<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_29_1435250</id>
	<title>Google-Microsoft Crossfire Will Hit Consumers</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259509620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Newsweek's Dan Lyons doesn't know who will be the winner in Google and Microsoft's search battle, but that's not stopping him from picking a loser &mdash; consumers. As we head towards a world where some devices may be free or really cheap, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/224597">consumers should prepare to be bombarded by ads or pay a premium to escape them</a>. 'The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,' concludes Lyons. 'Their fighting has little to do with helping customers and a lot to do with helping themselves to a bigger slice of the money we all spend to buy computers and surf the Internet. Microsoft wants to ruin Google's search business. Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business. At the end of the day, they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Newsweek 's Dan Lyons does n't know who will be the winner in Google and Microsoft 's search battle , but that 's not stopping him from picking a loser    consumers .
As we head towards a world where some devices may be free or really cheap , consumers should prepare to be bombarded by ads or pay a premium to escape them .
'The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other, ' concludes Lyons .
'Their fighting has little to do with helping customers and a lot to do with helping themselves to a bigger slice of the money we all spend to buy computers and surf the Internet .
Microsoft wants to ruin Google 's search business .
Google wants to ruin Microsoft 's OS business .
At the end of the day , they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other 's toys .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Newsweek's Dan Lyons doesn't know who will be the winner in Google and Microsoft's search battle, but that's not stopping him from picking a loser — consumers.
As we head towards a world where some devices may be free or really cheap, consumers should prepare to be bombarded by ads or pay a premium to escape them.
'The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,' concludes Lyons.
'Their fighting has little to do with helping customers and a lot to do with helping themselves to a bigger slice of the money we all spend to buy computers and surf the Internet.
Microsoft wants to ruin Google's search business.
Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business.
At the end of the day, they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30268916</id>
	<title>the consumer wins</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259587680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mainly because the winner of this contest is the one who panders to the consumer's desires most effectively. of course there are million negative effects on consumers from this competition. as if there is no such thing as negative effects from near monopoly on OS or search?</p><p>the negatives from monopoly are worse than the negatives of competition. and the positives from competition are better than the positives of monopoly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mainly because the winner of this contest is the one who panders to the consumer 's desires most effectively .
of course there are million negative effects on consumers from this competition .
as if there is no such thing as negative effects from near monopoly on OS or search ? the negatives from monopoly are worse than the negatives of competition .
and the positives from competition are better than the positives of monopoly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mainly because the winner of this contest is the one who panders to the consumer's desires most effectively.
of course there are million negative effects on consumers from this competition.
as if there is no such thing as negative effects from near monopoly on OS or search?the negatives from monopoly are worse than the negatives of competition.
and the positives from competition are better than the positives of monopoly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263690</id>
	<title>all ads unless you pay up?  no, will not go there</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1259488680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what will happen is the toy/app/devil\_sign will not sell/achieve market penetration/damage sales of anything it's bundled with.</p><p>in the war between pestering a customer with "can not ignore" crap and turning off the switch, the switch will always win.  VCRs have silent fast forward, TiVo has auto-skip, browsers have ad blockers, mutating and multiplying pop-up windows face the Big Red Switch... and in the final battle, all consumers have other choices and trash cans.</p><p>there have always been commercial interruptions.  consumers have always been able to opt out.  it will not change, no matter what devilry somebody tries to force something you don't want down your orifices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what will happen is the toy/app/devil \ _sign will not sell/achieve market penetration/damage sales of anything it 's bundled with.in the war between pestering a customer with " can not ignore " crap and turning off the switch , the switch will always win .
VCRs have silent fast forward , TiVo has auto-skip , browsers have ad blockers , mutating and multiplying pop-up windows face the Big Red Switch... and in the final battle , all consumers have other choices and trash cans.there have always been commercial interruptions .
consumers have always been able to opt out .
it will not change , no matter what devilry somebody tries to force something you do n't want down your orifices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what will happen is the toy/app/devil\_sign will not sell/achieve market penetration/damage sales of anything it's bundled with.in the war between pestering a customer with "can not ignore" crap and turning off the switch, the switch will always win.
VCRs have silent fast forward, TiVo has auto-skip, browsers have ad blockers, mutating and multiplying pop-up windows face the Big Red Switch... and in the final battle, all consumers have other choices and trash cans.there have always been commercial interruptions.
consumers have always been able to opt out.
it will not change, no matter what devilry somebody tries to force something you don't want down your orifices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30268902</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>polle404</author>
	<datestamp>1259587500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get your analogies, could you repeat it with cars or tubes?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get your analogies , could you repeat it with cars or tubes ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get your analogies, could you repeat it with cars or tubes?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696</id>
	<title>This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I spent my childhood living in Naples, Italy. The city and community was filled with competition. My dad owned his own pizza place next to his cousins pizza place. They were angry at each other, many times going to the street in their white cooking clothes and yelling at each other. Other one took off customers from the another. They could had sold many more delicious pizzas, but couldn't because there just wasn't enough customers. What I learned from it was that you need a clean playing field, so I moved to New York and started my pizza place on the fifth avenue. But competition came there too. Then I decided to become a pizza consultant and just make pizzas for the fun of it. I've never been happier.<br>
<br>
What I'm saying here is that in the end customers won't get hit by competition. It will be bad for the pizza place owners, but there will always be pizzas for everyone. And they will be even more delicious, because the pizza place owners have to fight harder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I spent my childhood living in Naples , Italy .
The city and community was filled with competition .
My dad owned his own pizza place next to his cousins pizza place .
They were angry at each other , many times going to the street in their white cooking clothes and yelling at each other .
Other one took off customers from the another .
They could had sold many more delicious pizzas , but could n't because there just was n't enough customers .
What I learned from it was that you need a clean playing field , so I moved to New York and started my pizza place on the fifth avenue .
But competition came there too .
Then I decided to become a pizza consultant and just make pizzas for the fun of it .
I 've never been happier .
What I 'm saying here is that in the end customers wo n't get hit by competition .
It will be bad for the pizza place owners , but there will always be pizzas for everyone .
And they will be even more delicious , because the pizza place owners have to fight harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spent my childhood living in Naples, Italy.
The city and community was filled with competition.
My dad owned his own pizza place next to his cousins pizza place.
They were angry at each other, many times going to the street in their white cooking clothes and yelling at each other.
Other one took off customers from the another.
They could had sold many more delicious pizzas, but couldn't because there just wasn't enough customers.
What I learned from it was that you need a clean playing field, so I moved to New York and started my pizza place on the fifth avenue.
But competition came there too.
Then I decided to become a pizza consultant and just make pizzas for the fun of it.
I've never been happier.
What I'm saying here is that in the end customers won't get hit by competition.
It will be bad for the pizza place owners, but there will always be pizzas for everyone.
And they will be even more delicious, because the pizza place owners have to fight harder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263022</id>
	<title>Re:History lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259524740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, Bing is here to stay. Many other companies are in a desperate need of search as Google makes inroads into their business by "free" (ad-based, privacy-gone) services. I work for a subsidiary of NOKIA and there are rumors we are going to use Bing everywhere as Google is killing our market by free navigation and we are somewhat lacking in the search area, whereas still retaining upper hand in other parts of the business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , Bing is here to stay .
Many other companies are in a desperate need of search as Google makes inroads into their business by " free " ( ad-based , privacy-gone ) services .
I work for a subsidiary of NOKIA and there are rumors we are going to use Bing everywhere as Google is killing our market by free navigation and we are somewhat lacking in the search area , whereas still retaining upper hand in other parts of the business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, Bing is here to stay.
Many other companies are in a desperate need of search as Google makes inroads into their business by "free" (ad-based, privacy-gone) services.
I work for a subsidiary of NOKIA and there are rumors we are going to use Bing everywhere as Google is killing our market by free navigation and we are somewhat lacking in the search area, whereas still retaining upper hand in other parts of the business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262472</id>
	<title>Re:An improvement for consumers</title>
	<author>ivanwyc</author>
	<datestamp>1259519760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; They buy up cool products just to shut them down, have a massive FUD engine, and promise the next version will be better but instead deliver Windows ME and Vista.
So does Google. Google tried to buy EditGrid and told them to shut it down without disclosing the reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They buy up cool products just to shut them down , have a massive FUD engine , and promise the next version will be better but instead deliver Windows ME and Vista .
So does Google .
Google tried to buy EditGrid and told them to shut it down without disclosing the reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They buy up cool products just to shut them down, have a massive FUD engine, and promise the next version will be better but instead deliver Windows ME and Vista.
So does Google.
Google tried to buy EditGrid and told them to shut it down without disclosing the reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262570</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259520420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in no way are they locking people into any platform or product</p></div></blockquote><p>Not yet.  Embrace comes before extinguish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in no way are they locking people into any platform or productNot yet .
Embrace comes before extinguish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in no way are they locking people into any platform or productNot yet.
Embrace comes before extinguish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263274</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1259527140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another platform on a platform?  Someone should make a DOS emulator for Chrome...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another platform on a platform ?
Someone should make a DOS emulator for Chrome.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another platform on a platform?
Someone should make a DOS emulator for Chrome...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30267988</id>
	<title>Re:Google WANTS vendor lock-in</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1259574480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Okay, my expectation is that Google will do this the right way, after all the original paper they're pulling this design from was called "Programming Satan's Computer". Don't you think they might just be very careful about following company policy when working with something called that?
</p><p>
The boot process they're looking for is easy after all.
</p><ol>
<li>Initial boot from "Mask ROM" (or unwriteable flash), if F-key pressed checks for 'Unbricking' boot USB stick.</li>
<li>Key flash is locked, only reset will unlock</li>
<li>Machine checks data flash, if there was a crash give option to roll back last boot. (F-key too?)</li>
<li>Gives user option for normal boot from other devices in normal or developer mode. Probably, using F-key to interrupt default boot.</li>
<li>Data flash is switched to append (copy on write?) only if not in developer mode.</li>
<li>Main OS is booted.</li>
</ol><p>
In line with the paper everything loaded which not in developer mode has signatures checked.
<br>
Plus there's a bounty on serious security bugs. (The definition of "serious" changes over time)
</p><p>
The ability for anyone to do an unbricking boot and change the keys means you're still in control of the hardware. With all this crypto facility around of course the flash will be encryptable, but that only makes a difference if the user enters a pass-phrase.
</p><p>
The rollback, is the last attempt to preserve the integrity of the existing flash before the signing starts to fix things the slow way.
</p><p>
Still there's enough variation in the exact process they could use (eg: they could just call my 'unbricking' mode the developer mode and only lock the keyflash) that many people will be checking, just to make sure that they haven't made a complete cockup.
</p><p>
The end result is the same: <b>I</b> think they can be trusted with "trusted computing"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , my expectation is that Google will do this the right way , after all the original paper they 're pulling this design from was called " Programming Satan 's Computer " .
Do n't you think they might just be very careful about following company policy when working with something called that ?
The boot process they 're looking for is easy after all .
Initial boot from " Mask ROM " ( or unwriteable flash ) , if F-key pressed checks for 'Unbricking ' boot USB stick .
Key flash is locked , only reset will unlock Machine checks data flash , if there was a crash give option to roll back last boot .
( F-key too ?
) Gives user option for normal boot from other devices in normal or developer mode .
Probably , using F-key to interrupt default boot .
Data flash is switched to append ( copy on write ?
) only if not in developer mode .
Main OS is booted .
In line with the paper everything loaded which not in developer mode has signatures checked .
Plus there 's a bounty on serious security bugs .
( The definition of " serious " changes over time ) The ability for anyone to do an unbricking boot and change the keys means you 're still in control of the hardware .
With all this crypto facility around of course the flash will be encryptable , but that only makes a difference if the user enters a pass-phrase .
The rollback , is the last attempt to preserve the integrity of the existing flash before the signing starts to fix things the slow way .
Still there 's enough variation in the exact process they could use ( eg : they could just call my 'unbricking ' mode the developer mode and only lock the keyflash ) that many people will be checking , just to make sure that they have n't made a complete cockup .
The end result is the same : I think they can be trusted with " trusted computing " ... so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Okay, my expectation is that Google will do this the right way, after all the original paper they're pulling this design from was called "Programming Satan's Computer".
Don't you think they might just be very careful about following company policy when working with something called that?
The boot process they're looking for is easy after all.
Initial boot from "Mask ROM" (or unwriteable flash), if F-key pressed checks for 'Unbricking' boot USB stick.
Key flash is locked, only reset will unlock
Machine checks data flash, if there was a crash give option to roll back last boot.
(F-key too?
)
Gives user option for normal boot from other devices in normal or developer mode.
Probably, using F-key to interrupt default boot.
Data flash is switched to append (copy on write?
) only if not in developer mode.
Main OS is booted.
In line with the paper everything loaded which not in developer mode has signatures checked.
Plus there's a bounty on serious security bugs.
(The definition of "serious" changes over time)

The ability for anyone to do an unbricking boot and change the keys means you're still in control of the hardware.
With all this crypto facility around of course the flash will be encryptable, but that only makes a difference if the user enters a pass-phrase.
The rollback, is the last attempt to preserve the integrity of the existing flash before the signing starts to fix things the slow way.
Still there's enough variation in the exact process they could use (eg: they could just call my 'unbricking' mode the developer mode and only lock the keyflash) that many people will be checking, just to make sure that they haven't made a complete cockup.
The end result is the same: I think they can be trusted with "trusted computing" ... so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262156</id>
	<title>Forced to buy MS windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259517480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking as a consumer of netbooks, I am fed up paying the Microsoft tax, having them puke windows Vista all over my hard drive and vandalizing it with nasty plastic stickers on it. I format the drive, pull off the stickers and install Ubuntu. I hope Google wins and wipes MS out. Hardly fair when you cant choose not to have windows and are forced to pay for something you dont want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a consumer of netbooks , I am fed up paying the Microsoft tax , having them puke windows Vista all over my hard drive and vandalizing it with nasty plastic stickers on it .
I format the drive , pull off the stickers and install Ubuntu .
I hope Google wins and wipes MS out .
Hardly fair when you cant choose not to have windows and are forced to pay for something you dont want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a consumer of netbooks, I am fed up paying the Microsoft tax, having them puke windows Vista all over my hard drive and vandalizing it with nasty plastic stickers on it.
I format the drive, pull off the stickers and install Ubuntu.
I hope Google wins and wipes MS out.
Hardly fair when you cant choose not to have windows and are forced to pay for something you dont want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263364</id>
	<title>Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business!?</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259528160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business</p></div></blockquote><p>

have you actually TRIED chrome-os? that's not an operating system, its a fullscreen browser... that might be enough for some netbooks or smartphones or maybe extremely undemanding PC users, but I doubt that it will have a serious impact on windows' sales...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wants to ruin Microsoft 's OS business have you actually TRIED chrome-os ?
that 's not an operating system , its a fullscreen browser... that might be enough for some netbooks or smartphones or maybe extremely undemanding PC users , but I doubt that it will have a serious impact on windows ' sales.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business

have you actually TRIED chrome-os?
that's not an operating system, its a fullscreen browser... that might be enough for some netbooks or smartphones or maybe extremely undemanding PC users, but I doubt that it will have a serious impact on windows' sales...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261726</id>
	<title>Loosing faith in competition?</title>
	<author>chabotc</author>
	<datestamp>1259513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who thinks that a device will be free underestimates how willing people in 3rd world countries are to build houses out of such devices, or nerds willing to wall paper their rooms with it, well you catch the drift I'm sure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>On the other hand being able to have a 13" device without running into the fact that that requires a full Vista/Windows7 license (there's restrictions in the xp &amp; cheaper netbook versions that limit them to 11" screens on netbooks) does make them a lot cheaper, but I fail to see how that would hurt the consumer?</p><p>Also some competitive pressure on Microsoft/Apple to lift such artificial restrictions that are designed to maximize their profit margins seems like a win for consumers in my book, or did we loose faith in this whole competitive market thing?</p><p>The only thing that does slightly worry me is the whole Murdoch / Microsoft assault on the open web, the alternative to robots.txt they propose (which allows partial pages to be indexed without being allowed to read the text around it) would allow spammers to create pages where only a popular search term bit of text would be surrounded by virii, scams and spam. It just won't work and it won't bring back the distribution monopoly's that Murdoch enjoyed for most of his (very long) life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thinks that a device will be free underestimates how willing people in 3rd world countries are to build houses out of such devices , or nerds willing to wall paper their rooms with it , well you catch the drift I 'm sure : ) On the other hand being able to have a 13 " device without running into the fact that that requires a full Vista/Windows7 license ( there 's restrictions in the xp &amp; cheaper netbook versions that limit them to 11 " screens on netbooks ) does make them a lot cheaper , but I fail to see how that would hurt the consumer ? Also some competitive pressure on Microsoft/Apple to lift such artificial restrictions that are designed to maximize their profit margins seems like a win for consumers in my book , or did we loose faith in this whole competitive market thing ? The only thing that does slightly worry me is the whole Murdoch / Microsoft assault on the open web , the alternative to robots.txt they propose ( which allows partial pages to be indexed without being allowed to read the text around it ) would allow spammers to create pages where only a popular search term bit of text would be surrounded by virii , scams and spam .
It just wo n't work and it wo n't bring back the distribution monopoly 's that Murdoch enjoyed for most of his ( very long ) life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who thinks that a device will be free underestimates how willing people in 3rd world countries are to build houses out of such devices, or nerds willing to wall paper their rooms with it, well you catch the drift I'm sure :)On the other hand being able to have a 13" device without running into the fact that that requires a full Vista/Windows7 license (there's restrictions in the xp &amp; cheaper netbook versions that limit them to 11" screens on netbooks) does make them a lot cheaper, but I fail to see how that would hurt the consumer?Also some competitive pressure on Microsoft/Apple to lift such artificial restrictions that are designed to maximize their profit margins seems like a win for consumers in my book, or did we loose faith in this whole competitive market thing?The only thing that does slightly worry me is the whole Murdoch / Microsoft assault on the open web, the alternative to robots.txt they propose (which allows partial pages to be indexed without being allowed to read the text around it) would allow spammers to create pages where only a popular search term bit of text would be surrounded by virii, scams and spam.
It just won't work and it won't bring back the distribution monopoly's that Murdoch enjoyed for most of his (very long) life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262584</id>
	<title>Re:Google WANTS vendor lock-in</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1259520600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine the "free google netbook" promotion would/will only happen long enough to appease stockholders and appreciably raise their stock price. After a few tens of thousands are given out in a beta/labs situation, cut the program's cord and move on. It's a good enough idea that they'll probably have to follow through with it, but as you point out, it's probably an internally corrosive program and would bleed them too badly if they kept up with it. In otherwords, expect to see a post about it on their blog, and then watch for it to be quietly taken out back and euthanized behind the proverbial google barn with a rifle about a year afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine the " free google netbook " promotion would/will only happen long enough to appease stockholders and appreciably raise their stock price .
After a few tens of thousands are given out in a beta/labs situation , cut the program 's cord and move on .
It 's a good enough idea that they 'll probably have to follow through with it , but as you point out , it 's probably an internally corrosive program and would bleed them too badly if they kept up with it .
In otherwords , expect to see a post about it on their blog , and then watch for it to be quietly taken out back and euthanized behind the proverbial google barn with a rifle about a year afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine the "free google netbook" promotion would/will only happen long enough to appease stockholders and appreciably raise their stock price.
After a few tens of thousands are given out in a beta/labs situation, cut the program's cord and move on.
It's a good enough idea that they'll probably have to follow through with it, but as you point out, it's probably an internally corrosive program and would bleed them too badly if they kept up with it.
In otherwords, expect to see a post about it on their blog, and then watch for it to be quietly taken out back and euthanized behind the proverbial google barn with a rifle about a year afterwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265324</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is bad for consumers</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259505060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Competition, in this particular case, may not be the best thing for customers. Why so, you may ask. It is because of the lopsidedness of the market that makes this situation so precarious.</p></div></blockquote><p>Spot on! Mod this guy up. The lopsidedness of the market where Microsoft already enjoys a monopoly on the desk top and is easily able to leverage that to compete unfairly against Google makes this situation so precarious. Competition, in this particular case, may not be the best thing for customers, as you say. Microsoft has been unable so far to create a search engine that can compete with Google, so instead is attacking Google from every <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-9966971-38.html" title="cnet.com">underhanded angle</a> [cnet.com], including planting people right here on Slashdot to try to turn people against them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition , in this particular case , may not be the best thing for customers .
Why so , you may ask .
It is because of the lopsidedness of the market that makes this situation so precarious.Spot on !
Mod this guy up .
The lopsidedness of the market where Microsoft already enjoys a monopoly on the desk top and is easily able to leverage that to compete unfairly against Google makes this situation so precarious .
Competition , in this particular case , may not be the best thing for customers , as you say .
Microsoft has been unable so far to create a search engine that can compete with Google , so instead is attacking Google from every underhanded angle [ cnet.com ] , including planting people right here on Slashdot to try to turn people against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition, in this particular case, may not be the best thing for customers.
Why so, you may ask.
It is because of the lopsidedness of the market that makes this situation so precarious.Spot on!
Mod this guy up.
The lopsidedness of the market where Microsoft already enjoys a monopoly on the desk top and is easily able to leverage that to compete unfairly against Google makes this situation so precarious.
Competition, in this particular case, may not be the best thing for customers, as you say.
Microsoft has been unable so far to create a search engine that can compete with Google, so instead is attacking Google from every underhanded angle [cnet.com], including planting people right here on Slashdot to try to turn people against them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262092</id>
	<title>Re:Dan 'I'm not a paid shill' Lyons?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1259516820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If he wasn't paid for all of that PR work with SCO then he's an idiot.  Note that he also used the fake Steve Jobs blog to push that agenda hard.  "Entertainers" pretending to be journalists are a blight on the net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If he was n't paid for all of that PR work with SCO then he 's an idiot .
Note that he also used the fake Steve Jobs blog to push that agenda hard .
" Entertainers " pretending to be journalists are a blight on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he wasn't paid for all of that PR work with SCO then he's an idiot.
Note that he also used the fake Steve Jobs blog to push that agenda hard.
"Entertainers" pretending to be journalists are a blight on the net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261798</id>
	<title>Oh noes!  Accept ads or pay extra?</title>
	<author>tacarat</author>
	<datestamp>1259514420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA<p><div class="quote"><p>I'm afraid we may be headed toward a world where some devices will be free or really cheap, but when you use them you'll be bombarded by ads&mdash;or pay a premium to escape them.</p></div><p>Wait, what?  How's this different than what's out there now?  Pay full price up front or a reduced price in exchange for ads, contract/product lock-in or whatever else they cook up.  Nothing new here, move along &gt;.&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFAI 'm afraid we may be headed toward a world where some devices will be free or really cheap , but when you use them you 'll be bombarded by ads    or pay a premium to escape them.Wait , what ?
How 's this different than what 's out there now ?
Pay full price up front or a reduced price in exchange for ads , contract/product lock-in or whatever else they cook up .
Nothing new here , move along &gt; . &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFAI'm afraid we may be headed toward a world where some devices will be free or really cheap, but when you use them you'll be bombarded by ads—or pay a premium to escape them.Wait, what?
How's this different than what's out there now?
Pay full price up front or a reduced price in exchange for ads, contract/product lock-in or whatever else they cook up.
Nothing new here, move along &gt;.&gt;
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262350</id>
	<title>Re:Dan 'I'm not a paid shill' Lyons?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1259518980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If you've been following Groklaw over the last few years...</p></div><p>... then you've probably given up on rational thought and given in to paranoia and conspiracy theories some time ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've been following Groklaw over the last few years...... then you 've probably given up on rational thought and given in to paranoia and conspiracy theories some time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you've been following Groklaw over the last few years...... then you've probably given up on rational thought and given in to paranoia and conspiracy theories some time ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263030</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259524800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea what you're talking about.  Web is the exact definition of vendor lock-in.  You're looking at it completely backwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea what you 're talking about .
Web is the exact definition of vendor lock-in .
You 're looking at it completely backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea what you're talking about.
Web is the exact definition of vendor lock-in.
You're looking at it completely backwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261812</id>
	<title>"He started it!"</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1259514480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its clear which of these nerdy school boys "started it":
<p>
Microsoft
</p><p>
The network externalities locking in Microsoft's control of the OS standard are exceeded only by the Federal Reserve's control of the world's reserve currency.
</p><p>
Google has nothing comparable to Microsoft's network externality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its clear which of these nerdy school boys " started it " : Microsoft The network externalities locking in Microsoft 's control of the OS standard are exceeded only by the Federal Reserve 's control of the world 's reserve currency .
Google has nothing comparable to Microsoft 's network externality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its clear which of these nerdy school boys "started it":

Microsoft

The network externalities locking in Microsoft's control of the OS standard are exceeded only by the Federal Reserve's control of the world's reserve currency.
Google has nothing comparable to Microsoft's network externality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261730</id>
	<title>What ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adblock plus! I love breaking business models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adblock plus !
I love breaking business models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adblock plus!
I love breaking business models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680</id>
	<title>Business as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,' concludes Lyons. 'Their fighting has little to do with helping customers and a lot to do with helping themselves to a bigger slice of the money we all spend to buy computers and surf the Internet.</p></div><p>For anyone else joining the real world, enjoy your stay. A business making money? This is madness!</p><p>This seem to be just an another story of a Google fanboy in his basement discovering that their do-no-evil "friend" is a normal company, a normal business which purpose is to generate revenue. He hasn't yet understood that money doesn't grow in trees and this is how our economy works. For him Microsoft seems like a bad guy because they <i>dare to</i> sell products at a price. Google is the 'cool and hippy' friend who offers everything for free. And what he doesn't understand is that the revenue is just generated other way, and he loses her privacy to an advertisement company. Google is <i>not</i> a search engine company, it's an advertisement company that uses internet searching to 1) gather very detailed information and usage statistics about people all over the internet 2) sell targeted ads to advertisers.</p><p>It's unnecessary to blame the companies how it is. "Making cool products" and not caring about business sounds more like a public service or some teenagers naive thinking before he comes contact with the real world. <i>Of course</i> two competing companies are going to.. eh, compete. That's how it works, that's how they generate income, but that's also how they're always on a run to improve their products.</p><p>If there weren't competing companies, it would be a lot worse situation. Just look at how the adsl and cable internet is in USA. People pretty much have only one choice of operator, and it's shitty. In lots of European countries there's many competing ISP's and you get faster and better service.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>At the end of the day, they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys.</p></div><p>They're the exact opposite. They're businesses that have a clean plan and understand what they are doing. Microsoft wants more marketshare on search, Google wants more users locked in to their services to keep their 70\% marketshare. Oh, you though Google wants to fight for OS marketshare? Just see how limited Chrome OS is. It's designed to offer people Google's services so they will be locked down in them. That's the whole idea behind it, not fighting to destroy Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other, ' concludes Lyons .
'Their fighting has little to do with helping customers and a lot to do with helping themselves to a bigger slice of the money we all spend to buy computers and surf the Internet.For anyone else joining the real world , enjoy your stay .
A business making money ?
This is madness ! This seem to be just an another story of a Google fanboy in his basement discovering that their do-no-evil " friend " is a normal company , a normal business which purpose is to generate revenue .
He has n't yet understood that money does n't grow in trees and this is how our economy works .
For him Microsoft seems like a bad guy because they dare to sell products at a price .
Google is the 'cool and hippy ' friend who offers everything for free .
And what he does n't understand is that the revenue is just generated other way , and he loses her privacy to an advertisement company .
Google is not a search engine company , it 's an advertisement company that uses internet searching to 1 ) gather very detailed information and usage statistics about people all over the internet 2 ) sell targeted ads to advertisers.It 's unnecessary to blame the companies how it is .
" Making cool products " and not caring about business sounds more like a public service or some teenagers naive thinking before he comes contact with the real world .
Of course two competing companies are going to.. eh , compete .
That 's how it works , that 's how they generate income , but that 's also how they 're always on a run to improve their products.If there were n't competing companies , it would be a lot worse situation .
Just look at how the adsl and cable internet is in USA .
People pretty much have only one choice of operator , and it 's shitty .
In lots of European countries there 's many competing ISP 's and you get faster and better service.At the end of the day , they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other 's toys.They 're the exact opposite .
They 're businesses that have a clean plan and understand what they are doing .
Microsoft wants more marketshare on search , Google wants more users locked in to their services to keep their 70 \ % marketshare .
Oh , you though Google wants to fight for OS marketshare ?
Just see how limited Chrome OS is .
It 's designed to offer people Google 's services so they will be locked down in them .
That 's the whole idea behind it , not fighting to destroy Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,' concludes Lyons.
'Their fighting has little to do with helping customers and a lot to do with helping themselves to a bigger slice of the money we all spend to buy computers and surf the Internet.For anyone else joining the real world, enjoy your stay.
A business making money?
This is madness!This seem to be just an another story of a Google fanboy in his basement discovering that their do-no-evil "friend" is a normal company, a normal business which purpose is to generate revenue.
He hasn't yet understood that money doesn't grow in trees and this is how our economy works.
For him Microsoft seems like a bad guy because they dare to sell products at a price.
Google is the 'cool and hippy' friend who offers everything for free.
And what he doesn't understand is that the revenue is just generated other way, and he loses her privacy to an advertisement company.
Google is not a search engine company, it's an advertisement company that uses internet searching to 1) gather very detailed information and usage statistics about people all over the internet 2) sell targeted ads to advertisers.It's unnecessary to blame the companies how it is.
"Making cool products" and not caring about business sounds more like a public service or some teenagers naive thinking before he comes contact with the real world.
Of course two competing companies are going to.. eh, compete.
That's how it works, that's how they generate income, but that's also how they're always on a run to improve their products.If there weren't competing companies, it would be a lot worse situation.
Just look at how the adsl and cable internet is in USA.
People pretty much have only one choice of operator, and it's shitty.
In lots of European countries there's many competing ISP's and you get faster and better service.At the end of the day, they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys.They're the exact opposite.
They're businesses that have a clean plan and understand what they are doing.
Microsoft wants more marketshare on search, Google wants more users locked in to their services to keep their 70\% marketshare.
Oh, you though Google wants to fight for OS marketshare?
Just see how limited Chrome OS is.
It's designed to offer people Google's services so they will be locked down in them.
That's the whole idea behind it, not fighting to destroy Windows.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261870</id>
	<title>This too shall pass</title>
	<author>Boawk</author>
	<datestamp>1259515020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft wants to ruin Google's search business. Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business.</p></div><p>If they were to truly ruin each other, additional competitors would come out of the ashes to offer something consumers want more.  You say they're too big for a competitor to emerge?  Hey, aren't you that guy 20 years ago who was complaining about how large IBM was and how they controlled the whole PC market?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wants to ruin Google 's search business .
Google wants to ruin Microsoft 's OS business.If they were to truly ruin each other , additional competitors would come out of the ashes to offer something consumers want more .
You say they 're too big for a competitor to emerge ?
Hey , are n't you that guy 20 years ago who was complaining about how large IBM was and how they controlled the whole PC market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wants to ruin Google's search business.
Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business.If they were to truly ruin each other, additional competitors would come out of the ashes to offer something consumers want more.
You say they're too big for a competitor to emerge?
Hey, aren't you that guy 20 years ago who was complaining about how large IBM was and how they controlled the whole PC market?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263422</id>
	<title>False equivalence</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1259485380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft wants to ruin Google's search business. Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Uh, no. Microsoft's objective has always been to <i>eliminate competition and choice</i> - by any means, legal or not.
</p><p>In the other corner, Google wants to give people <i>more choice</i> in operating systems that doesn't presently exist. (The idea that Google (or Apple) aspire to "eliminate" Windows is not credible.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wants to ruin Google 's search business .
Google wants to ruin Microsoft 's OS business .
Uh , no .
Microsoft 's objective has always been to eliminate competition and choice - by any means , legal or not .
In the other corner , Google wants to give people more choice in operating systems that does n't presently exist .
( The idea that Google ( or Apple ) aspire to " eliminate " Windows is not credible .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wants to ruin Google's search business.
Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business.
Uh, no.
Microsoft's objective has always been to eliminate competition and choice - by any means, legal or not.
In the other corner, Google wants to give people more choice in operating systems that doesn't presently exist.
(The idea that Google (or Apple) aspire to "eliminate" Windows is not credible.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261860</id>
	<title>Speaking of funding-via-ads: Apple!</title>
	<author>ItsJustAPseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1259515020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article: "Apple recently applied for a patent for a technology that not only shows you ads but also forces you to watch by freezing your device until you comply."<br>
<br>
Shyeah.<br>
<br>
1. Why the heck is something like this patentable?  (No, don't answer.  That's basically a rhetorical question.  All kinds of insipid concepts get patented.  I just hope this one does not make it.)<br>
<br>
2. This behavior will basically make the Apple product behave like a single-threaded device, at least for the duration of the ad.  I've got news for Apple: The world is going multi-threaded.  Consumers are coming to expect the flexibility that multi-threading provides, even if they don't know the underlying reason for it.  If Apple products start acting like single-threaded devices, it will reflect poorly on the quality and capabilities of those products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Apple recently applied for a patent for a technology that not only shows you ads but also forces you to watch by freezing your device until you comply .
" Shyeah .
1. Why the heck is something like this patentable ?
( No , do n't answer .
That 's basically a rhetorical question .
All kinds of insipid concepts get patented .
I just hope this one does not make it .
) 2 .
This behavior will basically make the Apple product behave like a single-threaded device , at least for the duration of the ad .
I 've got news for Apple : The world is going multi-threaded .
Consumers are coming to expect the flexibility that multi-threading provides , even if they do n't know the underlying reason for it .
If Apple products start acting like single-threaded devices , it will reflect poorly on the quality and capabilities of those products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "Apple recently applied for a patent for a technology that not only shows you ads but also forces you to watch by freezing your device until you comply.
"

Shyeah.
1. Why the heck is something like this patentable?
(No, don't answer.
That's basically a rhetorical question.
All kinds of insipid concepts get patented.
I just hope this one does not make it.
)

2.
This behavior will basically make the Apple product behave like a single-threaded device, at least for the duration of the ad.
I've got news for Apple: The world is going multi-threaded.
Consumers are coming to expect the flexibility that multi-threading provides, even if they don't know the underlying reason for it.
If Apple products start acting like single-threaded devices, it will reflect poorly on the quality and capabilities of those products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263208</id>
	<title>hosts file</title>
	<author>gobbo</author>
	<datestamp>1259526540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "premium" this particular consumer will have to pay will be a refinement of the Purgatory section of my hosts file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " premium " this particular consumer will have to pay will be a refinement of the Purgatory section of my hosts file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "premium" this particular consumer will have to pay will be a refinement of the Purgatory section of my hosts file.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261796</id>
	<title>This could be interesting</title>
	<author>minibox</author>
	<datestamp>1259514420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When two people quarrel, a third rejoices. Any bets on Apple i guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When two people quarrel , a third rejoices .
Any bets on Apple i guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When two people quarrel, a third rejoices.
Any bets on Apple i guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262180</id>
	<title>Re:Dan 'I'm not a paid shill' Lyons?</title>
	<author>fwr</author>
	<datestamp>1259517660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking the same thing.  "Dan Lyons," where did I hear that name before?  Oh yes!  He's that shill.  He irreparably damaged his reputation in the SCO fiasco, and anything he says now, or writes, will be forever tarnished.  The only reason I read this Slashdot story was to see if anyone else recalled his involvement.  I certainly won't be reading his actual article, or even participating in the "debate" over it's contents, as that is actually what he wants to foster.  I'd say let this story die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing .
" Dan Lyons , " where did I hear that name before ?
Oh yes !
He 's that shill .
He irreparably damaged his reputation in the SCO fiasco , and anything he says now , or writes , will be forever tarnished .
The only reason I read this Slashdot story was to see if anyone else recalled his involvement .
I certainly wo n't be reading his actual article , or even participating in the " debate " over it 's contents , as that is actually what he wants to foster .
I 'd say let this story die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing.
"Dan Lyons," where did I hear that name before?
Oh yes!
He's that shill.
He irreparably damaged his reputation in the SCO fiasco, and anything he says now, or writes, will be forever tarnished.
The only reason I read this Slashdot story was to see if anyone else recalled his involvement.
I certainly won't be reading his actual article, or even participating in the "debate" over it's contents, as that is actually what he wants to foster.
I'd say let this story die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265022</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259501040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But you are forgetting the main point:  Chicago style is still better by far!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you are forgetting the main point : Chicago style is still better by far !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you are forgetting the main point:  Chicago style is still better by far!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262316</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>Zakabog</author>
	<datestamp>1259518740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But there's a phenomenal amount of mediocre pizza in New York. So your analysis doesn't apply. Why? I suspect that cheap pizza out-competes good pizza.</p></div><p>
You live in NY and you think good pizza is more expensive than the mediocre pizza and that's why there are so many mediocre pizza places around?
<br> <br>
That's not quite it, most of the really good pizza places I know of offer pizza for the same price as anywhere else. There are a few reasons I know of that so many "mediocre" places exist around new york. One is that not everyone considers that pizza to be "mediocre." Most people will favor their neighborhood pizza place that they grew up with as a kid. Pizza places are cheap, easy to start, and easy to run, you don't have to be the best to stay open you just have to be good enough. And there are more than enough people in NYC that you can get by with having a lousy pizza, with all of the tourists that don't know any better and all of the commuters who just don't want to bother changing where they get their pizza.
<br> <br>
I have noticed that the local place usually attempts to get better though if a place opens nearby that makes better pizza. Some of the best pizza places I know of on Staten Island (and voted as some of the best in NYC) are all located within a reasonably close proximity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But there 's a phenomenal amount of mediocre pizza in New York .
So your analysis does n't apply .
Why ? I suspect that cheap pizza out-competes good pizza .
You live in NY and you think good pizza is more expensive than the mediocre pizza and that 's why there are so many mediocre pizza places around ?
That 's not quite it , most of the really good pizza places I know of offer pizza for the same price as anywhere else .
There are a few reasons I know of that so many " mediocre " places exist around new york .
One is that not everyone considers that pizza to be " mediocre .
" Most people will favor their neighborhood pizza place that they grew up with as a kid .
Pizza places are cheap , easy to start , and easy to run , you do n't have to be the best to stay open you just have to be good enough .
And there are more than enough people in NYC that you can get by with having a lousy pizza , with all of the tourists that do n't know any better and all of the commuters who just do n't want to bother changing where they get their pizza .
I have noticed that the local place usually attempts to get better though if a place opens nearby that makes better pizza .
Some of the best pizza places I know of on Staten Island ( and voted as some of the best in NYC ) are all located within a reasonably close proximity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there's a phenomenal amount of mediocre pizza in New York.
So your analysis doesn't apply.
Why? I suspect that cheap pizza out-competes good pizza.
You live in NY and you think good pizza is more expensive than the mediocre pizza and that's why there are so many mediocre pizza places around?
That's not quite it, most of the really good pizza places I know of offer pizza for the same price as anywhere else.
There are a few reasons I know of that so many "mediocre" places exist around new york.
One is that not everyone considers that pizza to be "mediocre.
" Most people will favor their neighborhood pizza place that they grew up with as a kid.
Pizza places are cheap, easy to start, and easy to run, you don't have to be the best to stay open you just have to be good enough.
And there are more than enough people in NYC that you can get by with having a lousy pizza, with all of the tourists that don't know any better and all of the commuters who just don't want to bother changing where they get their pizza.
I have noticed that the local place usually attempts to get better though if a place opens nearby that makes better pizza.
Some of the best pizza places I know of on Staten Island (and voted as some of the best in NYC) are all located within a reasonably close proximity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262466</id>
	<title>A contrarian (for slashdot) view</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1259519760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know or care if Lyons is a shill or an idiot.  It's always good for consumers to be reminded that there is no free lunch and that companies are trying to make money.  Corporations serve the shareholders and/or management not the people.  People need to think about the trade-offs they are making.  This good versus evil view of vendors is naive and self-defeating.  Understand what a company is offering you and what they expect to get from that and then make your decision on your own self interests.  Even "nice" companies are only being "nice" because they see some way to profit from that.  That's o.k. , but don't anthropomorphize corporate entities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know or care if Lyons is a shill or an idiot .
It 's always good for consumers to be reminded that there is no free lunch and that companies are trying to make money .
Corporations serve the shareholders and/or management not the people .
People need to think about the trade-offs they are making .
This good versus evil view of vendors is naive and self-defeating .
Understand what a company is offering you and what they expect to get from that and then make your decision on your own self interests .
Even " nice " companies are only being " nice " because they see some way to profit from that .
That 's o.k .
, but do n't anthropomorphize corporate entities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know or care if Lyons is a shill or an idiot.
It's always good for consumers to be reminded that there is no free lunch and that companies are trying to make money.
Corporations serve the shareholders and/or management not the people.
People need to think about the trade-offs they are making.
This good versus evil view of vendors is naive and self-defeating.
Understand what a company is offering you and what they expect to get from that and then make your decision on your own self interests.
Even "nice" companies are only being "nice" because they see some way to profit from that.
That's o.k.
, but don't anthropomorphize corporate entities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262888</id>
	<title>Dan Lyons is ignorant</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1259523540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Daniel Lyons doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. If Microsoft and Murdoch want to gang up on Google it will harm both of them far more than it will hurt Google. The business Murdoch is in just isn't relevant in the modern world.</p><p>Mr Lyons claims that ChromeOS is a knockoff of a Microsoft product. This guy really needs to be whacked with a clue stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Daniel Lyons does n't have a clue what he is talking about .
If Microsoft and Murdoch want to gang up on Google it will harm both of them far more than it will hurt Google .
The business Murdoch is in just is n't relevant in the modern world.Mr Lyons claims that ChromeOS is a knockoff of a Microsoft product .
This guy really needs to be whacked with a clue stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daniel Lyons doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
If Microsoft and Murdoch want to gang up on Google it will harm both of them far more than it will hurt Google.
The business Murdoch is in just isn't relevant in the modern world.Mr Lyons claims that ChromeOS is a knockoff of a Microsoft product.
This guy really needs to be whacked with a clue stick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263818</id>
	<title>Google wants to ruin Microsoft's OS business</title>
	<author>The Wooden Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1259490000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say that like it's a bad thing.  I guess since Google is a for profit, Microsoft can actually try to compete in some way, even if it is dirty pool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say that like it 's a bad thing .
I guess since Google is a for profit , Microsoft can actually try to compete in some way , even if it is dirty pool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say that like it's a bad thing.
I guess since Google is a for profit, Microsoft can actually try to compete in some way, even if it is dirty pool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262668</id>
	<title>How can this be legal?</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1259521320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a US citizen, I'm German. So can anyone please explain to me how this can be legal?</p><p>Microsoft has a monopoly in one market and is already convicted multiple times of illegal practices. So now Microsoft is saying that they will pay somebody to not go to the competition. Isn't it using a monopoly in one market to hinder competition in an another market?</p><p>Google have a nice book to read: <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=oT07hNxzMwQC&amp;pg=PA302&amp;lpg=PA302&amp;dq=using+a+monopoly+in+one+market+to+hinder+competition+in+an+another+market&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Z2oK-26Xqf&amp;sig=sLQIoG-abfgthpHWeEAWiEGzag8&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=uLUSS\_bULYSBkQWKz4mjBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false" title="google.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=oT07hNxzMwQC&amp;pg=PA302&amp;lpg=PA302&amp;dq=using+a+monopoly+in+one+market+to+hinder+competition+in+an+another+market&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Z2oK-26Xqf&amp;sig=sLQIoG-abfgthpHWeEAWiEGzag8&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=uLUSS\_bULYSBkQWKz4mjBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false</a> [google.com.au] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a US citizen , I 'm German .
So can anyone please explain to me how this can be legal ? Microsoft has a monopoly in one market and is already convicted multiple times of illegal practices .
So now Microsoft is saying that they will pay somebody to not go to the competition .
Is n't it using a monopoly in one market to hinder competition in an another market ? Google have a nice book to read : http : //books.google.com.au/books ? id = oT07hNxzMwQC&amp;pg = PA302&amp;lpg = PA302&amp;dq = using + a + monopoly + in + one + market + to + hinder + competition + in + an + another + market&amp;source = bl&amp;ots = Z2oK-26Xqf&amp;sig = sLQIoG-abfgthpHWeEAWiEGzag8&amp;hl = en&amp;ei = uLUSS \ _bULYSBkQWKz4mjBw&amp;sa = X&amp;oi = book \ _result&amp;ct = result&amp;resnum = 1&amp;ved = 0CAgQ6AEwAA # v = onepage&amp;q = &amp;f = false [ google.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a US citizen, I'm German.
So can anyone please explain to me how this can be legal?Microsoft has a monopoly in one market and is already convicted multiple times of illegal practices.
So now Microsoft is saying that they will pay somebody to not go to the competition.
Isn't it using a monopoly in one market to hinder competition in an another market?Google have a nice book to read: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=oT07hNxzMwQC&amp;pg=PA302&amp;lpg=PA302&amp;dq=using+a+monopoly+in+one+market+to+hinder+competition+in+an+another+market&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Z2oK-26Xqf&amp;sig=sLQIoG-abfgthpHWeEAWiEGzag8&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=uLUSS\_bULYSBkQWKz4mjBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false [google.com.au] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262590</id>
	<title>alternative badAnalogyGuy</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1259520660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys"</i> <br> <br>
they both seem like deviant perverts who want to be the dominant. One wants to be the <a href="http://goatse.fr/giver.html" title="goatse.fr">Giver</a> [goatse.fr], while neither wants to be the <a href="http://www.goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr">Taker</a> [goatse.fr]. Meanwhile consumers will end up covered in the <a href="http://www.tubgirl.ca/" title="tubgirl.ca">fallout.</a> [tubgirl.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other 's toys " they both seem like deviant perverts who want to be the dominant .
One wants to be the Giver [ goatse.fr ] , while neither wants to be the Taker [ goatse.fr ] .
Meanwhile consumers will end up covered in the fallout .
[ tubgirl.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys"  
they both seem like deviant perverts who want to be the dominant.
One wants to be the Giver [goatse.fr], while neither wants to be the Taker [goatse.fr].
Meanwhile consumers will end up covered in the fallout.
[tubgirl.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264192</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to buy MS windows</title>
	<author>JHL</author>
	<datestamp>1259493600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is that the good hardware top range netbooks are not available without MS-crap on them. I am sure the only reason MS is popular is because there is no/(very litttle) choice in your average computer shop. The only good thing about windows I guess is that it stinks so much it keeps the flies off the rest of us. However I don't enjoy paying that price just because I want a netbooks with 9Hrs battery life etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that the good hardware top range netbooks are not available without MS-crap on them .
I am sure the only reason MS is popular is because there is no/ ( very litttle ) choice in your average computer shop .
The only good thing about windows I guess is that it stinks so much it keeps the flies off the rest of us .
However I do n't enjoy paying that price just because I want a netbooks with 9Hrs battery life etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that the good hardware top range netbooks are not available without MS-crap on them.
I am sure the only reason MS is popular is because there is no/(very litttle) choice in your average computer shop.
The only good thing about windows I guess is that it stinks so much it keeps the flies off the rest of us.
However I don't enjoy paying that price just because I want a netbooks with 9Hrs battery life etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422</id>
	<title>Google WANTS vendor lock-in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259519520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the Web is the very opposite of a vendor lock-in,</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No when you're using ChromeOS the way google describes it deployed on the ARM-based netbooks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... everything climatologically signed, and no unauthorized software, no local applications, not even an installed print driver;  if the netbook detects tampering, it re-images itself "from the cloud."
</p><p>
I'd rather pay the $25 Microsoft tax and buy a netbook that I can wipe down and install what *I* want on it.
</p><p>
Netbooks are $250<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... by Christmas 2010, they'll be $200.  The only people that are going to want a "free google 'welfarebook' with your 24-month wireless internet data contract - some conditions apply, yadda yadda yadda rip-off contract" will be those who can't come up with $200.  Far from "do no evil", this will be "gouge the poor."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Web is the very opposite of a vendor lock-in , No when you 're using ChromeOS the way google describes it deployed on the ARM-based netbooks ... everything climatologically signed , and no unauthorized software , no local applications , not even an installed print driver ; if the netbook detects tampering , it re-images itself " from the cloud .
" I 'd rather pay the $ 25 Microsoft tax and buy a netbook that I can wipe down and install what * I * want on it .
Netbooks are $ 250 ... by Christmas 2010 , they 'll be $ 200 .
The only people that are going to want a " free google 'welfarebook ' with your 24-month wireless internet data contract - some conditions apply , yadda yadda yadda rip-off contract " will be those who ca n't come up with $ 200 .
Far from " do no evil " , this will be " gouge the poor .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Web is the very opposite of a vendor lock-in,

No when you're using ChromeOS the way google describes it deployed on the ARM-based netbooks ... everything climatologically signed, and no unauthorized software, no local applications, not even an installed print driver;  if the netbook detects tampering, it re-images itself "from the cloud.
"

I'd rather pay the $25 Microsoft tax and buy a netbook that I can wipe down and install what *I* want on it.
Netbooks are $250 ... by Christmas 2010, they'll be $200.
The only people that are going to want a "free google 'welfarebook' with your 24-month wireless internet data contract - some conditions apply, yadda yadda yadda rip-off contract" will be those who can't come up with $200.
Far from "do no evil", this will be "gouge the poor.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263324</id>
	<title>Re:How can this be legal?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259527920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm not a US citizen, I'm German. So can anyone please explain to me how<br>&gt; this can be legal?</p><p>It may not be.  Note that they haven't actually done it.</p><p>&gt; Microsoft has a monopoly in one market and is already convicted multiple<br>&gt; times of illegal practices.</p><p>"Convicted" implies criminal charges.  Their antitrust cases were all in civil court.</p><p>&gt; Isn't it using a monopoly in one market to hinder competition in an another<br>&gt; market?</p><p>In what way are they using their OS monopoly for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm not a US citizen , I 'm German .
So can anyone please explain to me how &gt; this can be legal ? It may not be .
Note that they have n't actually done it. &gt; Microsoft has a monopoly in one market and is already convicted multiple &gt; times of illegal practices .
" Convicted " implies criminal charges .
Their antitrust cases were all in civil court. &gt; Is n't it using a monopoly in one market to hinder competition in an another &gt; market ? In what way are they using their OS monopoly for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm not a US citizen, I'm German.
So can anyone please explain to me how&gt; this can be legal?It may not be.
Note that they haven't actually done it.&gt; Microsoft has a monopoly in one market and is already convicted multiple&gt; times of illegal practices.
"Convicted" implies criminal charges.
Their antitrust cases were all in civil court.&gt; Isn't it using a monopoly in one market to hinder competition in an another&gt; market?In what way are they using their OS monopoly for this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262386</id>
	<title>There's no free lunch!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259519280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone expect to be given a free or highly discounted device and have it come with absolutely no restrictions? If Google hands out highly discounted Chrome netbooks it's because they think they can recoup the cost through advertising. Complaining about that advertising is ridiculous; it comes with the netbook. If Google or Microsoft start trying to lock down full-priced devices, they'll get hit with anti-trust suits (as Microsoft has).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone expect to be given a free or highly discounted device and have it come with absolutely no restrictions ?
If Google hands out highly discounted Chrome netbooks it 's because they think they can recoup the cost through advertising .
Complaining about that advertising is ridiculous ; it comes with the netbook .
If Google or Microsoft start trying to lock down full-priced devices , they 'll get hit with anti-trust suits ( as Microsoft has ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone expect to be given a free or highly discounted device and have it come with absolutely no restrictions?
If Google hands out highly discounted Chrome netbooks it's because they think they can recoup the cost through advertising.
Complaining about that advertising is ridiculous; it comes with the netbook.
If Google or Microsoft start trying to lock down full-priced devices, they'll get hit with anti-trust suits (as Microsoft has).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262634</id>
	<title>GO GOOGLE!</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1259521020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm rooting for google. I don't think they're a perfect business at all. They're a big business, so that's never going to happen. I do like their essentially "free" business model of providing things for free and or as open source when it helps them, and not doing so when it doesn't help them.</p><p>Ads and crap will always be there, but I'm not too concerned. Even with the ads, Microsoft and Google now have more motivation to show innovation in their products. I don't think either one is very likely to topple the other's main source of income ANY time soon, but they're giving each other reasons to make the best products they can, so the customer will, in the end, win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm rooting for google .
I do n't think they 're a perfect business at all .
They 're a big business , so that 's never going to happen .
I do like their essentially " free " business model of providing things for free and or as open source when it helps them , and not doing so when it does n't help them.Ads and crap will always be there , but I 'm not too concerned .
Even with the ads , Microsoft and Google now have more motivation to show innovation in their products .
I do n't think either one is very likely to topple the other 's main source of income ANY time soon , but they 're giving each other reasons to make the best products they can , so the customer will , in the end , win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm rooting for google.
I don't think they're a perfect business at all.
They're a big business, so that's never going to happen.
I do like their essentially "free" business model of providing things for free and or as open source when it helps them, and not doing so when it doesn't help them.Ads and crap will always be there, but I'm not too concerned.
Even with the ads, Microsoft and Google now have more motivation to show innovation in their products.
I don't think either one is very likely to topple the other's main source of income ANY time soon, but they're giving each other reasons to make the best products they can, so the customer will, in the end, win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263546</id>
	<title>Re:Elephants</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1259486760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, well. That's what I don't get. I don't actually see how the grass is getting hurt here. Quoting the summary itself:</p><p>As we head towards a world where some devices may be free or really cheap, consumers should prepare to be bombarded by ads or pay a premium to escape them</p><p>So I have the option of getting a product on the cheap (but I'll get bombarded with ads), or I can get the same product still on the cheap, and pay a surplus to get rid of the ads? As long as that surplus doesn't move the price above today's, the consumer isn't getting shafted. It's getting one more option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well .
That 's what I do n't get .
I do n't actually see how the grass is getting hurt here .
Quoting the summary itself : As we head towards a world where some devices may be free or really cheap , consumers should prepare to be bombarded by ads or pay a premium to escape themSo I have the option of getting a product on the cheap ( but I 'll get bombarded with ads ) , or I can get the same product still on the cheap , and pay a surplus to get rid of the ads ?
As long as that surplus does n't move the price above today 's , the consumer is n't getting shafted .
It 's getting one more option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well.
That's what I don't get.
I don't actually see how the grass is getting hurt here.
Quoting the summary itself:As we head towards a world where some devices may be free or really cheap, consumers should prepare to be bombarded by ads or pay a premium to escape themSo I have the option of getting a product on the cheap (but I'll get bombarded with ads), or I can get the same product still on the cheap, and pay a surplus to get rid of the ads?
As long as that surplus doesn't move the price above today's, the consumer isn't getting shafted.
It's getting one more option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263328</id>
	<title>This is laughable</title>
	<author>Luscious868</author>
	<datestamp>1259527920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that competition between Microsoft and Google in both the OS and search engine markets will end up hurting consumers in the end is completely and utterly laughable. It's the exact opposite of how the real world works. In the real world, when there is no competition, there is no incentive for a company to improve things for the consumer and that is what will hurt the consumer in the end. If the consumer wants what the company has got there aren't any real alternatives.</p><p>Now along comes another company who wants to compete with them and suddenly there is an incentive to either improve the quality of the product, lower the price of the product, or both. If one company doesn't, and both companies are genuinely battling for market share, then the other company eventually will and that forces a cycle of response and counter response that is ultimately very good for the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that competition between Microsoft and Google in both the OS and search engine markets will end up hurting consumers in the end is completely and utterly laughable .
It 's the exact opposite of how the real world works .
In the real world , when there is no competition , there is no incentive for a company to improve things for the consumer and that is what will hurt the consumer in the end .
If the consumer wants what the company has got there are n't any real alternatives.Now along comes another company who wants to compete with them and suddenly there is an incentive to either improve the quality of the product , lower the price of the product , or both .
If one company does n't , and both companies are genuinely battling for market share , then the other company eventually will and that forces a cycle of response and counter response that is ultimately very good for the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that competition between Microsoft and Google in both the OS and search engine markets will end up hurting consumers in the end is completely and utterly laughable.
It's the exact opposite of how the real world works.
In the real world, when there is no competition, there is no incentive for a company to improve things for the consumer and that is what will hurt the consumer in the end.
If the consumer wants what the company has got there aren't any real alternatives.Now along comes another company who wants to compete with them and suddenly there is an incentive to either improve the quality of the product, lower the price of the product, or both.
If one company doesn't, and both companies are genuinely battling for market share, then the other company eventually will and that forces a cycle of response and counter response that is ultimately very good for the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264102</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259492700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one like these delicious analogies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one like these delicious analogies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one like these delicious analogies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261848</id>
	<title>An improvement for consumers</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1259514780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has always cared far more about crushing competition than providing anything of value to consumers.  They buy up cool products just to shut them down, have a massive FUD engine, and promise the next version will be better but instead deliver Windows ME and Vista.  Even if Google is just a money-grubbing competitor, it is a real competitor that Microsoft can't crush.  Which means both companies will have to compete by offering something better to the consumers.  Consumers win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has always cared far more about crushing competition than providing anything of value to consumers .
They buy up cool products just to shut them down , have a massive FUD engine , and promise the next version will be better but instead deliver Windows ME and Vista .
Even if Google is just a money-grubbing competitor , it is a real competitor that Microsoft ca n't crush .
Which means both companies will have to compete by offering something better to the consumers .
Consumers win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has always cared far more about crushing competition than providing anything of value to consumers.
They buy up cool products just to shut them down, have a massive FUD engine, and promise the next version will be better but instead deliver Windows ME and Vista.
Even if Google is just a money-grubbing competitor, it is a real competitor that Microsoft can't crush.
Which means both companies will have to compete by offering something better to the consumers.
Consumers win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30266210</id>
	<title>I don't think he's paid by Microsoft</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1259512440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just think he's a terrible journalist. Earlier this year he wrote a blog post about my employer that was so poorly researched, so overtly biased, and just plain wrong, that it boggled my mind. Had nothing to do with Microsoft. He's just bad. He got the gig at Newsweek because of the popularity and visibility of Fake Steve Jobs. And I have to say that I loved to read Fake Steve when it started. Dan is a very good writer, especially when he has free reign to just make stuff up. The big problems come when he tries to write about real people and real companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just think he 's a terrible journalist .
Earlier this year he wrote a blog post about my employer that was so poorly researched , so overtly biased , and just plain wrong , that it boggled my mind .
Had nothing to do with Microsoft .
He 's just bad .
He got the gig at Newsweek because of the popularity and visibility of Fake Steve Jobs .
And I have to say that I loved to read Fake Steve when it started .
Dan is a very good writer , especially when he has free reign to just make stuff up .
The big problems come when he tries to write about real people and real companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just think he's a terrible journalist.
Earlier this year he wrote a blog post about my employer that was so poorly researched, so overtly biased, and just plain wrong, that it boggled my mind.
Had nothing to do with Microsoft.
He's just bad.
He got the gig at Newsweek because of the popularity and visibility of Fake Steve Jobs.
And I have to say that I loved to read Fake Steve when it started.
Dan is a very good writer, especially when he has free reign to just make stuff up.
The big problems come when he tries to write about real people and real companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265250</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1259503680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ChromeOS requires a google ID to log in. Imagine that, if that isn't vendor lock in I don't know what is.</p></div><p>Absolutely correct. You don't know what vendor lockin is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ChromeOS requires a google ID to log in .
Imagine that , if that is n't vendor lock in I do n't know what is.Absolutely correct .
You do n't know what vendor lockin is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChromeOS requires a google ID to log in.
Imagine that, if that isn't vendor lock in I don't know what is.Absolutely correct.
You don't know what vendor lockin is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262886</id>
	<title>Re:Elephants</title>
	<author>kungfugleek</author>
	<datestamp>1259523540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but when they poop, bacteria rejoice!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but when they poop , bacteria rejoice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but when they poop, bacteria rejoice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262026</id>
	<title>Yeah it was funny</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259516220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But also very true.<p>Cut throat competition is <i>always</i> good for the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But also very true.Cut throat competition is always good for the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But also very true.Cut throat competition is always good for the consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262468</id>
	<title>Re:Dan 'I'm not a paid shill' Lyons?</title>
	<author>andydread</author>
	<datestamp>1259519760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>AMEN.  Dan Lyons is a buffoon of the highest degree.  Right up there with Rob Enderle, and Maureen O'Gara.  These clowns will say anything to make Microsoft look good in any situation.  How in the world did he get a job at Newsweek is beyond me.   He used to be at Forbes spreading anti open source propoganda.  Calling people who use open source and free software freetards and the like.   His trying to equally blame Google for the fight that MS and Google are in is ridiculous.  MS started this fight by trying to kill Google's search business.   Google has retaliated with great products and will continue to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AMEN .
Dan Lyons is a buffoon of the highest degree .
Right up there with Rob Enderle , and Maureen O'Gara .
These clowns will say anything to make Microsoft look good in any situation .
How in the world did he get a job at Newsweek is beyond me .
He used to be at Forbes spreading anti open source propoganda .
Calling people who use open source and free software freetards and the like .
His trying to equally blame Google for the fight that MS and Google are in is ridiculous .
MS started this fight by trying to kill Google 's search business .
Google has retaliated with great products and will continue to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMEN.
Dan Lyons is a buffoon of the highest degree.
Right up there with Rob Enderle, and Maureen O'Gara.
These clowns will say anything to make Microsoft look good in any situation.
How in the world did he get a job at Newsweek is beyond me.
He used to be at Forbes spreading anti open source propoganda.
Calling people who use open source and free software freetards and the like.
His trying to equally blame Google for the fight that MS and Google are in is ridiculous.
MS started this fight by trying to kill Google's search business.
Google has retaliated with great products and will continue to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262684</id>
	<title>And that makes us</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1259521500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>At the end of the day, they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys.</i>

</p><p>And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is the group standing around chanting, "Fight! Fight! Fight!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the day , they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other 's toys .
And / .
is the group standing around chanting , " Fight !
Fight ! Fight !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> At the end of the day, they both seem like overgrown nerdy schoolboys fighting over each other's toys.
And /.
is the group standing around chanting, "Fight!
Fight! Fight!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262084</id>
	<title>Re:Dan 'I'm not a paid shill' Lyons?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259516700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even totally not knowing who he is, my first impression from the summary was just in that vein.</p><p>"Remember, Google starting the fight with MS (//it is presented a bit like that...) will be only bad for us"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even totally not knowing who he is , my first impression from the summary was just in that vein .
" Remember , Google starting the fight with MS ( //it is presented a bit like that... ) will be only bad for us "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even totally not knowing who he is, my first impression from the summary was just in that vein.
"Remember, Google starting the fight with MS (//it is presented a bit like that...) will be only bad for us"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708</id>
	<title>History lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't recall this so called consumers loosing, when Microsoft tried to compete with Google with their last 2 (or was it 3) search engines. The only way you might loose is if you inflict pain upon yourself by using Bing. I give it a year maybe 2 before Bing is gone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall this so called consumers loosing , when Microsoft tried to compete with Google with their last 2 ( or was it 3 ) search engines .
The only way you might loose is if you inflict pain upon yourself by using Bing .
I give it a year maybe 2 before Bing is gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall this so called consumers loosing, when Microsoft tried to compete with Google with their last 2 (or was it 3) search engines.
The only way you might loose is if you inflict pain upon yourself by using Bing.
I give it a year maybe 2 before Bing is gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262370</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259519220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that tells us is that (in New York at least), the vast majority of consumers want cheap pizza more than they want "good" pizza. But the fact that you can still find good pizza in New York also tells us that there is also a market for more expensive, nicer pizza. A smart entrepreneur might target that market rather than join the race to the lowest price.</p><p>Recenly in my town, the curry restauranteurs complained to the council. Many restaurants were allowed to open on the same street, and they complained that the competition had pushed prices so low that they couldn't make money.</p><p>My reaction to this was: "compete on something other than price". Curry houses attract repeat custom. Surely there are plenty of people who'd happily pay &pound;5 for a delicious curry in pleasant surroundings, rather than &pound;2.50 for a crappy one at a plastic table. Competition need not result in a race to the bottom, unless that's actually what consumers want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that tells us is that ( in New York at least ) , the vast majority of consumers want cheap pizza more than they want " good " pizza .
But the fact that you can still find good pizza in New York also tells us that there is also a market for more expensive , nicer pizza .
A smart entrepreneur might target that market rather than join the race to the lowest price.Recenly in my town , the curry restauranteurs complained to the council .
Many restaurants were allowed to open on the same street , and they complained that the competition had pushed prices so low that they could n't make money.My reaction to this was : " compete on something other than price " .
Curry houses attract repeat custom .
Surely there are plenty of people who 'd happily pay   5 for a delicious curry in pleasant surroundings , rather than   2.50 for a crappy one at a plastic table .
Competition need not result in a race to the bottom , unless that 's actually what consumers want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that tells us is that (in New York at least), the vast majority of consumers want cheap pizza more than they want "good" pizza.
But the fact that you can still find good pizza in New York also tells us that there is also a market for more expensive, nicer pizza.
A smart entrepreneur might target that market rather than join the race to the lowest price.Recenly in my town, the curry restauranteurs complained to the council.
Many restaurants were allowed to open on the same street, and they complained that the competition had pushed prices so low that they couldn't make money.My reaction to this was: "compete on something other than price".
Curry houses attract repeat custom.
Surely there are plenty of people who'd happily pay £5 for a delicious curry in pleasant surroundings, rather than £2.50 for a crappy one at a plastic table.
Competition need not result in a race to the bottom, unless that's actually what consumers want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262688</id>
	<title>huh? I thought competition was good for customers</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1259521500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's grade school econ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's grade school econ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's grade school econ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263382</id>
	<title>uh, NO</title>
	<author>thehostiles</author>
	<datestamp>1259528280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they start bombarding people with ads, expect patches to disable them to come.

to the frostwire!
[batman theme music here]</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they start bombarding people with ads , expect patches to disable them to come .
to the frostwire !
[ batman theme music here ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they start bombarding people with ads, expect patches to disable them to come.
to the frostwire!
[batman theme music here]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30269082</id>
	<title>Google doesnt care about Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a school yard fight... Google doesn't give a damn about Microsoft. Microsoft is at war with Google, while all Google cares about is service (advertising) delivery, whether the platform is android, iphone, windows, or os2.</p><p>Bottom line, Dan Lyons is an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a school yard fight... Google does n't give a damn about Microsoft .
Microsoft is at war with Google , while all Google cares about is service ( advertising ) delivery , whether the platform is android , iphone , windows , or os2.Bottom line , Dan Lyons is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a school yard fight... Google doesn't give a damn about Microsoft.
Microsoft is at war with Google, while all Google cares about is service (advertising) delivery, whether the platform is android, iphone, windows, or os2.Bottom line, Dan Lyons is an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261920</id>
	<title>Agreed.</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1259515560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I took away from this story is this:</p><p>"MS is worried about Google, and so they're paying someone to say that Google is just as bad as MS is."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I took away from this story is this : " MS is worried about Google , and so they 're paying someone to say that Google is just as bad as MS is .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I took away from this story is this:"MS is worried about Google, and so they're paying someone to say that Google is just as bad as MS is.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262656</id>
	<title>Re:Google WANTS vendor lock-in</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1259521200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only people that are going to want a "free google 'welfarebook' with your 24-month wireless internet data contract - some conditions apply, yadda yadda yadda rip-off contract" will be those who can't come up with $200. Far from "do no evil", this will be "gouge the poor."</p></div><p>I don't see how you can call providing a free $200 device to use a service they want anyway as "gouging".  Sounds like a damn good deal to me.  It's going to cost them around $600 a year to connect to the internet anyway, how is offering a portable service plus a $200 device "gouging"?</p><p>Nobody needs a portable laptop with wireless internet.  People want such a thing, but people also want Ferraris.  You can hardly say Ferrari gouges the poor because their cars are so expensive.  It would be especially hard to argue that Microsoft gouges the poor by offering to lease a $1 million car for $1k per month if you agree to drive it around with their logo on the side for as long as you kept the car.  I WISH they would do such a thing, everybody would be able to drive Ferraris then!</p><p>That's pretty much what you're calling "gouging" here.  It doesn't make any sense.</p><p>Do you even understand what gouging is?  It's certainly not bundling all kinds of free goodies with a service, that's basically the opposite of what gouging is.  Gouging is when you know consumers MUST buy your product, so you jack the price up far more than it costs to produce the product and offer a low level of service.  It's pretty much impossible to "gouge" on a product that people don't need to buy at all.  It usually happens with things like utilities, gas, groceries, and other regular necessary consumables.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people that are going to want a " free google 'welfarebook ' with your 24-month wireless internet data contract - some conditions apply , yadda yadda yadda rip-off contract " will be those who ca n't come up with $ 200 .
Far from " do no evil " , this will be " gouge the poor .
" I do n't see how you can call providing a free $ 200 device to use a service they want anyway as " gouging " .
Sounds like a damn good deal to me .
It 's going to cost them around $ 600 a year to connect to the internet anyway , how is offering a portable service plus a $ 200 device " gouging " ? Nobody needs a portable laptop with wireless internet .
People want such a thing , but people also want Ferraris .
You can hardly say Ferrari gouges the poor because their cars are so expensive .
It would be especially hard to argue that Microsoft gouges the poor by offering to lease a $ 1 million car for $ 1k per month if you agree to drive it around with their logo on the side for as long as you kept the car .
I WISH they would do such a thing , everybody would be able to drive Ferraris then ! That 's pretty much what you 're calling " gouging " here .
It does n't make any sense.Do you even understand what gouging is ?
It 's certainly not bundling all kinds of free goodies with a service , that 's basically the opposite of what gouging is .
Gouging is when you know consumers MUST buy your product , so you jack the price up far more than it costs to produce the product and offer a low level of service .
It 's pretty much impossible to " gouge " on a product that people do n't need to buy at all .
It usually happens with things like utilities , gas , groceries , and other regular necessary consumables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people that are going to want a "free google 'welfarebook' with your 24-month wireless internet data contract - some conditions apply, yadda yadda yadda rip-off contract" will be those who can't come up with $200.
Far from "do no evil", this will be "gouge the poor.
"I don't see how you can call providing a free $200 device to use a service they want anyway as "gouging".
Sounds like a damn good deal to me.
It's going to cost them around $600 a year to connect to the internet anyway, how is offering a portable service plus a $200 device "gouging"?Nobody needs a portable laptop with wireless internet.
People want such a thing, but people also want Ferraris.
You can hardly say Ferrari gouges the poor because their cars are so expensive.
It would be especially hard to argue that Microsoft gouges the poor by offering to lease a $1 million car for $1k per month if you agree to drive it around with their logo on the side for as long as you kept the car.
I WISH they would do such a thing, everybody would be able to drive Ferraris then!That's pretty much what you're calling "gouging" here.
It doesn't make any sense.Do you even understand what gouging is?
It's certainly not bundling all kinds of free goodies with a service, that's basically the opposite of what gouging is.
Gouging is when you know consumers MUST buy your product, so you jack the price up far more than it costs to produce the product and offer a low level of service.
It's pretty much impossible to "gouge" on a product that people don't need to buy at all.
It usually happens with things like utilities, gas, groceries, and other regular necessary consumables.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262140</id>
	<title>Windows is protected more thoroughly</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259517300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey, aren't you that guy 20 years ago who was complaining about how large IBM was and how they controlled the whole PC market?</p></div><p>The IBM PC wasn't patented, and the part that was copyrighted (BIOS) was so small that a company could clean-room reverse engineer a 99.44\% compatible version. Compaq did this, and I seem to remember that IBM sued, but Compaq's legal team got a federal judge to not only tell IBM to go to hell but draw them a map on how to get there. Windows, on the other hand, is a much more complex and thoroughly copyrighted platform. The closest contender for 99\% compatibility with apps <em>and device drivers</em> made for Windows is ReactOS, and that's nowhere near prime time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , are n't you that guy 20 years ago who was complaining about how large IBM was and how they controlled the whole PC market ? The IBM PC was n't patented , and the part that was copyrighted ( BIOS ) was so small that a company could clean-room reverse engineer a 99.44 \ % compatible version .
Compaq did this , and I seem to remember that IBM sued , but Compaq 's legal team got a federal judge to not only tell IBM to go to hell but draw them a map on how to get there .
Windows , on the other hand , is a much more complex and thoroughly copyrighted platform .
The closest contender for 99 \ % compatibility with apps and device drivers made for Windows is ReactOS , and that 's nowhere near prime time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, aren't you that guy 20 years ago who was complaining about how large IBM was and how they controlled the whole PC market?The IBM PC wasn't patented, and the part that was copyrighted (BIOS) was so small that a company could clean-room reverse engineer a 99.44\% compatible version.
Compaq did this, and I seem to remember that IBM sued, but Compaq's legal team got a federal judge to not only tell IBM to go to hell but draw them a map on how to get there.
Windows, on the other hand, is a much more complex and thoroughly copyrighted platform.
The closest contender for 99\% compatibility with apps and device drivers made for Windows is ReactOS, and that's nowhere near prime time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263836</id>
	<title>MS: Inventor of the OS and word processor!</title>
	<author>stickmangumby</author>
	<datestamp>1259490120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... Google appears to be gaining ground by making knockoffs of Microsoft products and giving them away."</p><p>O M G<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:S</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Google appears to be gaining ground by making knockoffs of Microsoft products and giving them away .
" O M G : S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... Google appears to be gaining ground by making knockoffs of Microsoft products and giving them away.
"O M G :S</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261746</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;It's unnecessary to blame the companies how it is. "Making cool products"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
<br> <br>
You got it wrong. the writer is an apple fanboi.
His 'educated' guesses are :
<br>
1. Google and MS will bombard users with ads.(and what about the patent Steve Jobs just received for - bombarding users with ads?
<br>2. None of them makes "cool" products. (Of course, only apple makes cool products.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; It 's unnecessary to blame the companies how it is .
" Making cool products " ... . You got it wrong .
the writer is an apple fanboi .
His 'educated ' guesses are : 1 .
Google and MS will bombard users with ads .
( and what about the patent Steve Jobs just received for - bombarding users with ads ?
2. None of them makes " cool " products .
( Of course , only apple makes cool products .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;It's unnecessary to blame the companies how it is.
"Making cool products" ....
 
You got it wrong.
the writer is an apple fanboi.
His 'educated' guesses are :

1.
Google and MS will bombard users with ads.
(and what about the patent Steve Jobs just received for - bombarding users with ads?
2. None of them makes "cool" products.
(Of course, only apple makes cool products.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263126</id>
	<title>With corporations</title>
	<author>MushMouth</author>
	<datestamp>1259525700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should always assume the worst.  It's the only way to keep a company in check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should always assume the worst .
It 's the only way to keep a company in check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should always assume the worst.
It's the only way to keep a company in check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263012</id>
	<title>ridiculous argument</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1259524680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google might be an advertisement company and not a search company, but they created and implemented the whole concept of unobtrusive text ads. Remember what the web was like before Google ads (and AdBlock)? You couldn't type in a url without a dozen pop-ups or a punch the monkey game. Can anyone really envision Microsoft or any other advertising company making ads LESS obtrusive if Google hadn't done so first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google might be an advertisement company and not a search company , but they created and implemented the whole concept of unobtrusive text ads .
Remember what the web was like before Google ads ( and AdBlock ) ?
You could n't type in a url without a dozen pop-ups or a punch the monkey game .
Can anyone really envision Microsoft or any other advertising company making ads LESS obtrusive if Google had n't done so first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google might be an advertisement company and not a search company, but they created and implemented the whole concept of unobtrusive text ads.
Remember what the web was like before Google ads (and AdBlock)?
You couldn't type in a url without a dozen pop-ups or a punch the monkey game.
Can anyone really envision Microsoft or any other advertising company making ads LESS obtrusive if Google hadn't done so first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264078</id>
	<title>Narrow sighted</title>
	<author>jprupp</author>
	<datestamp>1259492520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the end, we will have more commoditized products, which is quite good for everyone. Stop whining. Google is trying to commoditize the Internet at all it's levels including the user end terminal, which means also the OS. At the end we will be much better off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end , we will have more commoditized products , which is quite good for everyone .
Stop whining .
Google is trying to commoditize the Internet at all it 's levels including the user end terminal , which means also the OS .
At the end we will be much better off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end, we will have more commoditized products, which is quite good for everyone.
Stop whining.
Google is trying to commoditize the Internet at all it's levels including the user end terminal, which means also the OS.
At the end we will be much better off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263026</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to buy MS windows</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1259524800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ASUS EEE pc came with Linux. That's why I brought it. There are alternatives to supporting the evil empire but you don't get the full range of everything to choose from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ASUS EEE pc came with Linux .
That 's why I brought it .
There are alternatives to supporting the evil empire but you do n't get the full range of everything to choose from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ASUS EEE pc came with Linux.
That's why I brought it.
There are alternatives to supporting the evil empire but you don't get the full range of everything to choose from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263184</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>gotpaint32</author>
	<datestamp>1259526300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ChromeOS requires a google ID to log in. Imagine that, if that isn't vendor lock in I don't know what is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ChromeOS requires a google ID to log in .
Imagine that , if that is n't vendor lock in I do n't know what is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChromeOS requires a google ID to log in.
Imagine that, if that isn't vendor lock in I don't know what is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>chabotc</author>
	<datestamp>1259514240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One slight detail that I hope wont get in the way of your ranting:</p><p>ChromeOS is a web OS, and in the browser you can do everything you can do in your regular browser, like changing your search engine to 'Bing', using MS Office 2010 online or Zohoo office, Yahoo mail, and any other competing web service you desire.</p><p>Web is the very opposite of a vendor lock-in, there's an unlimited amount of choice and Google always seems to do their best to allow for competition, the best practical example of this is how easy it is to change the search engine in Chrome to Bing vs the hiding of the Google search option in IE8.</p><p>Sure, Google does believe that 'anything that is good for the web will also be good for Google', so having powerful devices and browsers that make the web an attractive platform will also be good for Google in the end (more searches, more ads, more docs, more maps and location services, more waving, etc), but in no way are they locking people into any platform or product</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One slight detail that I hope wont get in the way of your ranting : ChromeOS is a web OS , and in the browser you can do everything you can do in your regular browser , like changing your search engine to 'Bing ' , using MS Office 2010 online or Zohoo office , Yahoo mail , and any other competing web service you desire.Web is the very opposite of a vendor lock-in , there 's an unlimited amount of choice and Google always seems to do their best to allow for competition , the best practical example of this is how easy it is to change the search engine in Chrome to Bing vs the hiding of the Google search option in IE8.Sure , Google does believe that 'anything that is good for the web will also be good for Google ' , so having powerful devices and browsers that make the web an attractive platform will also be good for Google in the end ( more searches , more ads , more docs , more maps and location services , more waving , etc ) , but in no way are they locking people into any platform or product</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One slight detail that I hope wont get in the way of your ranting:ChromeOS is a web OS, and in the browser you can do everything you can do in your regular browser, like changing your search engine to 'Bing', using MS Office 2010 online or Zohoo office, Yahoo mail, and any other competing web service you desire.Web is the very opposite of a vendor lock-in, there's an unlimited amount of choice and Google always seems to do their best to allow for competition, the best practical example of this is how easy it is to change the search engine in Chrome to Bing vs the hiding of the Google search option in IE8.Sure, Google does believe that 'anything that is good for the web will also be good for Google', so having powerful devices and browsers that make the web an attractive platform will also be good for Google in the end (more searches, more ads, more docs, more maps and location services, more waving, etc), but in no way are they locking people into any platform or product</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262738</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259522160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What I'm saying here is that in the end customers won't get hit by competition.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unless the competition weakens the winner so much that he goes out of business too.  That leaves you even fewer choices than you would with a monopoly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'm saying here is that in the end customers wo n't get hit by competition.Unless the competition weakens the winner so much that he goes out of business too .
That leaves you even fewer choices than you would with a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'm saying here is that in the end customers won't get hit by competition.Unless the competition weakens the winner so much that he goes out of business too.
That leaves you even fewer choices than you would with a monopoly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1259515080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that were true, then it would be true that pizza in New York was uniformly (or at least usually) good.   In fact, though, most pizza in New York is edible, but not very good.   That's not to say that there isn't such a thing as a good New York pizza--there is.   But there's a phenomenal amount of mediocre pizza in New York.   So your analysis doesn't apply.   Why?   I suspect that cheap pizza out-competes good pizza.   So if you can predict the future of computing from the New York pizza situation, the future of computing is probably a ton of crap, with good stuff that's slightly more expensive if you put in the effort to find it.   Which, to tell you the truth, sounds pretty familiar.</p><p>The good news is that Two Boots is making pizzas as fast as they can, they have an uptown location now, and the pizza there is still good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were true , then it would be true that pizza in New York was uniformly ( or at least usually ) good .
In fact , though , most pizza in New York is edible , but not very good .
That 's not to say that there is n't such a thing as a good New York pizza--there is .
But there 's a phenomenal amount of mediocre pizza in New York .
So your analysis does n't apply .
Why ? I suspect that cheap pizza out-competes good pizza .
So if you can predict the future of computing from the New York pizza situation , the future of computing is probably a ton of crap , with good stuff that 's slightly more expensive if you put in the effort to find it .
Which , to tell you the truth , sounds pretty familiar.The good news is that Two Boots is making pizzas as fast as they can , they have an uptown location now , and the pizza there is still good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were true, then it would be true that pizza in New York was uniformly (or at least usually) good.
In fact, though, most pizza in New York is edible, but not very good.
That's not to say that there isn't such a thing as a good New York pizza--there is.
But there's a phenomenal amount of mediocre pizza in New York.
So your analysis doesn't apply.
Why?   I suspect that cheap pizza out-competes good pizza.
So if you can predict the future of computing from the New York pizza situation, the future of computing is probably a ton of crap, with good stuff that's slightly more expensive if you put in the effort to find it.
Which, to tell you the truth, sounds pretty familiar.The good news is that Two Boots is making pizzas as fast as they can, they have an uptown location now, and the pizza there is still good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262728</id>
	<title>Re:Dan 'I'm not a paid shill' Lyons?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1259521980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've been following Groklaw over the last few years, you probably have a bias against MS already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've been following Groklaw over the last few years , you probably have a bias against MS already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've been following Groklaw over the last few years, you probably have a bias against MS already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262112</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes! Accept ads or pay extra?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1259517000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, and I see it as a very good thing.</p><p>I personally don't mind ads, especially Google's ads (which are apparently far more effective than the ugly banner ads).  Most of the time I don't see them, and I'll gladly take free + ads over a paid service in almost every case.</p><p>For example, if I could get free cell phone service by agreeing to the occasional text advertisement or a banner on the background I'd jump at it.  That would save me $80 per month, it's a huge value to me.  If I get sick and tired of the ads, or I get a raise and the $80 savings is less of a deal, I might pay for the service to remove them.</p><p>The fact is, the Microsoft/Google battle has been very good for consumers.  Bing, while not as good as Google yet IMO, is ten times better than searches were 5 years ago, and Google is far better than it was 5 years ago.  The battle encourages each company to create innovative products for the consumer's attention so they can sell advertisements and a whole host of other services to advertisers and consumers alike.</p><p>Look at Google's line of web apps - a lot of them compete directly for the low to mid tier users of Microsoft's products in a way that is completely different than anybody on the market, and it's a boon to consumers.  Seriously, who would have thought 10 years ago that you could create a document on one computer, edit it on another, and print it from a third without ever having the document on the hard drive?  It works so well in most cases that whole businesses are switching to Google's apps from the MS Office line, and they are doing so for far less per-seat than ever.</p><p>Does anybody remember email before Gmail? Unless you had your own web server, it was pitiful.  7gb of storage with a 20mb message limit? Seriously? My corporate email has a 150mb total limit and only recently bumped up to a "massive" 15mb message limit.  If you have basic arithmatic skills you'll not that 10 maximum sized emails will fill that storage limit.  MS was forced to seriously improve hotmail, which used to be plain shitty for the free users (you WISH you got 150mb of storage), but now it reasonably competes with Gmail.</p><p>So where are the losers here? Excluding the hits they took from the recession, Google makes more money, Microsoft makes more money, advertisers get better exposure, and the consumers get better service at lower cost.  Hell for the folks who hate the ads in Gmail and Hotmail, you can pay a premium to remove them for less than a paid email account cost 10 years ago.</p><p>I don't see where anybody lost at all with this arrangement.  I see where they had to work harder, but both Google and Microsoft's expansion into new markets shows that they are only growing and improving.</p><p>It's not a zero sum game, there is a possibility for everyone to win, and stiff competition is the most efficient way to find it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , and I see it as a very good thing.I personally do n't mind ads , especially Google 's ads ( which are apparently far more effective than the ugly banner ads ) .
Most of the time I do n't see them , and I 'll gladly take free + ads over a paid service in almost every case.For example , if I could get free cell phone service by agreeing to the occasional text advertisement or a banner on the background I 'd jump at it .
That would save me $ 80 per month , it 's a huge value to me .
If I get sick and tired of the ads , or I get a raise and the $ 80 savings is less of a deal , I might pay for the service to remove them.The fact is , the Microsoft/Google battle has been very good for consumers .
Bing , while not as good as Google yet IMO , is ten times better than searches were 5 years ago , and Google is far better than it was 5 years ago .
The battle encourages each company to create innovative products for the consumer 's attention so they can sell advertisements and a whole host of other services to advertisers and consumers alike.Look at Google 's line of web apps - a lot of them compete directly for the low to mid tier users of Microsoft 's products in a way that is completely different than anybody on the market , and it 's a boon to consumers .
Seriously , who would have thought 10 years ago that you could create a document on one computer , edit it on another , and print it from a third without ever having the document on the hard drive ?
It works so well in most cases that whole businesses are switching to Google 's apps from the MS Office line , and they are doing so for far less per-seat than ever.Does anybody remember email before Gmail ?
Unless you had your own web server , it was pitiful .
7gb of storage with a 20mb message limit ?
Seriously ? My corporate email has a 150mb total limit and only recently bumped up to a " massive " 15mb message limit .
If you have basic arithmatic skills you 'll not that 10 maximum sized emails will fill that storage limit .
MS was forced to seriously improve hotmail , which used to be plain shitty for the free users ( you WISH you got 150mb of storage ) , but now it reasonably competes with Gmail.So where are the losers here ?
Excluding the hits they took from the recession , Google makes more money , Microsoft makes more money , advertisers get better exposure , and the consumers get better service at lower cost .
Hell for the folks who hate the ads in Gmail and Hotmail , you can pay a premium to remove them for less than a paid email account cost 10 years ago.I do n't see where anybody lost at all with this arrangement .
I see where they had to work harder , but both Google and Microsoft 's expansion into new markets shows that they are only growing and improving.It 's not a zero sum game , there is a possibility for everyone to win , and stiff competition is the most efficient way to find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, and I see it as a very good thing.I personally don't mind ads, especially Google's ads (which are apparently far more effective than the ugly banner ads).
Most of the time I don't see them, and I'll gladly take free + ads over a paid service in almost every case.For example, if I could get free cell phone service by agreeing to the occasional text advertisement or a banner on the background I'd jump at it.
That would save me $80 per month, it's a huge value to me.
If I get sick and tired of the ads, or I get a raise and the $80 savings is less of a deal, I might pay for the service to remove them.The fact is, the Microsoft/Google battle has been very good for consumers.
Bing, while not as good as Google yet IMO, is ten times better than searches were 5 years ago, and Google is far better than it was 5 years ago.
The battle encourages each company to create innovative products for the consumer's attention so they can sell advertisements and a whole host of other services to advertisers and consumers alike.Look at Google's line of web apps - a lot of them compete directly for the low to mid tier users of Microsoft's products in a way that is completely different than anybody on the market, and it's a boon to consumers.
Seriously, who would have thought 10 years ago that you could create a document on one computer, edit it on another, and print it from a third without ever having the document on the hard drive?
It works so well in most cases that whole businesses are switching to Google's apps from the MS Office line, and they are doing so for far less per-seat than ever.Does anybody remember email before Gmail?
Unless you had your own web server, it was pitiful.
7gb of storage with a 20mb message limit?
Seriously? My corporate email has a 150mb total limit and only recently bumped up to a "massive" 15mb message limit.
If you have basic arithmatic skills you'll not that 10 maximum sized emails will fill that storage limit.
MS was forced to seriously improve hotmail, which used to be plain shitty for the free users (you WISH you got 150mb of storage), but now it reasonably competes with Gmail.So where are the losers here?
Excluding the hits they took from the recession, Google makes more money, Microsoft makes more money, advertisers get better exposure, and the consumers get better service at lower cost.
Hell for the folks who hate the ads in Gmail and Hotmail, you can pay a premium to remove them for less than a paid email account cost 10 years ago.I don't see where anybody lost at all with this arrangement.
I see where they had to work harder, but both Google and Microsoft's expansion into new markets shows that they are only growing and improving.It's not a zero sum game, there is a possibility for everyone to win, and stiff competition is the most efficient way to find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262232</id>
	<title>Re:This is how we did it in Naples</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259518080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How 'bout a white pizza with calamare?  (Oh-kay, I can't spell, but we both know what I want, right?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 'bout a white pizza with calamare ?
( Oh-kay , I ca n't spell , but we both know what I want , right ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How 'bout a white pizza with calamare?
(Oh-kay, I can't spell, but we both know what I want, right?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262654</id>
	<title>Re:Google WANTS vendor lock-in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259521140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No when you're using ChromeOS the way google describes it deployed on the ARM-based netbooks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... everything climatologically signed, and no unauthorized software, no local applications, not even an installed print driver; if the netbook detects tampering, it re-images itself "from the cloud."</p></div><p>That's a feature. It's supposed to make you feel safe.</p><p>From what I understand, it'll be possible to disable the check, with a "developer switch". After all, Google wants outside help with its open source OS. I can't find a source to cite right now, but why assume the worst?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No when you 're using ChromeOS the way google describes it deployed on the ARM-based netbooks ... everything climatologically signed , and no unauthorized software , no local applications , not even an installed print driver ; if the netbook detects tampering , it re-images itself " from the cloud .
" That 's a feature .
It 's supposed to make you feel safe.From what I understand , it 'll be possible to disable the check , with a " developer switch " .
After all , Google wants outside help with its open source OS .
I ca n't find a source to cite right now , but why assume the worst ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No when you're using ChromeOS the way google describes it deployed on the ARM-based netbooks ... everything climatologically signed, and no unauthorized software, no local applications, not even an installed print driver; if the netbook detects tampering, it re-images itself "from the cloud.
"That's a feature.
It's supposed to make you feel safe.From what I understand, it'll be possible to disable the check, with a "developer switch".
After all, Google wants outside help with its open source OS.
I can't find a source to cite right now, but why assume the worst?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262830</id>
	<title>yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259523060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they should just stick to what they're doing best, Google in searches and Microsoft in    oh wait..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they should just stick to what they 're doing best , Google in searches and Microsoft in oh wait. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they should just stick to what they're doing best, Google in searches and Microsoft in    oh wait..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261744</id>
	<title>Competition is bad for consumers</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259513940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally the reaction to someone saying this kind of pinko commie crap is to laugh and tell them to go fuck themselves back to Russia.</p><p>But Lyons has a point. Competition, in this particular case, may not be the best thing for customers. Why so, you may ask. It is because of the lopsidedness of the market that makes this situation so precarious.</p><p>From the end of WWII until the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were two sides to every geopolitical debate. The side of good, right, and the American Way and the side of the Soviet Union. Countries aligned themselves along these very clear geopolitical boundaries. Though it was easy enough to declare allegiance to one side or the other, many countries found their own geopolitical aspirations dashed to smithereens on either the broad wings of the American eagle or the hard, solid face of the Iron Curtain.</p><p>However, with the end of the Cold War, vassal states are now finding their own voice. Countries that were previously shackled now find that the lack of a superpower competition has resulted in more opportunities for growth. Take two countries that America fought wars in as examples. Korea and Vietnam are now booming with economic and technological growth.</p><p>These opportunities don't come because they are subservient states to a particular superpower, but because they no longer need to pledge allegiance and are able to make their own way.</p><p>So when two superpowers like Microsoft and Google start duking it out, the fallout is going to hit partner companies AND consumers alike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally the reaction to someone saying this kind of pinko commie crap is to laugh and tell them to go fuck themselves back to Russia.But Lyons has a point .
Competition , in this particular case , may not be the best thing for customers .
Why so , you may ask .
It is because of the lopsidedness of the market that makes this situation so precarious.From the end of WWII until the fall of the Berlin Wall , there were two sides to every geopolitical debate .
The side of good , right , and the American Way and the side of the Soviet Union .
Countries aligned themselves along these very clear geopolitical boundaries .
Though it was easy enough to declare allegiance to one side or the other , many countries found their own geopolitical aspirations dashed to smithereens on either the broad wings of the American eagle or the hard , solid face of the Iron Curtain.However , with the end of the Cold War , vassal states are now finding their own voice .
Countries that were previously shackled now find that the lack of a superpower competition has resulted in more opportunities for growth .
Take two countries that America fought wars in as examples .
Korea and Vietnam are now booming with economic and technological growth.These opportunities do n't come because they are subservient states to a particular superpower , but because they no longer need to pledge allegiance and are able to make their own way.So when two superpowers like Microsoft and Google start duking it out , the fallout is going to hit partner companies AND consumers alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally the reaction to someone saying this kind of pinko commie crap is to laugh and tell them to go fuck themselves back to Russia.But Lyons has a point.
Competition, in this particular case, may not be the best thing for customers.
Why so, you may ask.
It is because of the lopsidedness of the market that makes this situation so precarious.From the end of WWII until the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were two sides to every geopolitical debate.
The side of good, right, and the American Way and the side of the Soviet Union.
Countries aligned themselves along these very clear geopolitical boundaries.
Though it was easy enough to declare allegiance to one side or the other, many countries found their own geopolitical aspirations dashed to smithereens on either the broad wings of the American eagle or the hard, solid face of the Iron Curtain.However, with the end of the Cold War, vassal states are now finding their own voice.
Countries that were previously shackled now find that the lack of a superpower competition has resulted in more opportunities for growth.
Take two countries that America fought wars in as examples.
Korea and Vietnam are now booming with economic and technological growth.These opportunities don't come because they are subservient states to a particular superpower, but because they no longer need to pledge allegiance and are able to make their own way.So when two superpowers like Microsoft and Google start duking it out, the fallout is going to hit partner companies AND consumers alike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30267304</id>
	<title>Re:History lesson</title>
	<author>ruprechtjones</author>
	<datestamp>1259522340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way to be taken seriously on this board is to spell correctly.  You had a good argument until your spelling knocked you down a few notches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to be taken seriously on this board is to spell correctly .
You had a good argument until your spelling knocked you down a few notches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to be taken seriously on this board is to spell correctly.
You had a good argument until your spelling knocked you down a few notches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262334</id>
	<title>Why Google will win the Search Engine War</title>
	<author>lordsid</author>
	<datestamp>1259518860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google will win the search engine war because you don't tell your friends to Bing! the latest flash game or Yahoo! that one sports video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will win the search engine war because you do n't tell your friends to Bing !
the latest flash game or Yahoo !
that one sports video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will win the search engine war because you don't tell your friends to Bing!
the latest flash game or Yahoo!
that one sports video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720</id>
	<title>Dan 'I'm not a paid shill' Lyons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've been following Groklaw over the last few years, I should point out that Mr. Lyons is a huge SCO supporter. I can not say Microsoft pays him money, but anything and everything he says is designed to hit Microsoft's opponents from the side. He likes to say bad things about both Microsoft and Microsoft's opponent of the day, but in a way that Microsoft comes off the better of the two.</p><p>I'd put more trust into something John Dvorak had to say than Mr. Lyons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've been following Groklaw over the last few years , I should point out that Mr. Lyons is a huge SCO supporter .
I can not say Microsoft pays him money , but anything and everything he says is designed to hit Microsoft 's opponents from the side .
He likes to say bad things about both Microsoft and Microsoft 's opponent of the day , but in a way that Microsoft comes off the better of the two.I 'd put more trust into something John Dvorak had to say than Mr. Lyons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've been following Groklaw over the last few years, I should point out that Mr. Lyons is a huge SCO supporter.
I can not say Microsoft pays him money, but anything and everything he says is designed to hit Microsoft's opponents from the side.
He likes to say bad things about both Microsoft and Microsoft's opponent of the day, but in a way that Microsoft comes off the better of the two.I'd put more trust into something John Dvorak had to say than Mr. Lyons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264906</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1259499900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ChromeOS is a web OS, and in the browser you can do everything you can do in your regular browser, like changing your search engine to 'Bing', using MS Office 2010 online or Zohoo office, Yahoo mail, and any other competing web service you desire.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, it's really too early to speculate on what the shipped version of Chrome OS will be like. However, from reading the design documents, it's readily apparent to me that Google is intending for Chrome OS to integrate tightly with their online services. That's really the whole reason the project was started in the first place. You won't be able to make full use of the device without a Google account and you (most likely) will not be able to swap out the browser for one that doesn't track your activity online.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ChromeOS is a web OS , and in the browser you can do everything you can do in your regular browser , like changing your search engine to 'Bing ' , using MS Office 2010 online or Zohoo office , Yahoo mail , and any other competing web service you desire.Well , it 's really too early to speculate on what the shipped version of Chrome OS will be like .
However , from reading the design documents , it 's readily apparent to me that Google is intending for Chrome OS to integrate tightly with their online services .
That 's really the whole reason the project was started in the first place .
You wo n't be able to make full use of the device without a Google account and you ( most likely ) will not be able to swap out the browser for one that does n't track your activity online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChromeOS is a web OS, and in the browser you can do everything you can do in your regular browser, like changing your search engine to 'Bing', using MS Office 2010 online or Zohoo office, Yahoo mail, and any other competing web service you desire.Well, it's really too early to speculate on what the shipped version of Chrome OS will be like.
However, from reading the design documents, it's readily apparent to me that Google is intending for Chrome OS to integrate tightly with their online services.
That's really the whole reason the project was started in the first place.
You won't be able to make full use of the device without a Google account and you (most likely) will not be able to swap out the browser for one that doesn't track your activity online.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261710</id>
	<title>Elephants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Elephants fight, it's the grass that gets hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Elephants fight , it 's the grass that gets hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Elephants fight, it's the grass that gets hurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262170</id>
	<title>Re:Business as usual</title>
	<author>fullgandoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259517600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the best practical example of this is how easy it is to change the search engine in Chrome to Bing vs the hiding of the Google search option in IE8.</p></div><p>
And the worst example of this is how in Safari on the Mac there isn't any option to change the search engine, it is fixed to Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the best practical example of this is how easy it is to change the search engine in Chrome to Bing vs the hiding of the Google search option in IE8 .
And the worst example of this is how in Safari on the Mac there is n't any option to change the search engine , it is fixed to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the best practical example of this is how easy it is to change the search engine in Chrome to Bing vs the hiding of the Google search option in IE8.
And the worst example of this is how in Safari on the Mac there isn't any option to change the search engine, it is fixed to Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264446</id>
	<title>Bullllllllllshit.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1259495580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im a customer, and the sad truth is some people talk bullshit in my name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,</p></div><p>google makes a lot of usable products that makes my personal and work life easier without much effort.</p><p>another sad truth is, microsoft makes defective products which i HAVE to use in my personal and work life, and I have to pay effort to keep them in working order.</p><p>Lyons, please either change your career, or stop bullshitting online in other people's name.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>im a customer , and the sad truth is some people talk bullshit in my name : The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,google makes a lot of usable products that makes my personal and work life easier without much effort.another sad truth is , microsoft makes defective products which i HAVE to use in my personal and work life , and I have to pay effort to keep them in working order.Lyons , please either change your career , or stop bullshitting online in other people 's name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im a customer, and the sad truth is some people talk bullshit in my name :The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,google makes a lot of usable products that makes my personal and work life easier without much effort.another sad truth is, microsoft makes defective products which i HAVE to use in my personal and work life, and I have to pay effort to keep them in working order.Lyons, please either change your career, or stop bullshitting online in other people's name.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262552</id>
	<title>Re:History lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259520300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Losing, not loosing! Gah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing , not loosing !
Gah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Losing, not loosing!
Gah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262288</id>
	<title>And the winner is...</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1259518560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>open source!</p><p>at least, once we get open-source search engines utilizing peer-to-peer distributed processing techniques...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>open source ! at least , once we get open-source search engines utilizing peer-to-peer distributed processing techniques.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>open source!at least, once we get open-source search engines utilizing peer-to-peer distributed processing techniques...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262964</id>
	<title>Competition is good for *customers*</title>
	<author>donutello</author>
	<datestamp>1259524380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consumers are not the customers here. Advertisers are. Competition in Search will also be good for content producers who can bargain for better deals for themselves than they could with only one game in town.</p><p>Consumers are only incidental to the whole thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consumers are not the customers here .
Advertisers are .
Competition in Search will also be good for content producers who can bargain for better deals for themselves than they could with only one game in town.Consumers are only incidental to the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consumers are not the customers here.
Advertisers are.
Competition in Search will also be good for content producers who can bargain for better deals for themselves than they could with only one game in town.Consumers are only incidental to the whole thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261744</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30267304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30266210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30268902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30267988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1435250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30266210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30268902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263184
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30265250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30264906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262654
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263126
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30267988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30267304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30262552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30263022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1435250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1435250.30261860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
