can do with print is burn it and hope that no one questions why it's missing.</p><p>But to tax one medium to support another?  There is something wrong with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What other newer technologies support older ones I have to wonder ?
I wo n't say that print media is " out " because I think it is still a very important thing to maintain .
After all , once a newspaper commits to print , it ca n't effectively be changed .
It was said and published , for better or for worse , whatever it was it will always be .
With digital , there is a risk that few people take into account -- archives and editing .
Anything stored digitally can be altered , often without a trace .
History of events can be changed to suit whatever interests are pushing their agenda .
The best you can do with print is burn it and hope that no one questions why it 's missing.But to tax one medium to support another ?
There is something wrong with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What other newer technologies support older ones I have to wonder?
I won't say that print media is "out" because I think it is still a very important thing to maintain.
After all, once a newspaper commits to print, it can't effectively be changed.
It was said and published, for better or for worse, whatever it was it will always be.
With digital, there is a risk that few people take into account -- archives and editing.
Anything stored digitally can be altered, often without a trace.
History of events can be changed to suit whatever interests are pushing their agenda.
The best you can do with print is burn it and hope that no one questions why it's missing.But to tax one medium to support another?
There is something wrong with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446059</id>
	<title>I don't want to pay twice</title>
	<author>Rashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1245754620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm already paying for my morning newspaper, why would I need to pay for it again via an ISP tax?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm already paying for my morning newspaper , why would I need to pay for it again via an ISP tax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm already paying for my morning newspaper, why would I need to pay for it again via an ISP tax?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445905</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>chebucto</author>
	<datestamp>1245753900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers living on the gravy train? Pissing away money? That's news to me; I know some journalists and they get paid at the low end of the professional wage spectrum.</p><p>Few independent newspapers left? Overpaid CEOs? This is probably accurate, but it doesn't follow that a newspaper bailout is just about the industry; the individual papers remain, and still serve a purpose, whether or not they're part of a empire at the moment.</p><p>Oh, and the CEOs didn't come up with the idea that free content was the solution; they were forced into that. Most newspapers started out charging for their content, and many still do - if not for their current stuff, at least for their archives. The NYT's decision to make all current content free was itself news only a year or two ago.</p><p>The only legitimate purpose of a paper is to keep watch on the government? That's absurd.</p><p>The industry may be changing, evolving, or even growing a sixth finger, but it doesn't follow that the ads-classifides-susbcriber-box business model will fail. I don't know anyone who \_prefers\_ to read from an LCD over dead-tree. More than that, news simply does not have to be up-to-the-minute; 99\% of the stuff in a paper is fine when its 12 hours old, and some things - like columns - are better after bit of reflection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers living on the gravy train ?
Pissing away money ?
That 's news to me ; I know some journalists and they get paid at the low end of the professional wage spectrum.Few independent newspapers left ?
Overpaid CEOs ?
This is probably accurate , but it does n't follow that a newspaper bailout is just about the industry ; the individual papers remain , and still serve a purpose , whether or not they 're part of a empire at the moment.Oh , and the CEOs did n't come up with the idea that free content was the solution ; they were forced into that .
Most newspapers started out charging for their content , and many still do - if not for their current stuff , at least for their archives .
The NYT 's decision to make all current content free was itself news only a year or two ago.The only legitimate purpose of a paper is to keep watch on the government ?
That 's absurd.The industry may be changing , evolving , or even growing a sixth finger , but it does n't follow that the ads-classifides-susbcriber-box business model will fail .
I do n't know anyone who \ _prefers \ _ to read from an LCD over dead-tree .
More than that , news simply does not have to be up-to-the-minute ; 99 \ % of the stuff in a paper is fine when its 12 hours old , and some things - like columns - are better after bit of reflection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers living on the gravy train?
Pissing away money?
That's news to me; I know some journalists and they get paid at the low end of the professional wage spectrum.Few independent newspapers left?
Overpaid CEOs?
This is probably accurate, but it doesn't follow that a newspaper bailout is just about the industry; the individual papers remain, and still serve a purpose, whether or not they're part of a empire at the moment.Oh, and the CEOs didn't come up with the idea that free content was the solution; they were forced into that.
Most newspapers started out charging for their content, and many still do - if not for their current stuff, at least for their archives.
The NYT's decision to make all current content free was itself news only a year or two ago.The only legitimate purpose of a paper is to keep watch on the government?
That's absurd.The industry may be changing, evolving, or even growing a sixth finger, but it doesn't follow that the ads-classifides-susbcriber-box business model will fail.
I don't know anyone who \_prefers\_ to read from an LCD over dead-tree.
More than that, news simply does not have to be up-to-the-minute; 99\% of the stuff in a paper is fine when its 12 hours old, and some things - like columns - are better after bit of reflection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446913</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245758700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever been to The Netherlands?  It's peaceful, beautiful, educated, and cultured.  Their standard of living is higher than ours.</p><p>
&nbsp; Maybe their tax rate is a lot closer to 'right' than ours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever been to The Netherlands ?
It 's peaceful , beautiful , educated , and cultured .
Their standard of living is higher than ours .
  Maybe their tax rate is a lot closer to 'right ' than ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever been to The Netherlands?
It's peaceful, beautiful, educated, and cultured.
Their standard of living is higher than ours.
  Maybe their tax rate is a lot closer to 'right' than ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447117</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is, as usual, behind the times</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1245759780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no no, you don't understand at all how politics in Eurostan work.</p><p>If a committee proposes something, this means "The government wants it, it is law, reach for your guns!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no no , you do n't understand at all how politics in Eurostan work.If a committee proposes something , this means " The government wants it , it is law , reach for your guns !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no no, you don't understand at all how politics in Eurostan work.If a committee proposes something, this means "The government wants it, it is law, reach for your guns!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450289</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Baron Eekman</author>
	<datestamp>1245836340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?fta=y" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">You may be interested in this piece by an American expat in Amsterdam about paying Dutch taxes</a> [nytimes.com]
<br>(if you can be bothered to login to nytimes)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be interested in this piece by an American expat in Amsterdam about paying Dutch taxes [ nytimes.com ] ( if you can be bothered to login to nytimes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be interested in this piece by an American expat in Amsterdam about paying Dutch taxes [nytimes.com]
(if you can be bothered to login to nytimes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446511</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is, as usual, behind the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245756660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blog.nola.com/checkitout/2009/06/the\_daily\_show\_examines\_the\_de.html" title="nola.com" rel="nofollow">Daily Show Special Report</a> [nola.com]</p><p>Jason Jones: Tell me a joke.<br>New York Times manager: No, that's your job.<br>JJ: You wanna hear one from me?  Okay.  What's black and white and red all over?<br>NYT: A newspaper.<br>JJ: No, your balance sheet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Daily Show Special Report [ nola.com ] Jason Jones : Tell me a joke.New York Times manager : No , that 's your job.JJ : You wan na hear one from me ?
Okay. What 's black and white and red all over ? NYT : A newspaper.JJ : No , your balance sheet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daily Show Special Report [nola.com]Jason Jones: Tell me a joke.New York Times manager: No, that's your job.JJ: You wanna hear one from me?
Okay.  What's black and white and red all over?NYT: A newspaper.JJ: No, your balance sheet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445719</id>
	<title>Re:Dutch Govt to tax cars to feed horses too?</title>
	<author>portnux</author>
	<datestamp>1245753120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a cool idea! Maybe before that they can tax sneaker companies to support their wooden shoe industry though!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a cool idea !
Maybe before that they can tax sneaker companies to support their wooden shoe industry though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a cool idea!
Maybe before that they can tax sneaker companies to support their wooden shoe industry though!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446069</id>
	<title>off-topic: 'road tax' in NL</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1245754680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to note: as of 2018 - supposedly - there will no longer be a 'a road use tax' (note that this is actually a fixed tax cost for any car owner, regardless of whether they drive it or not, and the height depends on the type of car, age, etc. as well as which province you live in), nor an additional tax on purchasing a car (currently: 40\% on a passenger car/van, reduced by 1346 (minor details aside)), good for ~3.2B/year for the state - similar to the 'road use tax'.</p><p>Instead, people will be paying by the kilometer, which they plan on tracking via GPS and whatnot.. cue the 'potential for abuse' cries - I know, right?<br>But because this will go straight to the state, and no longer to the provinces in part, the provinces will have to find new sources of getting moneys.. which essentially means raising taxes for eeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody; regardless of whether or not they even have a car.</p><p>Of course our gas is also heavily 'taxed' - which will remain. Dur.</p><p>Taxes are indeed incredibly high in NL and although we do get quite a bit in return, I can't help but feel that too much of it is utterly wasted on prestige projects, lining pockets, military 'defense', etc.  Sadly, it seems it's only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to note : as of 2018 - supposedly - there will no longer be a 'a road use tax ' ( note that this is actually a fixed tax cost for any car owner , regardless of whether they drive it or not , and the height depends on the type of car , age , etc .
as well as which province you live in ) , nor an additional tax on purchasing a car ( currently : 40 \ % on a passenger car/van , reduced by 1346 ( minor details aside ) ) , good for ~ 3.2B/year for the state - similar to the 'road use tax'.Instead , people will be paying by the kilometer , which they plan on tracking via GPS and whatnot.. cue the 'potential for abuse ' cries - I know , right ? But because this will go straight to the state , and no longer to the provinces in part , the provinces will have to find new sources of getting moneys.. which essentially means raising taxes for eeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody ; regardless of whether or not they even have a car.Of course our gas is also heavily 'taxed ' - which will remain .
Dur.Taxes are indeed incredibly high in NL and although we do get quite a bit in return , I ca n't help but feel that too much of it is utterly wasted on prestige projects , lining pockets , military 'defense ' , etc .
Sadly , it seems it 's only going to get worse for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to note: as of 2018 - supposedly - there will no longer be a 'a road use tax' (note that this is actually a fixed tax cost for any car owner, regardless of whether they drive it or not, and the height depends on the type of car, age, etc.
as well as which province you live in), nor an additional tax on purchasing a car (currently: 40\% on a passenger car/van, reduced by 1346 (minor details aside)), good for ~3.2B/year for the state - similar to the 'road use tax'.Instead, people will be paying by the kilometer, which they plan on tracking via GPS and whatnot.. cue the 'potential for abuse' cries - I know, right?But because this will go straight to the state, and no longer to the provinces in part, the provinces will have to find new sources of getting moneys.. which essentially means raising taxes for eeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody; regardless of whether or not they even have a car.Of course our gas is also heavily 'taxed' - which will remain.
Dur.Taxes are indeed incredibly high in NL and although we do get quite a bit in return, I can't help but feel that too much of it is utterly wasted on prestige projects, lining pockets, military 'defense', etc.
Sadly, it seems it's only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445763</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245753300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they had to have people walking in front with red flags, which defeated the purpose of having a car in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they had to have people walking in front with red flags , which defeated the purpose of having a car in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they had to have people walking in front with red flags, which defeated the purpose of having a car in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445191</id>
	<title>The amazon thanks</title>
	<author>chrisreichel</author>
	<datestamp>1245751140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's another way to say: Visit your newspaper online and cut a tree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's another way to say : Visit your newspaper online and cut a tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's another way to say: Visit your newspaper online and cut a tree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445377</id>
	<title>Newspapers. Blogs. Forgetting something?</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1245751800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet again, the Dutch government entirely ignores the welfare of town criers. This is an insult to town criers everywhere! I demand that the dutch government fund the struggling town crier industry by taxing newspaper sales.</p><p>The news ain't free, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet again , the Dutch government entirely ignores the welfare of town criers .
This is an insult to town criers everywhere !
I demand that the dutch government fund the struggling town crier industry by taxing newspaper sales.The news ai n't free , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet again, the Dutch government entirely ignores the welfare of town criers.
This is an insult to town criers everywhere!
I demand that the dutch government fund the struggling town crier industry by taxing newspaper sales.The news ain't free, you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445929</id>
	<title>Re:Dutch Govt to tax cars to feed horses too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245754020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It fits in one way. There'll be horses long after every car currently on the road is gone and books printed today will out live every computer working today. It's not that one is inherently better it's that they both have there place. Computers suck for long term storage where as paper books can last a thousand years and parchment much longer. Books and papers will continue to serve a purpose for the foreseeable future. Next time the power goes out you'll see the limitations on computers and digital media. I had a blackout a year ago and I wound up reading a book by candle light. I played a movie on my notebook first but the battery was dead shortly after the movie finished and the blackout lasted 8 hours. The book came in really handy. The law was a bad idea but it doesn't lessen books and newspaper's value. One day people will laugh at the old digital days and how archaic it all was but I'll bet there are still books around while they are laughing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It fits in one way .
There 'll be horses long after every car currently on the road is gone and books printed today will out live every computer working today .
It 's not that one is inherently better it 's that they both have there place .
Computers suck for long term storage where as paper books can last a thousand years and parchment much longer .
Books and papers will continue to serve a purpose for the foreseeable future .
Next time the power goes out you 'll see the limitations on computers and digital media .
I had a blackout a year ago and I wound up reading a book by candle light .
I played a movie on my notebook first but the battery was dead shortly after the movie finished and the blackout lasted 8 hours .
The book came in really handy .
The law was a bad idea but it does n't lessen books and newspaper 's value .
One day people will laugh at the old digital days and how archaic it all was but I 'll bet there are still books around while they are laughing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It fits in one way.
There'll be horses long after every car currently on the road is gone and books printed today will out live every computer working today.
It's not that one is inherently better it's that they both have there place.
Computers suck for long term storage where as paper books can last a thousand years and parchment much longer.
Books and papers will continue to serve a purpose for the foreseeable future.
Next time the power goes out you'll see the limitations on computers and digital media.
I had a blackout a year ago and I wound up reading a book by candle light.
I played a movie on my notebook first but the battery was dead shortly after the movie finished and the blackout lasted 8 hours.
The book came in really handy.
The law was a bad idea but it doesn't lessen books and newspaper's value.
One day people will laugh at the old digital days and how archaic it all was but I'll bet there are still books around while they are laughing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28479203</id>
	<title>Re:How about a tax on the word "fuck" . . . ?</title>
	<author>borizz</author>
	<datestamp>1246009860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28456669</id>
	<title>Re:This is bullshit</title>
	<author>Heian-794</author>
	<datestamp>1245873480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>And back to English:

</i></p><p><i>This is poppycock!

</i></p><p><i>I think I've made my point.</i>

</p><p>Actually, "poppycock" covers both the English and Dutch steps at the same time:

</p><p>http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pop1.htm

</p><p>Clearly this is a word for the multilingual, multicultural, interconnected modern world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And back to English : This is poppycock !
I think I 've made my point .
Actually , " poppycock " covers both the English and Dutch steps at the same time : http : //www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pop1.htm Clearly this is a word for the multilingual , multicultural , interconnected modern world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And back to English:

This is poppycock!
I think I've made my point.
Actually, "poppycock" covers both the English and Dutch steps at the same time:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pop1.htm

Clearly this is a word for the multilingual, multicultural, interconnected modern world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445317</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is, as usual, behind the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could be worse.<br>The news papers will only report about this tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could be worse.The news papers will only report about this tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could be worse.The news papers will only report about this tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445863</id>
	<title>Re:This is bullshit</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245753720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that the google translate meme started, it can't stop.<br>
<br>
man<br>
<br>
Through <a href="http://tashian.com/multibabel/" title="tashian.com">http://tashian.com/multibabel/</a> [tashian.com] once with the Asian languages:<br>
<br>
Person<br>
Personnels<br>
Personnel<br>
Staff<br>
Team of employees<br>
<br>
Again without the Asian languages:<br>
<br>
Equip with employees<br>
Supply yourselves with employees<br>
Refueling same you with the employees<br>
<br>
It all goes down from there...<br>
<br>
(finish that cycle and do it again)<br>
<br>
Ignition of base one of the parity of the employees fills above<br>
<br>
Such is the fall of man...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the google translate meme started , it ca n't stop .
man Through http : //tashian.com/multibabel/ [ tashian.com ] once with the Asian languages : Person Personnels Personnel Staff Team of employees Again without the Asian languages : Equip with employees Supply yourselves with employees Refueling same you with the employees It all goes down from there.. . ( finish that cycle and do it again ) Ignition of base one of the parity of the employees fills above Such is the fall of man.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the google translate meme started, it can't stop.
man

Through http://tashian.com/multibabel/ [tashian.com] once with the Asian languages:

Person
Personnels
Personnel
Staff
Team of employees

Again without the Asian languages:

Equip with employees
Supply yourselves with employees
Refueling same you with the employees

It all goes down from there...

(finish that cycle and do it again)

Ignition of base one of the parity of the employees fills above

Such is the fall of man...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446263</id>
	<title>How about a tax on the word "fuck" . . . ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245755520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I Water is taxed about 6 times if you count 'em all (at least the rate is 6\% after drinking water, what a fucking great silver lining that is).</p></div><p>Well, fuck me over flying fucking backwards.  The fucking Netherlands has fucking taxes on fucking water?  I fucking thought that if the fucking country didn't have all those fucking brilliant fucking dikes, then the whole fucking country would be under fucking water, and they would be fucking totally fucking fucked over, with no fucking clue what to do with all the fucking water.
</p><p>Except fucking tax it.
</p><p>But what the fuck do I know?
</p><p>And fuck, that fucking story about that fucking Dutch boy, who saved the fucking country, by sticking his fucking finger in the fucking dike to stop the fucking leak?
</p><p>Well, the little fucking bastard was just fucking trying to finger fuck the fucking dike.
</p><p>Please mention me in your prayers, before you go to sleep tonight . . . I don't want to go to work tomorrow, and start talking like my rant, above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Water is taxed about 6 times if you count 'em all ( at least the rate is 6 \ % after drinking water , what a fucking great silver lining that is ) .Well , fuck me over flying fucking backwards .
The fucking Netherlands has fucking taxes on fucking water ?
I fucking thought that if the fucking country did n't have all those fucking brilliant fucking dikes , then the whole fucking country would be under fucking water , and they would be fucking totally fucking fucked over , with no fucking clue what to do with all the fucking water .
Except fucking tax it .
But what the fuck do I know ?
And fuck , that fucking story about that fucking Dutch boy , who saved the fucking country , by sticking his fucking finger in the fucking dike to stop the fucking leak ?
Well , the little fucking bastard was just fucking trying to finger fuck the fucking dike .
Please mention me in your prayers , before you go to sleep tonight .
. .
I do n't want to go to work tomorrow , and start talking like my rant , above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Water is taxed about 6 times if you count 'em all (at least the rate is 6\% after drinking water, what a fucking great silver lining that is).Well, fuck me over flying fucking backwards.
The fucking Netherlands has fucking taxes on fucking water?
I fucking thought that if the fucking country didn't have all those fucking brilliant fucking dikes, then the whole fucking country would be under fucking water, and they would be fucking totally fucking fucked over, with no fucking clue what to do with all the fucking water.
Except fucking tax it.
But what the fuck do I know?
And fuck, that fucking story about that fucking Dutch boy, who saved the fucking country, by sticking his fucking finger in the fucking dike to stop the fucking leak?
Well, the little fucking bastard was just fucking trying to finger fuck the fucking dike.
Please mention me in your prayers, before you go to sleep tonight .
. .
I don't want to go to work tomorrow, and start talking like my rant, above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446603</id>
	<title>I can see conservatives proposing this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245757140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure US conservatives would love to tax the online "libr00l media" to give "fiscal conservative" handouts to their masters in the print and broadcast media.</p><p>Tax the cars to support the buggywhip manufacturers- it's the conservative way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure US conservatives would love to tax the online " libr00l media " to give " fiscal conservative " handouts to their masters in the print and broadcast media.Tax the cars to support the buggywhip manufacturers- it 's the conservative way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure US conservatives would love to tax the online "libr00l media" to give "fiscal conservative" handouts to their masters in the print and broadcast media.Tax the cars to support the buggywhip manufacturers- it's the conservative way!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446803</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1245758100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This whole "the print media industry needs government help!" crap is making me nuts."</p><p>Well I would tend to agree subsidizing the mostly corporatized newspaper empires is a little nuts.</p><p>On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career, and to insure there are substantial numbers of professional investigative journalists digging up stories in the world precisely because it make people sweat who don't wan those stories dug up.  They should absolutely all stopping killing trees to print their news, put it all online, and make sure there is a good way to make it available to commuters, but they also need to get paid and right putting it on line for free mostly means they don't make anything because Google is the only one making money on online ads it seems.</p><p>I love online news sites, I appreciate what they do, but I like everyone else am too cheap to pay them if I can get their stuff for free. If I can't get their stuff for free I wont go to their site.  Google in particular is the one making huge amount of money exploiting all their news gathering and should be figuring out a way to share some of their wealth to keep deserving professional journalists employed, and ideally lettting all the hacks and newspaper execs starve.</p><p>It is true there have been massive failures on the part of professional journalists, like Judith Miller and her propaganda campaign for the Bush administration on WMD's used to perpetrate the war in Iraq.  Oh hell.... professional journalists failed en masse during the first six years of the Bush regime.  But I blame that mostly on 9/11 and an American public that got seduced in to picking flag waving over truth and the press pandered to what the people wanted.  Same thing happened after Pearl Harbor and "Remeber the Maine" in 1898.</p><p>Its also true the current corporate empires that own most media outlets and employ most professional journalist are scum, like most greedy executives, and are causing many of the problems as you suggest.</p><p>But.... I also don't want to see a world where what passes for journalism degenerates in to a bunch of bloggers sitting around regurgitating the crap they found surfing the web, mixed with a heavy dose of opinion and rumor.......... kind of like I'm doing here.  I would actually like to see a restoration of investigative journalists who go out and actually dig up the truth, make people uncomfortable who deserve to be uncomfortable, and put it on the web instead of on dead tress.</p><p>They should get paid for it, and if they are good at it get paid well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This whole " the print media industry needs government help !
" crap is making me nuts .
" Well I would tend to agree subsidizing the mostly corporatized newspaper empires is a little nuts.On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career , and to insure there are substantial numbers of professional investigative journalists digging up stories in the world precisely because it make people sweat who do n't wan those stories dug up .
They should absolutely all stopping killing trees to print their news , put it all online , and make sure there is a good way to make it available to commuters , but they also need to get paid and right putting it on line for free mostly means they do n't make anything because Google is the only one making money on online ads it seems.I love online news sites , I appreciate what they do , but I like everyone else am too cheap to pay them if I can get their stuff for free .
If I ca n't get their stuff for free I wont go to their site .
Google in particular is the one making huge amount of money exploiting all their news gathering and should be figuring out a way to share some of their wealth to keep deserving professional journalists employed , and ideally lettting all the hacks and newspaper execs starve.It is true there have been massive failures on the part of professional journalists , like Judith Miller and her propaganda campaign for the Bush administration on WMD 's used to perpetrate the war in Iraq .
Oh hell.... professional journalists failed en masse during the first six years of the Bush regime .
But I blame that mostly on 9/11 and an American public that got seduced in to picking flag waving over truth and the press pandered to what the people wanted .
Same thing happened after Pearl Harbor and " Remeber the Maine " in 1898.Its also true the current corporate empires that own most media outlets and employ most professional journalist are scum , like most greedy executives , and are causing many of the problems as you suggest.But.... I also do n't want to see a world where what passes for journalism degenerates in to a bunch of bloggers sitting around regurgitating the crap they found surfing the web , mixed with a heavy dose of opinion and rumor.......... kind of like I 'm doing here .
I would actually like to see a restoration of investigative journalists who go out and actually dig up the truth , make people uncomfortable who deserve to be uncomfortable , and put it on the web instead of on dead tress.They should get paid for it , and if they are good at it get paid well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This whole "the print media industry needs government help!
" crap is making me nuts.
"Well I would tend to agree subsidizing the mostly corporatized newspaper empires is a little nuts.On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career, and to insure there are substantial numbers of professional investigative journalists digging up stories in the world precisely because it make people sweat who don't wan those stories dug up.
They should absolutely all stopping killing trees to print their news, put it all online, and make sure there is a good way to make it available to commuters, but they also need to get paid and right putting it on line for free mostly means they don't make anything because Google is the only one making money on online ads it seems.I love online news sites, I appreciate what they do, but I like everyone else am too cheap to pay them if I can get their stuff for free.
If I can't get their stuff for free I wont go to their site.
Google in particular is the one making huge amount of money exploiting all their news gathering and should be figuring out a way to share some of their wealth to keep deserving professional journalists employed, and ideally lettting all the hacks and newspaper execs starve.It is true there have been massive failures on the part of professional journalists, like Judith Miller and her propaganda campaign for the Bush administration on WMD's used to perpetrate the war in Iraq.
Oh hell.... professional journalists failed en masse during the first six years of the Bush regime.
But I blame that mostly on 9/11 and an American public that got seduced in to picking flag waving over truth and the press pandered to what the people wanted.
Same thing happened after Pearl Harbor and "Remeber the Maine" in 1898.Its also true the current corporate empires that own most media outlets and employ most professional journalist are scum, like most greedy executives, and are causing many of the problems as you suggest.But.... I also don't want to see a world where what passes for journalism degenerates in to a bunch of bloggers sitting around regurgitating the crap they found surfing the web, mixed with a heavy dose of opinion and rumor.......... kind of like I'm doing here.
I would actually like to see a restoration of investigative journalists who go out and actually dig up the truth, make people uncomfortable who deserve to be uncomfortable, and put it on the web instead of on dead tress.They should get paid for it, and if they are good at it get paid well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445539</id>
	<title>Example of lousy internet news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245752460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If printed media is replaced by web information of the quality shown in this thread opener then the tax can't be high enough.</p><p>Like someone wrote already:<br>&gt;&gt;Actually it is a report from the newspaper lobby and the responsible minister has already spoken out against the proposal.</p><p>It would be nice if the minister also had spoken against some existing tax oddities like Reprorecht, Buma, Stemra, etc. I spare you the details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If printed media is replaced by web information of the quality shown in this thread opener then the tax ca n't be high enough.Like someone wrote already : &gt; &gt; Actually it is a report from the newspaper lobby and the responsible minister has already spoken out against the proposal.It would be nice if the minister also had spoken against some existing tax oddities like Reprorecht , Buma , Stemra , etc .
I spare you the details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If printed media is replaced by web information of the quality shown in this thread opener then the tax can't be high enough.Like someone wrote already:&gt;&gt;Actually it is a report from the newspaper lobby and the responsible minister has already spoken out against the proposal.It would be nice if the minister also had spoken against some existing tax oddities like Reprorecht, Buma, Stemra, etc.
I spare you the details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445573</id>
	<title>This is bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245752580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is bullshit!
<br> <br>
Or, for our Dutch friends, a Google translation:<p><div class="quote"><p>Dit is onzin!</p></div><p>And then back to English:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is nonsense!</p></div><p>And, just for fun, to Filipino:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>ito ay kalokohan!</p></div><p>And back to English:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is poppycock!</p></div><p>I think I've made my point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bullshit !
Or , for our Dutch friends , a Google translation : Dit is onzin ! And then back to English : This is nonsense ! And , just for fun , to Filipino : ito ay kalokohan ! And back to English : This is poppycock ! I think I 've made my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bullshit!
Or, for our Dutch friends, a Google translation:Dit is onzin!And then back to English:This is nonsense!And, just for fun, to Filipino:ito ay kalokohan!And back to English:This is poppycock!I think I've made my point.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</id>
	<title>For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245752220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet in the Netherlands is already taxed with 19\% BTW (VAT, not quite sales tax), let alone all the other taxes - Water is taxed about 6 times if you count 'em all (at least the rate is 6\% after drinking water, what a fucking great silver lining that is).</p><p>I can understand the concept of having certain taxes being related to usage - no road tax unless you own a car etc. - but in the Netherlands you pay anything up to 50\%+ income tax (which has been pre-taxed by employer's tax), and THEN everything you want after that is taxed extra already.</p><p>If - as a nation - you have fucking (50\%+) high income tax, then fucking budget it to cover basic needs, like sewers and roads. If you have fucking (19\%) high sales tax (more for cigarettes), then fucking use it to cover whatever is being taxed.</p><p>I can even live with the idea that old media and new media are part of the same thing, and thus some of the sales taxes on the lot of them might be spent disproportionately on ailing media. But the real problem for the "quality" print media is that every station in the major cities has free print media, which readers can consume during a commute and typically leave on the seats of buses and trams everywhere.</p><p>metronieuws.nl and spitsnieuws.nl are getting sufficient print readers to encourage advertisers to read.</p><p>Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet in the Netherlands is already taxed with 19 \ % BTW ( VAT , not quite sales tax ) , let alone all the other taxes - Water is taxed about 6 times if you count 'em all ( at least the rate is 6 \ % after drinking water , what a fucking great silver lining that is ) .I can understand the concept of having certain taxes being related to usage - no road tax unless you own a car etc .
- but in the Netherlands you pay anything up to 50 \ % + income tax ( which has been pre-taxed by employer 's tax ) , and THEN everything you want after that is taxed extra already.If - as a nation - you have fucking ( 50 \ % + ) high income tax , then fucking budget it to cover basic needs , like sewers and roads .
If you have fucking ( 19 \ % ) high sales tax ( more for cigarettes ) , then fucking use it to cover whatever is being taxed.I can even live with the idea that old media and new media are part of the same thing , and thus some of the sales taxes on the lot of them might be spent disproportionately on ailing media .
But the real problem for the " quality " print media is that every station in the major cities has free print media , which readers can consume during a commute and typically leave on the seats of buses and trams everywhere.metronieuws.nl and spitsnieuws.nl are getting sufficient print readers to encourage advertisers to read.Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet in the Netherlands is already taxed with 19\% BTW (VAT, not quite sales tax), let alone all the other taxes - Water is taxed about 6 times if you count 'em all (at least the rate is 6\% after drinking water, what a fucking great silver lining that is).I can understand the concept of having certain taxes being related to usage - no road tax unless you own a car etc.
- but in the Netherlands you pay anything up to 50\%+ income tax (which has been pre-taxed by employer's tax), and THEN everything you want after that is taxed extra already.If - as a nation - you have fucking (50\%+) high income tax, then fucking budget it to cover basic needs, like sewers and roads.
If you have fucking (19\%) high sales tax (more for cigarettes), then fucking use it to cover whatever is being taxed.I can even live with the idea that old media and new media are part of the same thing, and thus some of the sales taxes on the lot of them might be spent disproportionately on ailing media.
But the real problem for the "quality" print media is that every station in the major cities has free print media, which readers can consume during a commute and typically leave on the seats of buses and trams everywhere.metronieuws.nl and spitsnieuws.nl are getting sufficient print readers to encourage advertisers to read.Fuck the Dutch and their fucking tax attitudes, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445883</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>f0dder</author>
	<datestamp>1245753840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Loved GM's idea of spending millions during the NBA playoffs &amp; finals for an ad campaign telling people how they've changed, learned their lessons, and will be a more responsible company. WTF??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loved GM 's idea of spending millions during the NBA playoffs &amp; finals for an ad campaign telling people how they 've changed , learned their lessons , and will be a more responsible company .
WTF ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loved GM's idea of spending millions during the NBA playoffs &amp; finals for an ad campaign telling people how they've changed, learned their lessons, and will be a more responsible company.
WTF??</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447531</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1245762540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career...</p></div><p>Ok, blowing all my mods to address this one.</p><p>In the company I work for, we use trained journalists, and we use them for one purpose - and it's not writing internal newsletters.  We use them because they know how to <i>write. </i>We have a constant need for people to write about stuff we sell and do in order to inform our potential customers.  That text needs to be engaging, with correct syntax, punctuation and spelling.  Do you know how rare it is in even a large technology company to find people who know how to construct a paragraph correctly, to say nothing of making it <i>readable?</i> </p><p>Mind you, they need to know a little about technology.  Not a huge amount, but enough to ask sensible questions in an interview.</p><p>You might end up being called a "market analyst" rather than a "reporter", but work is definitely there, and it's the same sort of investigative reporting you were trained for.  But the pay is probably better and interviews are easier to come by.  It may not be the discovery of Watergate, but there's hope for you that isn't spelled Wendy's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career...Ok , blowing all my mods to address this one.In the company I work for , we use trained journalists , and we use them for one purpose - and it 's not writing internal newsletters .
We use them because they know how to write .
We have a constant need for people to write about stuff we sell and do in order to inform our potential customers .
That text needs to be engaging , with correct syntax , punctuation and spelling .
Do you know how rare it is in even a large technology company to find people who know how to construct a paragraph correctly , to say nothing of making it readable ?
Mind you , they need to know a little about technology .
Not a huge amount , but enough to ask sensible questions in an interview.You might end up being called a " market analyst " rather than a " reporter " , but work is definitely there , and it 's the same sort of investigative reporting you were trained for .
But the pay is probably better and interviews are easier to come by .
It may not be the discovery of Watergate , but there 's hope for you that is n't spelled Wendy 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career...Ok, blowing all my mods to address this one.In the company I work for, we use trained journalists, and we use them for one purpose - and it's not writing internal newsletters.
We use them because they know how to write.
We have a constant need for people to write about stuff we sell and do in order to inform our potential customers.
That text needs to be engaging, with correct syntax, punctuation and spelling.
Do you know how rare it is in even a large technology company to find people who know how to construct a paragraph correctly, to say nothing of making it readable?
Mind you, they need to know a little about technology.
Not a huge amount, but enough to ask sensible questions in an interview.You might end up being called a "market analyst" rather than a "reporter", but work is definitely there, and it's the same sort of investigative reporting you were trained for.
But the pay is probably better and interviews are easier to come by.
It may not be the discovery of Watergate, but there's hope for you that isn't spelled Wendy's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445609</id>
	<title>Why not create the newspaper equiv of the BBC?</title>
	<author>QuatermassX</author>
	<datestamp>1245752700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely this is a way for government to clip the wings of a struggling section of the fourth estate? Governments - anyone in power - generally does not look all that kindly on aggressive newspapers that speak truth to power and hold governments to account. I'm sure someone thinks this an ideal way to neuter domestic media by hooking it on public subsidy.

</p><p>Why not tax paper and create a print equivalent of the BBC? One could call it "Truth" or simply "News". Hmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely this is a way for government to clip the wings of a struggling section of the fourth estate ?
Governments - anyone in power - generally does not look all that kindly on aggressive newspapers that speak truth to power and hold governments to account .
I 'm sure someone thinks this an ideal way to neuter domestic media by hooking it on public subsidy .
Why not tax paper and create a print equivalent of the BBC ?
One could call it " Truth " or simply " News " .
Hmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely this is a way for government to clip the wings of a struggling section of the fourth estate?
Governments - anyone in power - generally does not look all that kindly on aggressive newspapers that speak truth to power and hold governments to account.
I'm sure someone thinks this an ideal way to neuter domestic media by hooking it on public subsidy.
Why not tax paper and create a print equivalent of the BBC?
One could call it "Truth" or simply "News".
Hmmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446705</id>
	<title>Re:Explosion in the irony factory...</title>
	<author>DigitAl56K</author>
	<datestamp>1245757500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News *is* free, the gathering and dissemination of news may or may not be.</p><p>Random thoughts:</p><p>Conventional news sources ought to reflect on the recent coverage of Iran, which came to us almost exclusively by YouTube and Twitter. In fact, you would have been better off reading twitter's #iranelection topic than watching TV this past week. CNN was late to the game with their coverage. FOX News provided coverage that mainly involved talking heads and the same YouTube clips you could find easily on your own, but out of all networks (and I cringe when I say this) they provided the most extensive coverage of the protests this weekend. MSNBC re-ran docudramas all weekend.</p><p>I don't read computing news from printed magazines any more, yet there are a lot of computing-news websites that seem to do alright as web-based mediums. Some made a successful transition to the online world, others faltered. Some still run print editions for those who prefer them. Print, and "old media" in general shouldn't get a free pass. If I was going to have to pay taxes on my internet access (which is ridiculous) I'd rather they supplemented the web-based media I do use anyway. Maybe we'd see less ads that way. (Okay, probably not).</p><p>Web based "community"-organized news isn't ready to entirely supplant consolidated professional journalism, but the technologies and communities are evolving, and print-based publishers better realize that their value is in their content and not in their medium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News * is * free , the gathering and dissemination of news may or may not be.Random thoughts : Conventional news sources ought to reflect on the recent coverage of Iran , which came to us almost exclusively by YouTube and Twitter .
In fact , you would have been better off reading twitter 's # iranelection topic than watching TV this past week .
CNN was late to the game with their coverage .
FOX News provided coverage that mainly involved talking heads and the same YouTube clips you could find easily on your own , but out of all networks ( and I cringe when I say this ) they provided the most extensive coverage of the protests this weekend .
MSNBC re-ran docudramas all weekend.I do n't read computing news from printed magazines any more , yet there are a lot of computing-news websites that seem to do alright as web-based mediums .
Some made a successful transition to the online world , others faltered .
Some still run print editions for those who prefer them .
Print , and " old media " in general should n't get a free pass .
If I was going to have to pay taxes on my internet access ( which is ridiculous ) I 'd rather they supplemented the web-based media I do use anyway .
Maybe we 'd see less ads that way .
( Okay , probably not ) .Web based " community " -organized news is n't ready to entirely supplant consolidated professional journalism , but the technologies and communities are evolving , and print-based publishers better realize that their value is in their content and not in their medium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News *is* free, the gathering and dissemination of news may or may not be.Random thoughts:Conventional news sources ought to reflect on the recent coverage of Iran, which came to us almost exclusively by YouTube and Twitter.
In fact, you would have been better off reading twitter's #iranelection topic than watching TV this past week.
CNN was late to the game with their coverage.
FOX News provided coverage that mainly involved talking heads and the same YouTube clips you could find easily on your own, but out of all networks (and I cringe when I say this) they provided the most extensive coverage of the protests this weekend.
MSNBC re-ran docudramas all weekend.I don't read computing news from printed magazines any more, yet there are a lot of computing-news websites that seem to do alright as web-based mediums.
Some made a successful transition to the online world, others faltered.
Some still run print editions for those who prefer them.
Print, and "old media" in general shouldn't get a free pass.
If I was going to have to pay taxes on my internet access (which is ridiculous) I'd rather they supplemented the web-based media I do use anyway.
Maybe we'd see less ads that way.
(Okay, probably not).Web based "community"-organized news isn't ready to entirely supplant consolidated professional journalism, but the technologies and communities are evolving, and print-based publishers better realize that their value is in their content and not in their medium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119</id>
	<title>Slashdot is, as usual, behind the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245750960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The responsible minister <a href="http://www.villamedia.nl/archief-vaknieuws/bericht/plasterk-geen-internetheffing/" title="villamedia.nl">already said "no"</a> [villamedia.nl] (Dutch language article and I'm too lazy to translate; learn Dutch you slackers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The responsible minister already said " no " [ villamedia.nl ] ( Dutch language article and I 'm too lazy to translate ; learn Dutch you slackers : ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The responsible minister already said "no" [villamedia.nl] (Dutch language article and I'm too lazy to translate; learn Dutch you slackers :)).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449853</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is, as usual, behind the times</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1245873600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The news papers will only report about this tomorrow.</p></div><p>Funny? Insighful! Every time I read a newspaper, I'm surprised I'm reading yesterday's news. I love reading from paper, but as a medium for reporting the latest news, it's obsolete. They should focus more on background and analysis for the factoids you've already read online. (Which is exactly the business model of my current newspaper, which is one of the few Dutch newspapers that's growing.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The news papers will only report about this tomorrow.Funny ?
Insighful ! Every time I read a newspaper , I 'm surprised I 'm reading yesterday 's news .
I love reading from paper , but as a medium for reporting the latest news , it 's obsolete .
They should focus more on background and analysis for the factoids you 've already read online .
( Which is exactly the business model of my current newspaper , which is one of the few Dutch newspapers that 's growing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The news papers will only report about this tomorrow.Funny?
Insighful! Every time I read a newspaper, I'm surprised I'm reading yesterday's news.
I love reading from paper, but as a medium for reporting the latest news, it's obsolete.
They should focus more on background and analysis for the factoids you've already read online.
(Which is exactly the business model of my current newspaper, which is one of the few Dutch newspapers that's growing.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445819</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245753540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Fuck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Judging from your judicous use of the word 'fuck' in relation to the Dutch tax system, I assume you were a) annoyed to learn that Dutch prostitutes charge VAT too  upon visiting the red light district in Amsterdam and b) were pissed of you couldn't deduct said visit as a business expense from your tax returns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... fucking ... fucking ... fucking ... fucking ... fucking ... Fuck ... fucking ...Judging from your judicous use of the word 'fuck ' in relation to the Dutch tax system , I assume you were a ) annoyed to learn that Dutch prostitutes charge VAT too upon visiting the red light district in Amsterdam and b ) were pissed of you could n't deduct said visit as a business expense from your tax returns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... fucking ... fucking ... fucking ... fucking ... fucking ... Fuck ... fucking ...Judging from your judicous use of the word 'fuck' in relation to the Dutch tax system, I assume you were a) annoyed to learn that Dutch prostitutes charge VAT too  upon visiting the red light district in Amsterdam and b) were pissed of you couldn't deduct said visit as a business expense from your tax returns.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245754080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad analogy, because the death of reel to reel wasn't the death of (for example) symphonic music. It was just a transition from one format to another.</p><p>The problem with the possible death of the print media industry, is that they're the only ones who do real, in-depth, reliable, reporting these days...They're the only ones who can <em>afford</em> to, because it's fricking expensive to do it right. So far, it's too expensive to support with online ad revenue as well, hence the problem.</p><p>TV doesn't give a damn: they can fill the same amount of time by giving air time for some fringe moron to sit and spout his own uninformed opinions. And they hardly ever own up to errors of fact in their broadcasts. Can't rely on them for anything but pretty pictures.</p><p>Bloggers don't have any real money, and they are completely compromised by a 100\% dependence on ad revenue. Newspapers have always <em>cared</em> about ad revenue, but subscriber revenue and numbers were important enough to allow larger papers to effectively ignore the complaints of their advertisers...What were they going to do? Print pamphlets?</p><p>Some people think the loss of that in depth reporting is a bad thing. It's going to be worst in local markets: when was the last time you saw your local TV station cover a city council meeting? If someone is zoning the land across the street from your house for heavy industry, you'd probably like to know, but chances are you won't find out about it without newspaper coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad analogy , because the death of reel to reel was n't the death of ( for example ) symphonic music .
It was just a transition from one format to another.The problem with the possible death of the print media industry , is that they 're the only ones who do real , in-depth , reliable , reporting these days...They 're the only ones who can afford to , because it 's fricking expensive to do it right .
So far , it 's too expensive to support with online ad revenue as well , hence the problem.TV does n't give a damn : they can fill the same amount of time by giving air time for some fringe moron to sit and spout his own uninformed opinions .
And they hardly ever own up to errors of fact in their broadcasts .
Ca n't rely on them for anything but pretty pictures.Bloggers do n't have any real money , and they are completely compromised by a 100 \ % dependence on ad revenue .
Newspapers have always cared about ad revenue , but subscriber revenue and numbers were important enough to allow larger papers to effectively ignore the complaints of their advertisers...What were they going to do ?
Print pamphlets ? Some people think the loss of that in depth reporting is a bad thing .
It 's going to be worst in local markets : when was the last time you saw your local TV station cover a city council meeting ?
If someone is zoning the land across the street from your house for heavy industry , you 'd probably like to know , but chances are you wo n't find out about it without newspaper coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad analogy, because the death of reel to reel wasn't the death of (for example) symphonic music.
It was just a transition from one format to another.The problem with the possible death of the print media industry, is that they're the only ones who do real, in-depth, reliable, reporting these days...They're the only ones who can afford to, because it's fricking expensive to do it right.
So far, it's too expensive to support with online ad revenue as well, hence the problem.TV doesn't give a damn: they can fill the same amount of time by giving air time for some fringe moron to sit and spout his own uninformed opinions.
And they hardly ever own up to errors of fact in their broadcasts.
Can't rely on them for anything but pretty pictures.Bloggers don't have any real money, and they are completely compromised by a 100\% dependence on ad revenue.
Newspapers have always cared about ad revenue, but subscriber revenue and numbers were important enough to allow larger papers to effectively ignore the complaints of their advertisers...What were they going to do?
Print pamphlets?Some people think the loss of that in depth reporting is a bad thing.
It's going to be worst in local markets: when was the last time you saw your local TV station cover a city council meeting?
If someone is zoning the land across the street from your house for heavy industry, you'd probably like to know, but chances are you won't find out about it without newspaper coverage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445701</id>
	<title>Cut to the chase</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245753060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'news and the gathering of news stories is not free, and the public must be made aware of that.'</p></div></blockquote><p>So set up a taxpayer-supported news service ala BBC and CBC.</p><p>I admit that won't be without contention, but it's a much better idea that taxing ISP use to support newspapers for pete's sakes. This committee isn't even trying to get at the central issue, they're just trying to prop up a media form the public is abandoning.</p><p>I'm glad the minister has rejected it. Now they can get on with discussing how Dutch reporting will need to be supported in our modern reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'news and the gathering of news stories is not free , and the public must be made aware of that .
'So set up a taxpayer-supported news service ala BBC and CBC.I admit that wo n't be without contention , but it 's a much better idea that taxing ISP use to support newspapers for pete 's sakes .
This committee is n't even trying to get at the central issue , they 're just trying to prop up a media form the public is abandoning.I 'm glad the minister has rejected it .
Now they can get on with discussing how Dutch reporting will need to be supported in our modern reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'news and the gathering of news stories is not free, and the public must be made aware of that.
'So set up a taxpayer-supported news service ala BBC and CBC.I admit that won't be without contention, but it's a much better idea that taxing ISP use to support newspapers for pete's sakes.
This committee isn't even trying to get at the central issue, they're just trying to prop up a media form the public is abandoning.I'm glad the minister has rejected it.
Now they can get on with discussing how Dutch reporting will need to be supported in our modern reality.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445893</id>
	<title>I think they missed the point:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245753840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no valuable thing in those "news" anymore. Nobody wants them. They are by definition worth nothing to us. Only propaganda, stuff about Britney Spears showing her pussy, and other distractions from what is really going on. That is why the industry dies in the first place. For once, the free market works, and they want to stop it?</p><p>Well. I guess they still have enough friends and employees in government. But this will change soon too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no valuable thing in those " news " anymore .
Nobody wants them .
They are by definition worth nothing to us .
Only propaganda , stuff about Britney Spears showing her pussy , and other distractions from what is really going on .
That is why the industry dies in the first place .
For once , the free market works , and they want to stop it ? Well .
I guess they still have enough friends and employees in government .
But this will change soon too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no valuable thing in those "news" anymore.
Nobody wants them.
They are by definition worth nothing to us.
Only propaganda, stuff about Britney Spears showing her pussy, and other distractions from what is really going on.
That is why the industry dies in the first place.
For once, the free market works, and they want to stop it?Well.
I guess they still have enough friends and employees in government.
But this will change soon too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449557</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1245784140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> I know some journalists and they get paid at the low end of the <b>professional</b> wage spectrum.</i></p><p>Do you mean they get paid less than lawyers or journeyman carpenters?</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know some journalists and they get paid at the low end of the professional wage spectrum.Do you mean they get paid less than lawyers or journeyman carpenters ? -jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I know some journalists and they get paid at the low end of the professional wage spectrum.Do you mean they get paid less than lawyers or journeyman carpenters?-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445313</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is, as usual, behind the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nederlands is lelijk hoor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nederlands is lelijk hoor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nederlands is lelijk hoor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28451257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28456799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28456669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28479203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28451255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28455647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28464121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28459483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28448803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28453569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1925228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447531
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28455647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28479203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28451257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28450259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28453569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28464121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28456799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28448803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28459483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28456669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28451255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28447117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28449853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28446603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1925228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1925228.28445191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
