<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_0049231</id>
	<title>Craigslist Blocks Yahoo Pipes</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259764320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Romy Maxwell posted a blog piece on <a href="http://romy.posterous.com/dont-be-evil-craigslist">Craigslist apparently shutting off access to Yahoo Pipes</a>. Maxwell was working on a project, one of 2,111 using Craigslist as a data source, for a (non-commercial) Pipes-based mashup. He sent Craig Newmark an invitation to the alpha test, after a few rounds of friendly communication &mdash; "...as a rule of thumb, okay to use RSS feeds for noncommercial purposes." The apparent response, 4 days later, was for Craigslist to redirect any request with an HTTP referrer of pipes.yahoo.com to the Craigslist home page. Maxwell writes: <i>"It's a sad day for me. I'm not too upset about my own project, as Flippity was already removing Craigslist as a data source. With the likes of eBay and Oodle not only providing open APIs but encouraging and rewarding developers, spending my time wrestling with Craigslist is just plain stupid and exhausting. I'm sure I'm not the only person to have come to that conclusion, and I wish it were different. ...  If Craigslist wants to keep its doors shut to the world, so be it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Romy Maxwell posted a blog piece on Craigslist apparently shutting off access to Yahoo Pipes .
Maxwell was working on a project , one of 2,111 using Craigslist as a data source , for a ( non-commercial ) Pipes-based mashup .
He sent Craig Newmark an invitation to the alpha test , after a few rounds of friendly communication    " ...as a rule of thumb , okay to use RSS feeds for noncommercial purposes .
" The apparent response , 4 days later , was for Craigslist to redirect any request with an HTTP referrer of pipes.yahoo.com to the Craigslist home page .
Maxwell writes : " It 's a sad day for me .
I 'm not too upset about my own project , as Flippity was already removing Craigslist as a data source .
With the likes of eBay and Oodle not only providing open APIs but encouraging and rewarding developers , spending my time wrestling with Craigslist is just plain stupid and exhausting .
I 'm sure I 'm not the only person to have come to that conclusion , and I wish it were different .
... If Craigslist wants to keep its doors shut to the world , so be it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Romy Maxwell posted a blog piece on Craigslist apparently shutting off access to Yahoo Pipes.
Maxwell was working on a project, one of 2,111 using Craigslist as a data source, for a (non-commercial) Pipes-based mashup.
He sent Craig Newmark an invitation to the alpha test, after a few rounds of friendly communication — "...as a rule of thumb, okay to use RSS feeds for noncommercial purposes.
" The apparent response, 4 days later, was for Craigslist to redirect any request with an HTTP referrer of pipes.yahoo.com to the Craigslist home page.
Maxwell writes: "It's a sad day for me.
I'm not too upset about my own project, as Flippity was already removing Craigslist as a data source.
With the likes of eBay and Oodle not only providing open APIs but encouraging and rewarding developers, spending my time wrestling with Craigslist is just plain stupid and exhausting.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have come to that conclusion, and I wish it were different.
...  If Craigslist wants to keep its doors shut to the world, so be it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30321278</id>
	<title>What I did</title>
	<author>fitzsimj</author>
	<datestamp>1259866800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years back, I was trying to use Yahoo Pipes on CL feeds, since CL's search sucks pretty badly.  I quickly found that it was blocked.</p><p>So, I run a cron job that wgets the RSS feeds I want, twice a day, caching them on my server.  Then I refer Yahoo Pipes to that cached version.</p><p>Works well for my needs, though obviously not for something as general as this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years back , I was trying to use Yahoo Pipes on CL feeds , since CL 's search sucks pretty badly .
I quickly found that it was blocked.So , I run a cron job that wgets the RSS feeds I want , twice a day , caching them on my server .
Then I refer Yahoo Pipes to that cached version.Works well for my needs , though obviously not for something as general as this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years back, I was trying to use Yahoo Pipes on CL feeds, since CL's search sucks pretty badly.
I quickly found that it was blocked.So, I run a cron job that wgets the RSS feeds I want, twice a day, caching them on my server.
Then I refer Yahoo Pipes to that cached version.Works well for my needs, though obviously not for something as general as this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293308</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1259687220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When desktop computing got its start a good machine cost about $3,500,</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Let me fix that for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
When desktop computing got its start a turdle machine cost about $3,500, and a good one was double that. (And the definition of "good" was something that today you'd be ashamed to have sitting in your garbage can on collection day).
</p><p>
*grumble* You kids nowadays *grumble*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When desktop computing got its start a good machine cost about $ 3,500 , Let me fix that for you .. . When desktop computing got its start a turdle machine cost about $ 3,500 , and a good one was double that .
( And the definition of " good " was something that today you 'd be ashamed to have sitting in your garbage can on collection day ) .
* grumble * You kids nowadays * grumble *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When desktop computing got its start a good machine cost about $3,500,

Let me fix that for you ...

When desktop computing got its start a turdle machine cost about $3,500, and a good one was double that.
(And the definition of "good" was something that today you'd be ashamed to have sitting in your garbage can on collection day).
*grumble* You kids nowadays *grumble*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30301570</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1259572680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses. These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing. That's it. Everything is a subset of those Big Five.</p></div><p>How about, computers are good for information storage, retrieval, and transformation?</p><p>Then it becomes a matter of how we perform these three tasks. Data by itself has no meaning. We assign meaning to the data. And by doing so, we can then figure out how to enter, manipulate, and display meaningfully.</p><p>There are human limits to computing. We can only enter data at a physically defined speed. We can only absorb regurgitated data at a physically defined rate. Thus, after a certain point in time, the <i>only</i> thing that continuously faster computers are useful for is data manipulation.</p><p>In the beginning (when computers were starting to get "good enough"), there was only a little bit of data. Since input is physically constrained, it only is natural that there isn't much data to start with. But now, some 10 years after the beginning, there's a lot of data out there--in fact, a whole 10 years worth. That 10 years worth of data means that computation has to improve, and equally as important, output has to improve.</p><p>Computation naturally has to improve to retrieve and transform the data. I don't think I have to explain this much mroe. Output has to improve however, because early outputs were designed for smaller amounts of data. Now that there's much more data however, the outputs have to adapt. And as there's more data, more of it can be linked together, so it becomes more useful for the output to show or include the linking.</p><p>Now, extrapolate this to the world, where after computation has become good enough for the purposes of input, computing has become more ubiquitous. The amout of data out there has explode exponentially. In the early days of the internet, an indexing site like Yahoo or a portal like AOL pretty much got you to where you wanted or needed to go. Now, we need a keyword search to even hope to find the data we're looking for.</p><p>In the past, you may have say, five "objects" to work with, each with ten attributes. You can take those five objects, and use your eyeballs to compare them. You can rank them, rate them, manipulate them to produce a more appropriate comparison, etc. Now, there's a billion objects, each object has a hundred attributes. You need not only computation power to compare them, but you need a different way to display them (top 5, statistical analysis, rules-based dynamic lists, etc. to determine the most relevant 5 to bring to your eyeballs).</p><p>I agree that the whole Web 2.0 crap is marketing junk. But behind all that BS, there's a lot of computing progress on top of physical progress. As the amount of data grows, there will always need to be progress in storage and retrieval. The first revolution 10 years ago was to consolidate data into a computable form. This second revolution will be to change the retrieval and display end so that they can automatically scale to fit any amount of data.</p><p>That's what Microsoft doesn't get. That's why Vista and Windows 7 is a failure. They put in some bells and whistles, tack on some eye candy, and keep the same fundamentals of how we store and retrieve data, and then hope they can ram it down our throats as progress, when it's the <b>fundamentals</b> that need to change to progress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When all is said and done , the computer is good for a limited number of uses .
These include calculations , entertainment , information retrieval , image manipulation , and word processing .
That 's it .
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.How about , computers are good for information storage , retrieval , and transformation ? Then it becomes a matter of how we perform these three tasks .
Data by itself has no meaning .
We assign meaning to the data .
And by doing so , we can then figure out how to enter , manipulate , and display meaningfully.There are human limits to computing .
We can only enter data at a physically defined speed .
We can only absorb regurgitated data at a physically defined rate .
Thus , after a certain point in time , the only thing that continuously faster computers are useful for is data manipulation.In the beginning ( when computers were starting to get " good enough " ) , there was only a little bit of data .
Since input is physically constrained , it only is natural that there is n't much data to start with .
But now , some 10 years after the beginning , there 's a lot of data out there--in fact , a whole 10 years worth .
That 10 years worth of data means that computation has to improve , and equally as important , output has to improve.Computation naturally has to improve to retrieve and transform the data .
I do n't think I have to explain this much mroe .
Output has to improve however , because early outputs were designed for smaller amounts of data .
Now that there 's much more data however , the outputs have to adapt .
And as there 's more data , more of it can be linked together , so it becomes more useful for the output to show or include the linking.Now , extrapolate this to the world , where after computation has become good enough for the purposes of input , computing has become more ubiquitous .
The amout of data out there has explode exponentially .
In the early days of the internet , an indexing site like Yahoo or a portal like AOL pretty much got you to where you wanted or needed to go .
Now , we need a keyword search to even hope to find the data we 're looking for.In the past , you may have say , five " objects " to work with , each with ten attributes .
You can take those five objects , and use your eyeballs to compare them .
You can rank them , rate them , manipulate them to produce a more appropriate comparison , etc .
Now , there 's a billion objects , each object has a hundred attributes .
You need not only computation power to compare them , but you need a different way to display them ( top 5 , statistical analysis , rules-based dynamic lists , etc .
to determine the most relevant 5 to bring to your eyeballs ) .I agree that the whole Web 2.0 crap is marketing junk .
But behind all that BS , there 's a lot of computing progress on top of physical progress .
As the amount of data grows , there will always need to be progress in storage and retrieval .
The first revolution 10 years ago was to consolidate data into a computable form .
This second revolution will be to change the retrieval and display end so that they can automatically scale to fit any amount of data.That 's what Microsoft does n't get .
That 's why Vista and Windows 7 is a failure .
They put in some bells and whistles , tack on some eye candy , and keep the same fundamentals of how we store and retrieve data , and then hope they can ram it down our throats as progress , when it 's the fundamentals that need to change to progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses.
These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing.
That's it.
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.How about, computers are good for information storage, retrieval, and transformation?Then it becomes a matter of how we perform these three tasks.
Data by itself has no meaning.
We assign meaning to the data.
And by doing so, we can then figure out how to enter, manipulate, and display meaningfully.There are human limits to computing.
We can only enter data at a physically defined speed.
We can only absorb regurgitated data at a physically defined rate.
Thus, after a certain point in time, the only thing that continuously faster computers are useful for is data manipulation.In the beginning (when computers were starting to get "good enough"), there was only a little bit of data.
Since input is physically constrained, it only is natural that there isn't much data to start with.
But now, some 10 years after the beginning, there's a lot of data out there--in fact, a whole 10 years worth.
That 10 years worth of data means that computation has to improve, and equally as important, output has to improve.Computation naturally has to improve to retrieve and transform the data.
I don't think I have to explain this much mroe.
Output has to improve however, because early outputs were designed for smaller amounts of data.
Now that there's much more data however, the outputs have to adapt.
And as there's more data, more of it can be linked together, so it becomes more useful for the output to show or include the linking.Now, extrapolate this to the world, where after computation has become good enough for the purposes of input, computing has become more ubiquitous.
The amout of data out there has explode exponentially.
In the early days of the internet, an indexing site like Yahoo or a portal like AOL pretty much got you to where you wanted or needed to go.
Now, we need a keyword search to even hope to find the data we're looking for.In the past, you may have say, five "objects" to work with, each with ten attributes.
You can take those five objects, and use your eyeballs to compare them.
You can rank them, rate them, manipulate them to produce a more appropriate comparison, etc.
Now, there's a billion objects, each object has a hundred attributes.
You need not only computation power to compare them, but you need a different way to display them (top 5, statistical analysis, rules-based dynamic lists, etc.
to determine the most relevant 5 to bring to your eyeballs).I agree that the whole Web 2.0 crap is marketing junk.
But behind all that BS, there's a lot of computing progress on top of physical progress.
As the amount of data grows, there will always need to be progress in storage and retrieval.
The first revolution 10 years ago was to consolidate data into a computable form.
This second revolution will be to change the retrieval and display end so that they can automatically scale to fit any amount of data.That's what Microsoft doesn't get.
That's why Vista and Windows 7 is a failure.
They put in some bells and whistles, tack on some eye candy, and keep the same fundamentals of how we store and retrieve data, and then hope they can ram it down our throats as progress, when it's the fundamentals that need to change to progress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295182</id>
	<title>Example ...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1259578140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I laughed the other day when a (much younger) workmate complained about automatically generated mails he had to handle: Thunderbird was very unresponsive when he opened those 100<b>KB</b> (~1700 lines) pure ASCII e-mails. The reason was apparently some badly installed/configured "Internet security" app, but it was hilarious to see him not find it unusual that his modern PC could not handle such text files and asking not have to work with them, when our 50-100 times slower PCs were handling them fine ~15 years ago. Perhaps the sluggishness of the Web in general has lowered people's expectations regarding the performance of PCs (esp. with web-based AJAX apps that try to provide faster deskop apps' functionality).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I laughed the other day when a ( much younger ) workmate complained about automatically generated mails he had to handle : Thunderbird was very unresponsive when he opened those 100KB ( ~ 1700 lines ) pure ASCII e-mails .
The reason was apparently some badly installed/configured " Internet security " app , but it was hilarious to see him not find it unusual that his modern PC could not handle such text files and asking not have to work with them , when our 50-100 times slower PCs were handling them fine ~ 15 years ago .
Perhaps the sluggishness of the Web in general has lowered people 's expectations regarding the performance of PCs ( esp .
with web-based AJAX apps that try to provide faster deskop apps ' functionality ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I laughed the other day when a (much younger) workmate complained about automatically generated mails he had to handle: Thunderbird was very unresponsive when he opened those 100KB (~1700 lines) pure ASCII e-mails.
The reason was apparently some badly installed/configured "Internet security" app, but it was hilarious to see him not find it unusual that his modern PC could not handle such text files and asking not have to work with them, when our 50-100 times slower PCs were handling them fine ~15 years ago.
Perhaps the sluggishness of the Web in general has lowered people's expectations regarding the performance of PCs (esp.
with web-based AJAX apps that try to provide faster deskop apps' functionality).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295104</id>
	<title>dimwit</title>
	<author>zubinwadia</author>
	<datestamp>1259576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's a wordpress site with nothing special done to it... quit whining I didn't even have this blog when we were exploring this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a wordpress site with nothing special done to it... quit whining I did n't even have this blog when we were exploring this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a wordpress site with nothing special done to it... quit whining I didn't even have this blog when we were exploring this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292898</id>
	<title>Too much extra traffic</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1259683200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Craigslist is basically run as a public service.  They are well within their rights to block something that increases their bandwidth costs and has no benefit for them.  Heck, the way the project was described, I'm not sure it had benefits for anyone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Craigslist is basically run as a public service .
They are well within their rights to block something that increases their bandwidth costs and has no benefit for them .
Heck , the way the project was described , I 'm not sure it had benefits for anyone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craigslist is basically run as a public service.
They are well within their rights to block something that increases their bandwidth costs and has no benefit for them.
Heck, the way the project was described, I'm not sure it had benefits for anyone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293924</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1259692380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses. These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing. That's it. Everything is a subset of those Big Five.</p></div><p>Hmm, I don't know about that.  I do a lot of audio manipulation on my computer. Shouldn't that warrant its own category if image manipulation does?  If so, then there's a sixth category you missed, and it came later than image manipulation.  If not, why not?  Either way, is it so inconceivable that there will be other uses as computers continue to get faster, smaller, and cheaper?  I doubt many people thought they'd ever be used for entertainment when ENIAC went online...</p><p>Also, aren't those categories kind of arbitrary?  After all, looking at it from a very low-level point of view, the only thing the computer is good for is calculations.  Everything else you do with it boils down to that.</p><p>I agree with your statement that most of the "advances" being touted today are really just rebranding; but real, usually incremental advances do take place and shouldn't be discounted.  In my own favored area, audio manipulation, the past few years have seen lots of expansion in both what can be done and how easy it is to do it, in commercial products like Propellerhead Reason or Ableton Live and in weird, ungainly yet powerful beasts like PureData or SuperCollider.  I think we are also only beginning to see the implications of multi-touch screens, motion capture like Project Natal and other interface technologies that could free us from the constraints of keyboard-based interaction.</p><p>I don't subscribe to the Singularity, a deus ex machina if ever there was one, but it's a few decades too early to claim the industry is eating itself.  It's a little stagnant right now, but give bandwidth another decade to grow and interconnectivity some more time to become normal, and I think we'll see more original uses start to appear again as the industry is forced to find some new area to focus on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When all is said and done , the computer is good for a limited number of uses .
These include calculations , entertainment , information retrieval , image manipulation , and word processing .
That 's it .
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.Hmm , I do n't know about that .
I do a lot of audio manipulation on my computer .
Should n't that warrant its own category if image manipulation does ?
If so , then there 's a sixth category you missed , and it came later than image manipulation .
If not , why not ?
Either way , is it so inconceivable that there will be other uses as computers continue to get faster , smaller , and cheaper ?
I doubt many people thought they 'd ever be used for entertainment when ENIAC went online...Also , are n't those categories kind of arbitrary ?
After all , looking at it from a very low-level point of view , the only thing the computer is good for is calculations .
Everything else you do with it boils down to that.I agree with your statement that most of the " advances " being touted today are really just rebranding ; but real , usually incremental advances do take place and should n't be discounted .
In my own favored area , audio manipulation , the past few years have seen lots of expansion in both what can be done and how easy it is to do it , in commercial products like Propellerhead Reason or Ableton Live and in weird , ungainly yet powerful beasts like PureData or SuperCollider .
I think we are also only beginning to see the implications of multi-touch screens , motion capture like Project Natal and other interface technologies that could free us from the constraints of keyboard-based interaction.I do n't subscribe to the Singularity , a deus ex machina if ever there was one , but it 's a few decades too early to claim the industry is eating itself .
It 's a little stagnant right now , but give bandwidth another decade to grow and interconnectivity some more time to become normal , and I think we 'll see more original uses start to appear again as the industry is forced to find some new area to focus on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses.
These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing.
That's it.
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.Hmm, I don't know about that.
I do a lot of audio manipulation on my computer.
Shouldn't that warrant its own category if image manipulation does?
If so, then there's a sixth category you missed, and it came later than image manipulation.
If not, why not?
Either way, is it so inconceivable that there will be other uses as computers continue to get faster, smaller, and cheaper?
I doubt many people thought they'd ever be used for entertainment when ENIAC went online...Also, aren't those categories kind of arbitrary?
After all, looking at it from a very low-level point of view, the only thing the computer is good for is calculations.
Everything else you do with it boils down to that.I agree with your statement that most of the "advances" being touted today are really just rebranding; but real, usually incremental advances do take place and shouldn't be discounted.
In my own favored area, audio manipulation, the past few years have seen lots of expansion in both what can be done and how easy it is to do it, in commercial products like Propellerhead Reason or Ableton Live and in weird, ungainly yet powerful beasts like PureData or SuperCollider.
I think we are also only beginning to see the implications of multi-touch screens, motion capture like Project Natal and other interface technologies that could free us from the constraints of keyboard-based interaction.I don't subscribe to the Singularity, a deus ex machina if ever there was one, but it's a few decades too early to claim the industry is eating itself.
It's a little stagnant right now, but give bandwidth another decade to grow and interconnectivity some more time to become normal, and I think we'll see more original uses start to appear again as the industry is forced to find some new area to focus on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30294512</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is understandable, this may be innocent intentions at work, but in my experience running a service, you often find that people want your users, even if there is no real gain. People crave power, greed is a symptom of that. I ran an irc network for several years, while it wasnt wildly successful (it still exists, but the average user count is now below 25 at any given time vs. 250+ users.) However, even with that tiny amount of users, Almost a month would go by before I'd find someone else attempting to hijack the network in favor of their own, either through botfloods, or spamming their "webchat services" for my network, and if you checked to see if they had IRC running, they did, and it was a near-complete copy of what I had running, with a few exceptions. Then the delusional idiots who thought they could persuade me through vague and fictitious legal threats that I somehow had to give them power by law, and step down.</p><p>Funny, but it shows, that even with any sizeable group, someone wants a piece of the pie, or the whole thing, they want to feel empowered over someone else. That's what many of these people wanted, power to hold over others. I just wanted to provide some free chat services, and learn from the ordeal. Ultimately I learned that it isnt worth it and your users will almost always hate you if you're too giving, as they demand more and hold no respect for you. But sadly, some people see things for more than that.<br>Hell, the craziest attempt was when one guy told me point blank that he will take my network over, he even said he'd take over freenode, and use his new powers to take down world governments, and that he was "the one".</p><p>Fun times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is understandable , this may be innocent intentions at work , but in my experience running a service , you often find that people want your users , even if there is no real gain .
People crave power , greed is a symptom of that .
I ran an irc network for several years , while it wasnt wildly successful ( it still exists , but the average user count is now below 25 at any given time vs. 250 + users .
) However , even with that tiny amount of users , Almost a month would go by before I 'd find someone else attempting to hijack the network in favor of their own , either through botfloods , or spamming their " webchat services " for my network , and if you checked to see if they had IRC running , they did , and it was a near-complete copy of what I had running , with a few exceptions .
Then the delusional idiots who thought they could persuade me through vague and fictitious legal threats that I somehow had to give them power by law , and step down.Funny , but it shows , that even with any sizeable group , someone wants a piece of the pie , or the whole thing , they want to feel empowered over someone else .
That 's what many of these people wanted , power to hold over others .
I just wanted to provide some free chat services , and learn from the ordeal .
Ultimately I learned that it isnt worth it and your users will almost always hate you if you 're too giving , as they demand more and hold no respect for you .
But sadly , some people see things for more than that.Hell , the craziest attempt was when one guy told me point blank that he will take my network over , he even said he 'd take over freenode , and use his new powers to take down world governments , and that he was " the one " .Fun times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is understandable, this may be innocent intentions at work, but in my experience running a service, you often find that people want your users, even if there is no real gain.
People crave power, greed is a symptom of that.
I ran an irc network for several years, while it wasnt wildly successful (it still exists, but the average user count is now below 25 at any given time vs. 250+ users.
) However, even with that tiny amount of users, Almost a month would go by before I'd find someone else attempting to hijack the network in favor of their own, either through botfloods, or spamming their "webchat services" for my network, and if you checked to see if they had IRC running, they did, and it was a near-complete copy of what I had running, with a few exceptions.
Then the delusional idiots who thought they could persuade me through vague and fictitious legal threats that I somehow had to give them power by law, and step down.Funny, but it shows, that even with any sizeable group, someone wants a piece of the pie, or the whole thing, they want to feel empowered over someone else.
That's what many of these people wanted, power to hold over others.
I just wanted to provide some free chat services, and learn from the ordeal.
Ultimately I learned that it isnt worth it and your users will almost always hate you if you're too giving, as they demand more and hold no respect for you.
But sadly, some people see things for more than that.Hell, the craziest attempt was when one guy told me point blank that he will take my network over, he even said he'd take over freenode, and use his new powers to take down world governments, and that he was "the one".Fun times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30296844</id>
	<title>Re:the rationale involved has already been explain</title>
	<author>sammy baby</author>
	<datestamp>1259594160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that so shocking?</p><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>"I hear this all the time,"  [Craigslist CEO] Buckmaster says. "You guys are so primitive, you are like cavemen. Don't you have any sense of aesthetic? But the people I hear it from are invariably working for firms that want the job of redoing the site. In all the complaints and requests we get from users, this is never one of them. Time spent on the site, the number of people who post--we're the leader. It could be we're doing one or two things right."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that so shocking ? From TFA : " I hear this all the time , " [ Craigslist CEO ] Buckmaster says .
" You guys are so primitive , you are like cavemen .
Do n't you have any sense of aesthetic ?
But the people I hear it from are invariably working for firms that want the job of redoing the site .
In all the complaints and requests we get from users , this is never one of them .
Time spent on the site , the number of people who post--we 're the leader .
It could be we 're doing one or two things right .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that so shocking?From TFA:"I hear this all the time,"  [Craigslist CEO] Buckmaster says.
"You guys are so primitive, you are like cavemen.
Don't you have any sense of aesthetic?
But the people I hear it from are invariably working for firms that want the job of redoing the site.
In all the complaints and requests we get from users, this is never one of them.
Time spent on the site, the number of people who post--we're the leader.
It could be we're doing one or two things right.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292740</id>
	<title>Mashups... Last year's cloud computing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mashups... People still dabble with those?</p><p>I still don't know of anyone who actually uses them. None of the developers I know use them, even the ones they had created for themselves at one point. Most non-technical people still have no idea what mashups are.</p><p>I think we'll find cloud computing to be much like mashups; nothing but hype in the end. A few bloggers raved about them, the ones that were produced really didn't do anything useful, and they're soon forgotten about. A relic of the failed "Web 2.0" experiment, if you will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mashups... People still dabble with those ? I still do n't know of anyone who actually uses them .
None of the developers I know use them , even the ones they had created for themselves at one point .
Most non-technical people still have no idea what mashups are.I think we 'll find cloud computing to be much like mashups ; nothing but hype in the end .
A few bloggers raved about them , the ones that were produced really did n't do anything useful , and they 're soon forgotten about .
A relic of the failed " Web 2.0 " experiment , if you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mashups... People still dabble with those?I still don't know of anyone who actually uses them.
None of the developers I know use them, even the ones they had created for themselves at one point.
Most non-technical people still have no idea what mashups are.I think we'll find cloud computing to be much like mashups; nothing but hype in the end.
A few bloggers raved about them, the ones that were produced really didn't do anything useful, and they're soon forgotten about.
A relic of the failed "Web 2.0" experiment, if you will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299552</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the days that Craigslist was useful...</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1259606880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar experience here.  I used to look at their real
estate ads a lot.  I've almost totally replaced them with
a site run by a nationwide broker that provides open access
to MLS.  Craigslist is right about not having any flash on their
site; but they're wrong about not having even the most simple
things in their DB.  For example, I can't reliably separate mobile
homes from condos from SFRs.  Any decent MLS-based search will do that.
These would be very simple features to implement, and CL wouldn't
have to Flash their web site to do it.</p><p>OTOH, CL still rules for apartments.  It's the best way to figure
out what an "average rent for a studio" is in a town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar experience here .
I used to look at their real estate ads a lot .
I 've almost totally replaced them with a site run by a nationwide broker that provides open access to MLS .
Craigslist is right about not having any flash on their site ; but they 're wrong about not having even the most simple things in their DB .
For example , I ca n't reliably separate mobile homes from condos from SFRs .
Any decent MLS-based search will do that .
These would be very simple features to implement , and CL would n't have to Flash their web site to do it.OTOH , CL still rules for apartments .
It 's the best way to figure out what an " average rent for a studio " is in a town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar experience here.
I used to look at their real
estate ads a lot.
I've almost totally replaced them with
a site run by a nationwide broker that provides open access
to MLS.
Craigslist is right about not having any flash on their
site; but they're wrong about not having even the most simple
things in their DB.
For example, I can't reliably separate mobile
homes from condos from SFRs.
Any decent MLS-based search will do that.
These would be very simple features to implement, and CL wouldn't
have to Flash their web site to do it.OTOH, CL still rules for apartments.
It's the best way to figure
out what an "average rent for a studio" is in a town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299076</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"s/information retrieval/communication"</p><p>fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" s/information retrieval/communication " fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"s/information retrieval/communication"fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293194</id>
	<title>Fow what it's worth...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've moved a lot the last few years. I find personally that craigslist was mostly genuine in areas with a lot of smaller towns, whereas in larger metro areas, it's generally loaded with spam and scams.</p><p>That being said, it's definitely easier to find yourself a happy ending massage parlor in the bigger areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've moved a lot the last few years .
I find personally that craigslist was mostly genuine in areas with a lot of smaller towns , whereas in larger metro areas , it 's generally loaded with spam and scams.That being said , it 's definitely easier to find yourself a happy ending massage parlor in the bigger areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've moved a lot the last few years.
I find personally that craigslist was mostly genuine in areas with a lot of smaller towns, whereas in larger metro areas, it's generally loaded with spam and scams.That being said, it's definitely easier to find yourself a happy ending massage parlor in the bigger areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295718</id>
	<title>Solution, hides the referer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259584620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>create a middle page, that meta-refreshes to the craigs lists sub page.<br>The referer will not follow, problem solved!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>create a middle page , that meta-refreshes to the craigs lists sub page.The referer will not follow , problem solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>create a middle page, that meta-refreshes to the craigs lists sub page.The referer will not follow, problem solved!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100</id>
	<title>Back in the days that Craigslist was useful...</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1259685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I can't comment on the logic behind the actions documented here, I can definitely say a word or two on what I believe to be the end of Craigslist's usefulness (at least for me).</p><p>About two years ago, I used Craigslist for <b>everything.</b> From iPhone purchases to small free stuff in my neighborhood (and others), Craigslist did it all. I even used its Personals section, which I actually had some success with (NO, not the NSA area...get your head out of there!).</p><p>Nowadays, every time I try to use Craigslist for those same purposes, I leave utterly disappointed. Almost every search I've run on the site has returned 95\% SPAM. It's ridiculous that I can't trust a single entry because spam on there has gotten clever enough to resemble real listings. If you're even thinking of finding a mate on there, don't; it's a cesspool of fakes and cheap prostitutes. If I've left Craigslist for that reason, so has many other people, which means that it gets more noise, less hits.</p><p>I understand that the service is free, but let's put things in perspective. This very site sees ridiculously high traffic on a daily basis, yet does a very good job at moderating spam postings on EVERY discussion. We get dupes and stupidity, sure, but not (that much) spam.</p><p>Kind of sad, really. I shouldn't have to use eBay to buy something from a seller 5 miles away and hope that he's cool with local pickup...</p><p>(BTW: That project is <b>awesome.</b>)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I ca n't comment on the logic behind the actions documented here , I can definitely say a word or two on what I believe to be the end of Craigslist 's usefulness ( at least for me ) .About two years ago , I used Craigslist for everything .
From iPhone purchases to small free stuff in my neighborhood ( and others ) , Craigslist did it all .
I even used its Personals section , which I actually had some success with ( NO , not the NSA area...get your head out of there !
) .Nowadays , every time I try to use Craigslist for those same purposes , I leave utterly disappointed .
Almost every search I 've run on the site has returned 95 \ % SPAM .
It 's ridiculous that I ca n't trust a single entry because spam on there has gotten clever enough to resemble real listings .
If you 're even thinking of finding a mate on there , do n't ; it 's a cesspool of fakes and cheap prostitutes .
If I 've left Craigslist for that reason , so has many other people , which means that it gets more noise , less hits.I understand that the service is free , but let 's put things in perspective .
This very site sees ridiculously high traffic on a daily basis , yet does a very good job at moderating spam postings on EVERY discussion .
We get dupes and stupidity , sure , but not ( that much ) spam.Kind of sad , really .
I should n't have to use eBay to buy something from a seller 5 miles away and hope that he 's cool with local pickup... ( BTW : That project is awesome .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can't comment on the logic behind the actions documented here, I can definitely say a word or two on what I believe to be the end of Craigslist's usefulness (at least for me).About two years ago, I used Craigslist for everything.
From iPhone purchases to small free stuff in my neighborhood (and others), Craigslist did it all.
I even used its Personals section, which I actually had some success with (NO, not the NSA area...get your head out of there!
).Nowadays, every time I try to use Craigslist for those same purposes, I leave utterly disappointed.
Almost every search I've run on the site has returned 95\% SPAM.
It's ridiculous that I can't trust a single entry because spam on there has gotten clever enough to resemble real listings.
If you're even thinking of finding a mate on there, don't; it's a cesspool of fakes and cheap prostitutes.
If I've left Craigslist for that reason, so has many other people, which means that it gets more noise, less hits.I understand that the service is free, but let's put things in perspective.
This very site sees ridiculously high traffic on a daily basis, yet does a very good job at moderating spam postings on EVERY discussion.
We get dupes and stupidity, sure, but not (that much) spam.Kind of sad, really.
I shouldn't have to use eBay to buy something from a seller 5 miles away and hope that he's cool with local pickup...(BTW: That project is awesome.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738</id>
	<title>the rationale involved has already been explained</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/17-09/ff\_craigslist" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wired.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here [ wired.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here [wired.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293890</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>genner</author>
	<datestamp>1259691960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just 1997 with a little more online bandwidth.</p><p>There, I wrote it.</p></div><p>and a 747 is just a  modified Kity Hawk that flies a little faster. <br>
I mean all anyone uses airplanes for is for flying around. There haven't been any real improvements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just 1997 with a little more online bandwidth.There , I wrote it.and a 747 is just a modified Kity Hawk that flies a little faster .
I mean all anyone uses airplanes for is for flying around .
There have n't been any real improvements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just 1997 with a little more online bandwidth.There, I wrote it.and a 747 is just a  modified Kity Hawk that flies a little faster.
I mean all anyone uses airplanes for is for flying around.
There haven't been any real improvements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30297238</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talking about Craigslist and Grease Monkey, did you try Craigslist Fusion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking about Craigslist and Grease Monkey , did you try Craigslist Fusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking about Craigslist and Grease Monkey, did you try Craigslist Fusion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293828</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the days that Craigslist was useful...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've overwhelmingly had an excellent CL experience.  It is one of the few internet sites that has a sociogeolocational (yes, I made that up) relevance.</p><p>Yes, I've had a spam message or two, in the personal sections.  But it's the best for getting music gear, and maybe motorcycles (if I get the money!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've overwhelmingly had an excellent CL experience .
It is one of the few internet sites that has a sociogeolocational ( yes , I made that up ) relevance.Yes , I 've had a spam message or two , in the personal sections .
But it 's the best for getting music gear , and maybe motorcycles ( if I get the money !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've overwhelmingly had an excellent CL experience.
It is one of the few internet sites that has a sociogeolocational (yes, I made that up) relevance.Yes, I've had a spam message or two, in the personal sections.
But it's the best for getting music gear, and maybe motorcycles (if I get the money!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292756</id>
	<title>Easily enough fixed.</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1259682060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bottle of Digital Draino will get those pipes unblocked quickly enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bottle of Digital Draino will get those pipes unblocked quickly enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bottle of Digital Draino will get those pipes unblocked quickly enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30307706</id>
	<title>Re:The reason is obvious</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259605320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this also includes <a href="http://www.google.com/xml" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/xml</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this also includes http : //www.google.com/xml [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this also includes http://www.google.com/xml [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30296336</id>
	<title>Wow.  Stealing from Dvorak!</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1259590860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New low for anonymous cowards!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New low for anonymous cowards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New low for anonymous cowards!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293756</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>Boycott BMG</author>
	<datestamp>1259691120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the way the computer scene operates. Everything is gussied up to look hip and new when it's really putting lipstick on a pig. When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses. These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing. That's it. Everything is a subset of those Big Five.</p></div><p>Err, I think you are neglecting one category that is probably driving more computer use than 3 of those 5 put together - <b>communication</b>.  In fact communication is the whole point of a bunch of these web 2.0 ideas.  They rely on social networking to, for instance, get recommendations for some purchase.  This existed before "web 2.0" of course, but these newfangled sites are supposed to make it "easier" and "more accessible" without having to trawl through message boards/google/whatever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the way the computer scene operates .
Everything is gussied up to look hip and new when it 's really putting lipstick on a pig .
When all is said and done , the computer is good for a limited number of uses .
These include calculations , entertainment , information retrieval , image manipulation , and word processing .
That 's it .
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.Err , I think you are neglecting one category that is probably driving more computer use than 3 of those 5 put together - communication .
In fact communication is the whole point of a bunch of these web 2.0 ideas .
They rely on social networking to , for instance , get recommendations for some purchase .
This existed before " web 2.0 " of course , but these newfangled sites are supposed to make it " easier " and " more accessible " without having to trawl through message boards/google/whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the way the computer scene operates.
Everything is gussied up to look hip and new when it's really putting lipstick on a pig.
When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses.
These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing.
That's it.
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.Err, I think you are neglecting one category that is probably driving more computer use than 3 of those 5 put together - communication.
In fact communication is the whole point of a bunch of these web 2.0 ideas.
They rely on social networking to, for instance, get recommendations for some purchase.
This existed before "web 2.0" of course, but these newfangled sites are supposed to make it "easier" and "more accessible" without having to trawl through message boards/google/whatever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293388</id>
	<title>Oh no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now how am I supposed get an rss feed of local prostitutes...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now how am I supposed get an rss feed of local prostitutes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now how am I supposed get an rss feed of local prostitutes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292954</id>
	<title>It has been this way for months, if not, years...</title>
	<author>Evildonald</author>
	<datestamp>1259683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>In breaking news!!  A new search website has been released called "Google"</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>In breaking news ! !
A new search website has been released called " Google "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In breaking news!!
A new search website has been released called "Google"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292804</id>
	<title>Pipes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this time I thought it was tubes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this time I thought it was tubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this time I thought it was tubes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293098</id>
	<title>Re:The reason is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this also could relate to maintaining a relatively level playing field for all. If even the fanciest CL ads are not too elaborate, then even the most casual computer user's ads will not necessarily look that much worse. Maybe limiting the technology makes it easier for non-tech savy folks to read, understand, and post on CL with success? The posting interface is so simple that even my grandma can whip up an ad with a picture and get responses to it in no time. If they allowed a whole lot more, average bargain hunters might feel more intimidated by the competition and post less ads. Maybe this is not their motivation, but it is something I actually like about the site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this also could relate to maintaining a relatively level playing field for all .
If even the fanciest CL ads are not too elaborate , then even the most casual computer user 's ads will not necessarily look that much worse .
Maybe limiting the technology makes it easier for non-tech savy folks to read , understand , and post on CL with success ?
The posting interface is so simple that even my grandma can whip up an ad with a picture and get responses to it in no time .
If they allowed a whole lot more , average bargain hunters might feel more intimidated by the competition and post less ads .
Maybe this is not their motivation , but it is something I actually like about the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this also could relate to maintaining a relatively level playing field for all.
If even the fanciest CL ads are not too elaborate, then even the most casual computer user's ads will not necessarily look that much worse.
Maybe limiting the technology makes it easier for non-tech savy folks to read, understand, and post on CL with success?
The posting interface is so simple that even my grandma can whip up an ad with a picture and get responses to it in no time.
If they allowed a whole lot more, average bargain hunters might feel more intimidated by the competition and post less ads.
Maybe this is not their motivation, but it is something I actually like about the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30297520</id>
	<title>Goddammit.</title>
	<author>xandroid</author>
	<datestamp>1259597760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess I'll spending my day re-implementing Yahoo Pipes on my own server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess I 'll spending my day re-implementing Yahoo Pipes on my own server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess I'll spending my day re-implementing Yahoo Pipes on my own server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30322292</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>SimonInOz</author>
	<datestamp>1259927160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah well, I'm getting old too.</p><p>But not as bitter as you, apparently.</p><p>($3,500 for a computer indeed! Why back in my day you had to carve them out of pure silicon crystals and power them with steam<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and get off my lawn)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah well , I 'm getting old too.But not as bitter as you , apparently .
( $ 3,500 for a computer indeed !
Why back in my day you had to carve them out of pure silicon crystals and power them with steam ... and get off my lawn )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah well, I'm getting old too.But not as bitter as you, apparently.
($3,500 for a computer indeed!
Why back in my day you had to carve them out of pure silicon crystals and power them with steam ... and get off my lawn)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30296302</id>
	<title>Interesting that they call themselves a...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... startup, and then claim to be a non-commercial use.  Is their plan to be another internet company with no way of making money?</p><p>My guess is they are just non-commercial while in development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... startup , and then claim to be a non-commercial use .
Is their plan to be another internet company with no way of making money ? My guess is they are just non-commercial while in development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... startup, and then claim to be a non-commercial use.
Is their plan to be another internet company with no way of making money?My guess is they are just non-commercial while in development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293050</id>
	<title>One Yahoo is enough</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1259684580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blocking some irresponsible Yahoo's pipes is the only way to stop it from reproducing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blocking some irresponsible Yahoo 's pipes is the only way to stop it from reproducing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blocking some irresponsible Yahoo's pipes is the only way to stop it from reproducing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295858</id>
	<title>Re:the rationale involved has already been explain</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259586120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[...] On this site, contrary to every principle of usability and common sense, you can't easily browse pictures of the apartments for rent. [...] Craigslist is not only gigantic in scale and totally resistant to business cooperation, it is also mostly free.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>That's why they don't allow browsing by images: bandwidth. They're providing the best service possible given the constraints they've adopted, and I happen to hope they don't change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] On this site , contrary to every principle of usability and common sense , you ca n't easily browse pictures of the apartments for rent .
[ ... ] Craigslist is not only gigantic in scale and totally resistant to business cooperation , it is also mostly free .
That 's why they do n't allow browsing by images : bandwidth .
They 're providing the best service possible given the constraints they 've adopted , and I happen to hope they do n't change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] On this site, contrary to every principle of usability and common sense, you can't easily browse pictures of the apartments for rent.
[...] Craigslist is not only gigantic in scale and totally resistant to business cooperation, it is also mostly free.
That's why they don't allow browsing by images: bandwidth.
They're providing the best service possible given the constraints they've adopted, and I happen to hope they don't change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30297354</id>
	<title>Roll Your Own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo Pipes is a great idea, but making any production worthy project with it is asking for trouble.  That thing is sooooo slow to process a feed.  Roll your own, if you had a good idea to begin with leaving yahoo pipes out of the project will speed up the run time *10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo Pipes is a great idea , but making any production worthy project with it is asking for trouble .
That thing is sooooo slow to process a feed .
Roll your own , if you had a good idea to begin with leaving yahoo pipes out of the project will speed up the run time * 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo Pipes is a great idea, but making any production worthy project with it is asking for trouble.
That thing is sooooo slow to process a feed.
Roll your own, if you had a good idea to begin with leaving yahoo pipes out of the project will speed up the run time *10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293214</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I appreciate that you did! You took the words out of my mouth.</p><p>When I was a bit younger, I remember being all sorts of excited over the newest processors, graphics cards and all of those whiz-bang devices. The performance boosts you could get from overclocking your CPU, for instance, actually made a difference between tolerable and FLYING FAST, which let you do things with your computer that you couldn't do before (at least acceptably). Linux was nowhere near as complete as now, so getting that to work was fun sometimes...</p><p>Nowadays, there's nothing to get excited about anymore. As you said, when you can get a machine with a Core 2 Duo CPU running at over 2 GHz <i>each core</i> with gobs of memory and hard disk space and <i>usually</i> pretty decent graphics cards at less than $500 or so, it makes getting good performance easy. Furthermore, the benefits of getting better performance are slimming. Most apps are going to the web (including Office starting with Office 2010, which runs pretty nice), and the next wave of OSes seem to concentrate on how to better serve the low-end by co-opting the internet with the live desktop. Installing Linux is a nice alternative, but from my point of view, the result is nothing but an operating system that's functionally indifferent from Windows and inferior in terms of compatibility and application support.</p><p>Then again, it could be because I'm "getting old." (Though at 22, I hardly doubt it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I appreciate that you did !
You took the words out of my mouth.When I was a bit younger , I remember being all sorts of excited over the newest processors , graphics cards and all of those whiz-bang devices .
The performance boosts you could get from overclocking your CPU , for instance , actually made a difference between tolerable and FLYING FAST , which let you do things with your computer that you could n't do before ( at least acceptably ) .
Linux was nowhere near as complete as now , so getting that to work was fun sometimes...Nowadays , there 's nothing to get excited about anymore .
As you said , when you can get a machine with a Core 2 Duo CPU running at over 2 GHz each core with gobs of memory and hard disk space and usually pretty decent graphics cards at less than $ 500 or so , it makes getting good performance easy .
Furthermore , the benefits of getting better performance are slimming .
Most apps are going to the web ( including Office starting with Office 2010 , which runs pretty nice ) , and the next wave of OSes seem to concentrate on how to better serve the low-end by co-opting the internet with the live desktop .
Installing Linux is a nice alternative , but from my point of view , the result is nothing but an operating system that 's functionally indifferent from Windows and inferior in terms of compatibility and application support.Then again , it could be because I 'm " getting old .
" ( Though at 22 , I hardly doubt it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I appreciate that you did!
You took the words out of my mouth.When I was a bit younger, I remember being all sorts of excited over the newest processors, graphics cards and all of those whiz-bang devices.
The performance boosts you could get from overclocking your CPU, for instance, actually made a difference between tolerable and FLYING FAST, which let you do things with your computer that you couldn't do before (at least acceptably).
Linux was nowhere near as complete as now, so getting that to work was fun sometimes...Nowadays, there's nothing to get excited about anymore.
As you said, when you can get a machine with a Core 2 Duo CPU running at over 2 GHz each core with gobs of memory and hard disk space and usually pretty decent graphics cards at less than $500 or so, it makes getting good performance easy.
Furthermore, the benefits of getting better performance are slimming.
Most apps are going to the web (including Office starting with Office 2010, which runs pretty nice), and the next wave of OSes seem to concentrate on how to better serve the low-end by co-opting the internet with the live desktop.
Installing Linux is a nice alternative, but from my point of view, the result is nothing but an operating system that's functionally indifferent from Windows and inferior in terms of compatibility and application support.Then again, it could be because I'm "getting old.
" (Though at 22, I hardly doubt it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295602</id>
	<title>Re:Newmark &amp; Murdoch</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1259583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's still early in the day for me, but so far your post is the most stupid and idiotic piece of shit that I've read.</p><p>Congratulations, or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still early in the day for me , but so far your post is the most stupid and idiotic piece of shit that I 've read.Congratulations , or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still early in the day for me, but so far your post is the most stupid and idiotic piece of shit that I've read.Congratulations, or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293400</id>
	<title>Overkill, innit?</title>
	<author>moniker</author>
	<datestamp>1259688240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I tried to use Yahoo Pipes (on InstantWatcher.com), I couldn't build a pipe because Yahoo obeyed the robots.txt file. Redirecting based on referer seems like overkill when they can just change their robots.txt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I tried to use Yahoo Pipes ( on InstantWatcher.com ) , I could n't build a pipe because Yahoo obeyed the robots.txt file .
Redirecting based on referer seems like overkill when they can just change their robots.txt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I tried to use Yahoo Pipes (on InstantWatcher.com), I couldn't build a pipe because Yahoo obeyed the robots.txt file.
Redirecting based on referer seems like overkill when they can just change their robots.txt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30294252</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the days that Craigslist was useful...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259695860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About 50\% of the craigslist ads I've responded to were from the same scammer, who tried to get me to paypal them "because they were out of town". Unfortunately, craigslist doesn't have a "fraud" flag, nor are they doing <em>anything</em> to prevent this kind of fraud spam. I tend to look at my local listings every day and the percentage which is the same crap that the same idiots have been spreading across twelve posts (like the dipshit parting his VW camper... and listing every part separately) for months now has only been going up. Craigslist is well on its way to total uselessness, and their refusal to allow others to mangle the data is a contributing factor. Nine times out of ten if I use google to search craigslist, everything I'm interested in is a deleted posting, so I have the choice between breaking the AUP by using a scraper site to hit multiple CLs, or just going to eBay. Luckily, I have no particular use for CL personals ATM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 50 \ % of the craigslist ads I 've responded to were from the same scammer , who tried to get me to paypal them " because they were out of town " .
Unfortunately , craigslist does n't have a " fraud " flag , nor are they doing anything to prevent this kind of fraud spam .
I tend to look at my local listings every day and the percentage which is the same crap that the same idiots have been spreading across twelve posts ( like the dipshit parting his VW camper... and listing every part separately ) for months now has only been going up .
Craigslist is well on its way to total uselessness , and their refusal to allow others to mangle the data is a contributing factor .
Nine times out of ten if I use google to search craigslist , everything I 'm interested in is a deleted posting , so I have the choice between breaking the AUP by using a scraper site to hit multiple CLs , or just going to eBay .
Luckily , I have no particular use for CL personals ATM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 50\% of the craigslist ads I've responded to were from the same scammer, who tried to get me to paypal them "because they were out of town".
Unfortunately, craigslist doesn't have a "fraud" flag, nor are they doing anything to prevent this kind of fraud spam.
I tend to look at my local listings every day and the percentage which is the same crap that the same idiots have been spreading across twelve posts (like the dipshit parting his VW camper... and listing every part separately) for months now has only been going up.
Craigslist is well on its way to total uselessness, and their refusal to allow others to mangle the data is a contributing factor.
Nine times out of ten if I use google to search craigslist, everything I'm interested in is a deleted posting, so I have the choice between breaking the AUP by using a scraper site to hit multiple CLs, or just going to eBay.
Luckily, I have no particular use for CL personals ATM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746</id>
	<title>I Wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand that Craigslist doesn't want to go out of it's way to make it's website more elaborate, (In fact, I appreciate it) but I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.  (In the same way greasemonkey is so great)  I wonder what they are trying to do with this move.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that Craigslist does n't want to go out of it 's way to make it 's website more elaborate , ( In fact , I appreciate it ) but I do n't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site .
( In the same way greasemonkey is so great ) I wonder what they are trying to do with this move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that Craigslist doesn't want to go out of it's way to make it's website more elaborate, (In fact, I appreciate it) but I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.
(In the same way greasemonkey is so great)  I wonder what they are trying to do with this move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292874</id>
	<title>one less link aggregator</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1259682960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i hope all these link agregators die. good stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i hope all these link agregators die .
good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hope all these link agregators die.
good stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292800</id>
	<title>The reason is obvious</title>
	<author>bigjarom</author>
	<datestamp>1259682360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Craigslist want to make it moderately difficult to quickly access its listings for more than one location at a time. As soon as it becomes super easy to access listings and perform more powerful searches, then the spammers and corporations will move in and make craigslist into what ebay has become in recent years. I personally want craigslist to stay just how it is, and so I support any attempt to block access for silly things like Yahoo Pipes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Craigslist want to make it moderately difficult to quickly access its listings for more than one location at a time .
As soon as it becomes super easy to access listings and perform more powerful searches , then the spammers and corporations will move in and make craigslist into what ebay has become in recent years .
I personally want craigslist to stay just how it is , and so I support any attempt to block access for silly things like Yahoo Pipes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craigslist want to make it moderately difficult to quickly access its listings for more than one location at a time.
As soon as it becomes super easy to access listings and perform more powerful searches, then the spammers and corporations will move in and make craigslist into what ebay has become in recent years.
I personally want craigslist to stay just how it is, and so I support any attempt to block access for silly things like Yahoo Pipes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30315426</id>
	<title>Vampire Squid dies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vampire Squid (Yahoo Pipes) attaches to Craig's face and tries to draw and cash value into himself with its relentless blood funnel .</p><p>Craig stuffs garlic in its mouth and hammers a stake in it and throws it into the dawn light where it turns into a puff of smoke.</p><p>So I should feel bad for the bloodsucker?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vampire Squid ( Yahoo Pipes ) attaches to Craig 's face and tries to draw and cash value into himself with its relentless blood funnel .Craig stuffs garlic in its mouth and hammers a stake in it and throws it into the dawn light where it turns into a puff of smoke.So I should feel bad for the bloodsucker ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vampire Squid (Yahoo Pipes) attaches to Craig's face and tries to draw and cash value into himself with its relentless blood funnel .Craig stuffs garlic in its mouth and hammers a stake in it and throws it into the dawn light where it turns into a puff of smoke.So I should feel bad for the bloodsucker?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295656</id>
	<title>Your post is seriously flawed</title>
	<author>FrankDerKte</author>
	<datestamp>1259583960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're probably right about the Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0 thing. But the rest of your post is just ignorant.</p><p>First, let's consider Moore's law. As it is based on the size of transistors it will come to an end. There is a physical limit to the size of transistors, just think about the size of an atom, for example.</p><p>Then your five usage categories for computers, namely calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing, are just wrong.</p><p>Computers can do exactly on thing, calculations. Every other use is derived from this. This aside let's look at your other four categories.</p><p>Entertainment - Sure this is one use, but nearly everything can and is used for entertainment. And entertainment was there long before computers so I don't see how this is a category for computer usage. Just think about books, theaters, sports, games and the like.</p><p>Information retrieval - You are right here, but you know database management is not the same as information retrieval. Information retrieval is a technology to retrieve information relevant to a specific topic. A database can be used for that, but database management is the technology used to optimise databases. Information retrieval includes crawlers to get the information, generation of an index, searching for relevant content for a given request, etc.</p><p>Image manipulation - This is just a subset of signal processing. Signal processing (including generation) comes down to generate and manipulate signals of arbitrary dimensions. If you are using 2 dimensions, these signals could be images, if you are using 1 dimension your signal could be an audio signal. So you are totaly ignorant to image generation, processing, audio manipulation, generation, processing, pattern matching, machine learning,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Word processing - This is true, I think.</p><p>Also you are forgetting about improving the efficiency in terms of energy consumption, lowering the entry barrier in terms of ease of use and cost, security, robotics, controlling factories, simulation (not for entertainment), autonomous systems and as pointed out before the most common use for computers, communication.</p><p>Therefore, as your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong. It seems you used a computer 20 years ago, never tried anything new and you are predicting the future with no imagination.</p><p>In computer science this is known as garbage in, garbage out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're probably right about the Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0 thing .
But the rest of your post is just ignorant.First , let 's consider Moore 's law .
As it is based on the size of transistors it will come to an end .
There is a physical limit to the size of transistors , just think about the size of an atom , for example.Then your five usage categories for computers , namely calculations , entertainment , information retrieval , image manipulation , and word processing , are just wrong.Computers can do exactly on thing , calculations .
Every other use is derived from this .
This aside let 's look at your other four categories.Entertainment - Sure this is one use , but nearly everything can and is used for entertainment .
And entertainment was there long before computers so I do n't see how this is a category for computer usage .
Just think about books , theaters , sports , games and the like.Information retrieval - You are right here , but you know database management is not the same as information retrieval .
Information retrieval is a technology to retrieve information relevant to a specific topic .
A database can be used for that , but database management is the technology used to optimise databases .
Information retrieval includes crawlers to get the information , generation of an index , searching for relevant content for a given request , etc.Image manipulation - This is just a subset of signal processing .
Signal processing ( including generation ) comes down to generate and manipulate signals of arbitrary dimensions .
If you are using 2 dimensions , these signals could be images , if you are using 1 dimension your signal could be an audio signal .
So you are totaly ignorant to image generation , processing , audio manipulation , generation , processing , pattern matching , machine learning , ...Word processing - This is true , I think.Also you are forgetting about improving the efficiency in terms of energy consumption , lowering the entry barrier in terms of ease of use and cost , security , robotics , controlling factories , simulation ( not for entertainment ) , autonomous systems and as pointed out before the most common use for computers , communication.Therefore , as your assumptions are wrong , your conclusion is wrong .
It seems you used a computer 20 years ago , never tried anything new and you are predicting the future with no imagination.In computer science this is known as garbage in , garbage out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're probably right about the Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0 thing.
But the rest of your post is just ignorant.First, let's consider Moore's law.
As it is based on the size of transistors it will come to an end.
There is a physical limit to the size of transistors, just think about the size of an atom, for example.Then your five usage categories for computers, namely calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing, are just wrong.Computers can do exactly on thing, calculations.
Every other use is derived from this.
This aside let's look at your other four categories.Entertainment - Sure this is one use, but nearly everything can and is used for entertainment.
And entertainment was there long before computers so I don't see how this is a category for computer usage.
Just think about books, theaters, sports, games and the like.Information retrieval - You are right here, but you know database management is not the same as information retrieval.
Information retrieval is a technology to retrieve information relevant to a specific topic.
A database can be used for that, but database management is the technology used to optimise databases.
Information retrieval includes crawlers to get the information, generation of an index, searching for relevant content for a given request, etc.Image manipulation - This is just a subset of signal processing.
Signal processing (including generation) comes down to generate and manipulate signals of arbitrary dimensions.
If you are using 2 dimensions, these signals could be images, if you are using 1 dimension your signal could be an audio signal.
So you are totaly ignorant to image generation, processing, audio manipulation, generation, processing, pattern matching, machine learning, ...Word processing - This is true, I think.Also you are forgetting about improving the efficiency in terms of energy consumption, lowering the entry barrier in terms of ease of use and cost, security, robotics, controlling factories, simulation (not for entertainment), autonomous systems and as pointed out before the most common use for computers, communication.Therefore, as your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong.
It seems you used a computer 20 years ago, never tried anything new and you are predicting the future with no imagination.In computer science this is known as garbage in, garbage out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293140</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.</i></p><p>Simple - they have zero interest in letting someone else get between them and their market.</p><p>The only real "power" Craig has comes from the size of his userbase, and he knows that.  If Company-X starts offering<br>"Craigslist, now with Fleem(tm)", and somehow grows to serve a significant portion of the Craigslist user<br>base, that gives Company-X power over Craigslist itself - They could potentially fork away on their own, rather than<br>as a middle-man, and leave Craigslist itself a ghosttown.</p><p>As another point, Craig <b>wants</b> a totally vanilla interface, a fact that I think most of us appreciate (at the same<br>time that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry, <i>another</i> fact that most of us appreciate).  If for no more reason than petulantly<br>insisting his users get the interface <i>he</i> wants, he has the option of making it as hard as possible for third<br>parties to change that.</p></div><p>effin yea! couldn't have articulated it in a better way</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.Simple - they have zero interest in letting someone else get between them and their market.The only real " power " Craig has comes from the size of his userbase , and he knows that .
If Company-X starts offering " Craigslist , now with Fleem ( tm ) " , and somehow grows to serve a significant portion of the Craigslist userbase , that gives Company-X power over Craigslist itself - They could potentially fork away on their own , rather thanas a middle-man , and leave Craigslist itself a ghosttown.As another point , Craig wants a totally vanilla interface , a fact that I think most of us appreciate ( at the sametime that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry , another fact that most of us appreciate ) .
If for no more reason than petulantlyinsisting his users get the interface he wants , he has the option of making it as hard as possible for thirdparties to change that.effin yea !
could n't have articulated it in a better way</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.Simple - they have zero interest in letting someone else get between them and their market.The only real "power" Craig has comes from the size of his userbase, and he knows that.
If Company-X starts offering"Craigslist, now with Fleem(tm)", and somehow grows to serve a significant portion of the Craigslist userbase, that gives Company-X power over Craigslist itself - They could potentially fork away on their own, rather thanas a middle-man, and leave Craigslist itself a ghosttown.As another point, Craig wants a totally vanilla interface, a fact that I think most of us appreciate (at the sametime that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry, another fact that most of us appreciate).
If for no more reason than petulantlyinsisting his users get the interface he wants, he has the option of making it as hard as possible for thirdparties to change that.effin yea!
couldn't have articulated it in a better way
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299784</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the days that Craigslist was useful...</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1259607900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>About 50\% of the craigslist ads I've responded to were from the same scammer, who tried to get me to paypal them "because they were out of town".</p></div><p>Interesting. My experience trying to sell anything over $20 has had just about the same problem ("I'll pay you 20\% extra, oh and I need you to send it to me in another country).<br>
<br>
I really think creating an API for viewing posts in different ways would really help Craigslist. They could keep the posting method the same which both protects their market (you still have to go to Craigslist to post) but allows someone else to do the work on trying new search features, data organization, etc.If they are concerned at preserving small communities, they leave contacting the poster out of the API or require a redirection to the actual post.<br> <br>
Since Craigslist doesn't make any money on completed transactions, their business model should be totally preserved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>About 50 \ % of the craigslist ads I 've responded to were from the same scammer , who tried to get me to paypal them " because they were out of town " .Interesting .
My experience trying to sell anything over $ 20 has had just about the same problem ( " I 'll pay you 20 \ % extra , oh and I need you to send it to me in another country ) .
I really think creating an API for viewing posts in different ways would really help Craigslist .
They could keep the posting method the same which both protects their market ( you still have to go to Craigslist to post ) but allows someone else to do the work on trying new search features , data organization , etc.If they are concerned at preserving small communities , they leave contacting the poster out of the API or require a redirection to the actual post .
Since Craigslist does n't make any money on completed transactions , their business model should be totally preserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 50\% of the craigslist ads I've responded to were from the same scammer, who tried to get me to paypal them "because they were out of town".Interesting.
My experience trying to sell anything over $20 has had just about the same problem ("I'll pay you 20\% extra, oh and I need you to send it to me in another country).
I really think creating an API for viewing posts in different ways would really help Craigslist.
They could keep the posting method the same which both protects their market (you still have to go to Craigslist to post) but allows someone else to do the work on trying new search features, data organization, etc.If they are concerned at preserving small communities, they leave contacting the poster out of the API or require a redirection to the actual post.
Since Craigslist doesn't make any money on completed transactions, their business model should be totally preserved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30294252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299498</id>
	<title>Why craigslist is simple.</title>
	<author>QJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1259606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you start adding fancy features, the site starts becoming <i>responsible</i> for the content. The atmosphere on craigslist is one that, if you get screwed over, it's entirely your own fault. On eBay, people can run to customer support if there's a scam. On craigslist it's such a basic site that it gives a real atmosphere of all responsibility being placed on the users.</p><p>It makes sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you start adding fancy features , the site starts becoming responsible for the content .
The atmosphere on craigslist is one that , if you get screwed over , it 's entirely your own fault .
On eBay , people can run to customer support if there 's a scam .
On craigslist it 's such a basic site that it gives a real atmosphere of all responsibility being placed on the users.It makes sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you start adding fancy features, the site starts becoming responsible for the content.
The atmosphere on craigslist is one that, if you get screwed over, it's entirely your own fault.
On eBay, people can run to customer support if there's a scam.
On craigslist it's such a basic site that it gives a real atmosphere of all responsibility being placed on the users.It makes sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295600</id>
	<title>Re:Did this long ago ...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259583240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a couple of pipes that I use as filters, and they get wedged all the time (one of the feeds starts on feedburner, so my initial guess is that there is no problem with pulling that feed, but I haven't dug into it, the feeds aren't real important).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a couple of pipes that I use as filters , and they get wedged all the time ( one of the feeds starts on feedburner , so my initial guess is that there is no problem with pulling that feed , but I have n't dug into it , the feeds are n't real important ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a couple of pipes that I use as filters, and they get wedged all the time (one of the feeds starts on feedburner, so my initial guess is that there is no problem with pulling that feed, but I haven't dug into it, the feeds aren't real important).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293058</id>
	<title>Craigslist Blocks Yahoo Pipes</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this means that Craigslist has plugged up the portion of the Intertubes belonging to Yahoo?  Sounds like lawsuit material!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this means that Craigslist has plugged up the portion of the Intertubes belonging to Yahoo ?
Sounds like lawsuit material !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this means that Craigslist has plugged up the portion of the Intertubes belonging to Yahoo?
Sounds like lawsuit material!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293294</id>
	<title>fuck3r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reaper Nor Do the despite the in the sun. In the are tied up in about bylaws interest in having world. GNAA members are looking very walk up to a play</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reaper Nor Do the despite the in the sun .
In the are tied up in about bylaws interest in having world .
GNAA members are looking very walk up to a play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reaper Nor Do the despite the in the sun.
In the are tied up in about bylaws interest in having world.
GNAA members are looking very walk up to a play</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293510</id>
	<title>Newmark &amp; Murdoch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rupert Murdoch whines and complains about Google "stealing" traffic by bundling his content/data to work in different ways: Slashdotters get up in arms, saying he's "missing the point" or is somehow mentally defective and pushing a failed business model.</p><p>Craig Newmark shuts out Yahoo for unstated reasons: Slashdotters support him and think he's doing a great job, and should keep preventing other people from building apps that bundle his content/data to work in different ways.</p><p>Ah Slashdot, is there anything you can't be hypocritical about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch whines and complains about Google " stealing " traffic by bundling his content/data to work in different ways : Slashdotters get up in arms , saying he 's " missing the point " or is somehow mentally defective and pushing a failed business model.Craig Newmark shuts out Yahoo for unstated reasons : Slashdotters support him and think he 's doing a great job , and should keep preventing other people from building apps that bundle his content/data to work in different ways.Ah Slashdot , is there anything you ca n't be hypocritical about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch whines and complains about Google "stealing" traffic by bundling his content/data to work in different ways: Slashdotters get up in arms, saying he's "missing the point" or is somehow mentally defective and pushing a failed business model.Craig Newmark shuts out Yahoo for unstated reasons: Slashdotters support him and think he's doing a great job, and should keep preventing other people from building apps that bundle his content/data to work in different ways.Ah Slashdot, is there anything you can't be hypocritical about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293234</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1259686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I understand that Craigslist doesn't want to go out of it's way to make it's website more elaborate, (In fact, I appreciate it) but I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.  (In the same way greasemonkey is so great)  I wonder what they are trying to do with this move.</p></div><p>Greasemonkey is great... until you get some vague but insistent problem report regarding your site, and after spending significant time trying to figure out why the HECK this particular user insists a particular site function is "broken in Firefox", you eventually figure out he's a Greasemonkey user and has no idea what he's doing.</p><p>Not that I'm bitter or anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that Craigslist does n't want to go out of it 's way to make it 's website more elaborate , ( In fact , I appreciate it ) but I do n't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site .
( In the same way greasemonkey is so great ) I wonder what they are trying to do with this move.Greasemonkey is great... until you get some vague but insistent problem report regarding your site , and after spending significant time trying to figure out why the HECK this particular user insists a particular site function is " broken in Firefox " , you eventually figure out he 's a Greasemonkey user and has no idea what he 's doing.Not that I 'm bitter or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that Craigslist doesn't want to go out of it's way to make it's website more elaborate, (In fact, I appreciate it) but I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.
(In the same way greasemonkey is so great)  I wonder what they are trying to do with this move.Greasemonkey is great... until you get some vague but insistent problem report regarding your site, and after spending significant time trying to figure out why the HECK this particular user insists a particular site function is "broken in Firefox", you eventually figure out he's a Greasemonkey user and has no idea what he's doing.Not that I'm bitter or anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293678</id>
	<title>Re:the rationale involved has already been explain</title>
	<author>zubinwadia</author>
	<datestamp>1259690400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a mess. Just happens to be a little idiosyncratic - two years ago I tried to offer a complete web2.0y rebuild of their site for free and they refused!

<a href="http://zwadia.com/" title="zwadia.com" rel="nofollow">http://zwadia.com/</a> [zwadia.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a mess .
Just happens to be a little idiosyncratic - two years ago I tried to offer a complete web2.0y rebuild of their site for free and they refused !
http : //zwadia.com/ [ zwadia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a mess.
Just happens to be a little idiosyncratic - two years ago I tried to offer a complete web2.0y rebuild of their site for free and they refused!
http://zwadia.com/ [zwadia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1259684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.</i> <br>
<br>
Simple - they have zero interest in letting someone else get between them and their market.<br>
<br>
The only real "power" Craig has comes from the size of his userbase, and he knows that.  If Company-X starts offering
"Craigslist, now with Fleem(tm)", and somehow grows to serve a significant portion of the Craigslist user
base, that gives Company-X power over Craigslist itself - They could potentially fork away on their own, rather than
as a middle-man, and leave Craigslist itself a ghosttown.<br>
<br>
As another point, Craig <b>wants</b> a totally vanilla interface, a fact that I think most of us appreciate (at the same
time that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry, <i>another</i> fact that most of us appreciate).  If for no more reason than petulantly
insisting his users get the interface <i>he</i> wants, he has the option of making it as hard as possible for third
parties to change that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site .
Simple - they have zero interest in letting someone else get between them and their market .
The only real " power " Craig has comes from the size of his userbase , and he knows that .
If Company-X starts offering " Craigslist , now with Fleem ( tm ) " , and somehow grows to serve a significant portion of the Craigslist user base , that gives Company-X power over Craigslist itself - They could potentially fork away on their own , rather than as a middle-man , and leave Craigslist itself a ghosttown .
As another point , Craig wants a totally vanilla interface , a fact that I think most of us appreciate ( at the same time that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry , another fact that most of us appreciate ) .
If for no more reason than petulantly insisting his users get the interface he wants , he has the option of making it as hard as possible for third parties to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand what purpose it serves to prevent others from adding their own features to the site.
Simple - they have zero interest in letting someone else get between them and their market.
The only real "power" Craig has comes from the size of his userbase, and he knows that.
If Company-X starts offering
"Craigslist, now with Fleem(tm)", and somehow grows to serve a significant portion of the Craigslist user
base, that gives Company-X power over Craigslist itself - They could potentially fork away on their own, rather than
as a middle-man, and leave Craigslist itself a ghosttown.
As another point, Craig wants a totally vanilla interface, a fact that I think most of us appreciate (at the same
time that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry, another fact that most of us appreciate).
If for no more reason than petulantly
insisting his users get the interface he wants, he has the option of making it as hard as possible for third
parties to change that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</id>
	<title>Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old wine in new bottles seems to be the constant theme of the computer business. We are always redefining old ideas with new monikers and names as if something drastic has changed. It's a sucker's game.</p><p>For example, the so-called Web 2.0 revolution is essentially a rewording of things that were going on in 1998, an era now called Web 1.0. I'm reminded of this only because I attended a social networking meetup (also called a meeting or gathering) and realized that all the buzz over social networking is really nothing new. You can read book after book about the social networking revolution and soon realize that these books are not much different than generalized "how to do marketing" books that floated around in the 1960s. The rules, the philosophies, the ideas are all old but re-jiggered to fit into the social networking meme.</p><p>This is the way the computer scene operates. Everything is gussied up to look hip and new when it's really putting lipstick on a pig. When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses. These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing. That's it. Everything is a subset of those Big Five.</p><p>But when you boil computing down to five basic mechanisms, you have to constantly jazz up the categories with new terms. Word processing evolves into desktop publishing or blogging or content management, for example. It's all variations on the theme.</p><p>In the early days I would generalize about these same Big Five using early terminology. Back then, before it was actually boiled down, only "word processing" remained as a constant insofar as a naming convention is concerned. "Entertainment" was always referred to as "gaming." "Information retrieval" was "database management." "Calculations" were always "spreadsheets." There was no image manipulation in any serious way until the invention of Photoshop, and that was the last brick in the wall.</p><p>So if we are going to really boil down computers and try and project the future, it turns out to be rather simple. They get faster and faster and faster but not really any more useful (except for the fact that they are faster). This basic idea has been lost in the "there's an app for that" world of confused Web 2.0 jargon and the Intel Atom chip. The industry as a whole is losing its way. Each new development fails to increase performance Performance is the only thing important to the basic computer. All improvements such as newer and slicker versions of Photoshop, for example, require higher and higher performance machines. This holds true for networks and everything else. As performance increases things become more practical and easier to use. So where is the performance?</p><p>Part of the problem stems from the emergence of cheapskate computing. Getting the cheapest machine you can find that will manage to do the job--meaning it will boot an OS and actually run some sluggish apps.</p><p>When desktop computing got its start a good machine cost about $3,500, and to keep up with the technology you generally bought a machine every year or two and typically spent between $2,500 to $3,500 until the prices started to erode. By the time of the dot-com crash in 2000 a typical rig was selling for $1,500. Now its' gotten to the point where the median price is hovering around $800 and usable machines can be had for $400.</p><p>Instead of using Moore's Law to make machines more powerful, the "make them cheap" switch has been thrown and now everyone has a cheap machine in one form or another. The problem with cheap computing is that it's really not exciting. Moore's Law can affect performance, price and size. Size is the other direction the industry is going with the iPhone computing platform. This is another move away from the performance direction.</p><p>The trend, unfortunately, is not going to change. Once people get into cheap and small they seldom return to extravagance. So what do they do? They turn to old wine in new bottles. We'll just keep changing the name for everyth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old wine in new bottles seems to be the constant theme of the computer business .
We are always redefining old ideas with new monikers and names as if something drastic has changed .
It 's a sucker 's game.For example , the so-called Web 2.0 revolution is essentially a rewording of things that were going on in 1998 , an era now called Web 1.0 .
I 'm reminded of this only because I attended a social networking meetup ( also called a meeting or gathering ) and realized that all the buzz over social networking is really nothing new .
You can read book after book about the social networking revolution and soon realize that these books are not much different than generalized " how to do marketing " books that floated around in the 1960s .
The rules , the philosophies , the ideas are all old but re-jiggered to fit into the social networking meme.This is the way the computer scene operates .
Everything is gussied up to look hip and new when it 's really putting lipstick on a pig .
When all is said and done , the computer is good for a limited number of uses .
These include calculations , entertainment , information retrieval , image manipulation , and word processing .
That 's it .
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.But when you boil computing down to five basic mechanisms , you have to constantly jazz up the categories with new terms .
Word processing evolves into desktop publishing or blogging or content management , for example .
It 's all variations on the theme.In the early days I would generalize about these same Big Five using early terminology .
Back then , before it was actually boiled down , only " word processing " remained as a constant insofar as a naming convention is concerned .
" Entertainment " was always referred to as " gaming .
" " Information retrieval " was " database management .
" " Calculations " were always " spreadsheets .
" There was no image manipulation in any serious way until the invention of Photoshop , and that was the last brick in the wall.So if we are going to really boil down computers and try and project the future , it turns out to be rather simple .
They get faster and faster and faster but not really any more useful ( except for the fact that they are faster ) .
This basic idea has been lost in the " there 's an app for that " world of confused Web 2.0 jargon and the Intel Atom chip .
The industry as a whole is losing its way .
Each new development fails to increase performance Performance is the only thing important to the basic computer .
All improvements such as newer and slicker versions of Photoshop , for example , require higher and higher performance machines .
This holds true for networks and everything else .
As performance increases things become more practical and easier to use .
So where is the performance ? Part of the problem stems from the emergence of cheapskate computing .
Getting the cheapest machine you can find that will manage to do the job--meaning it will boot an OS and actually run some sluggish apps.When desktop computing got its start a good machine cost about $ 3,500 , and to keep up with the technology you generally bought a machine every year or two and typically spent between $ 2,500 to $ 3,500 until the prices started to erode .
By the time of the dot-com crash in 2000 a typical rig was selling for $ 1,500 .
Now its ' gotten to the point where the median price is hovering around $ 800 and usable machines can be had for $ 400.Instead of using Moore 's Law to make machines more powerful , the " make them cheap " switch has been thrown and now everyone has a cheap machine in one form or another .
The problem with cheap computing is that it 's really not exciting .
Moore 's Law can affect performance , price and size .
Size is the other direction the industry is going with the iPhone computing platform .
This is another move away from the performance direction.The trend , unfortunately , is not going to change .
Once people get into cheap and small they seldom return to extravagance .
So what do they do ?
They turn to old wine in new bottles .
We 'll just keep changing the name for everyth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old wine in new bottles seems to be the constant theme of the computer business.
We are always redefining old ideas with new monikers and names as if something drastic has changed.
It's a sucker's game.For example, the so-called Web 2.0 revolution is essentially a rewording of things that were going on in 1998, an era now called Web 1.0.
I'm reminded of this only because I attended a social networking meetup (also called a meeting or gathering) and realized that all the buzz over social networking is really nothing new.
You can read book after book about the social networking revolution and soon realize that these books are not much different than generalized "how to do marketing" books that floated around in the 1960s.
The rules, the philosophies, the ideas are all old but re-jiggered to fit into the social networking meme.This is the way the computer scene operates.
Everything is gussied up to look hip and new when it's really putting lipstick on a pig.
When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses.
These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing.
That's it.
Everything is a subset of those Big Five.But when you boil computing down to five basic mechanisms, you have to constantly jazz up the categories with new terms.
Word processing evolves into desktop publishing or blogging or content management, for example.
It's all variations on the theme.In the early days I would generalize about these same Big Five using early terminology.
Back then, before it was actually boiled down, only "word processing" remained as a constant insofar as a naming convention is concerned.
"Entertainment" was always referred to as "gaming.
" "Information retrieval" was "database management.
" "Calculations" were always "spreadsheets.
" There was no image manipulation in any serious way until the invention of Photoshop, and that was the last brick in the wall.So if we are going to really boil down computers and try and project the future, it turns out to be rather simple.
They get faster and faster and faster but not really any more useful (except for the fact that they are faster).
This basic idea has been lost in the "there's an app for that" world of confused Web 2.0 jargon and the Intel Atom chip.
The industry as a whole is losing its way.
Each new development fails to increase performance Performance is the only thing important to the basic computer.
All improvements such as newer and slicker versions of Photoshop, for example, require higher and higher performance machines.
This holds true for networks and everything else.
As performance increases things become more practical and easier to use.
So where is the performance?Part of the problem stems from the emergence of cheapskate computing.
Getting the cheapest machine you can find that will manage to do the job--meaning it will boot an OS and actually run some sluggish apps.When desktop computing got its start a good machine cost about $3,500, and to keep up with the technology you generally bought a machine every year or two and typically spent between $2,500 to $3,500 until the prices started to erode.
By the time of the dot-com crash in 2000 a typical rig was selling for $1,500.
Now its' gotten to the point where the median price is hovering around $800 and usable machines can be had for $400.Instead of using Moore's Law to make machines more powerful, the "make them cheap" switch has been thrown and now everyone has a cheap machine in one form or another.
The problem with cheap computing is that it's really not exciting.
Moore's Law can affect performance, price and size.
Size is the other direction the industry is going with the iPhone computing platform.
This is another move away from the performance direction.The trend, unfortunately, is not going to change.
Once people get into cheap and small they seldom return to extravagance.
So what do they do?
They turn to old wine in new bottles.
We'll just keep changing the name for everyth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293982</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259692860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As another point, Craig wants a totally vanilla interface, a fact that I think most of us appreciate (at the same time that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry, another fact that most of us appreciate).</p></div><p>You don't know how true that is. I used to work at a company that has (sells) a web 2.0 site with JavaScript / DHTML / Ajax up the ying yang. Using it makes you feel like you're trapped in Candyland. In a bunch of design meetings I brought up Craigslist as an example of a user interface that people really like. Nobody even considered that a serious comment.<br> <br>I miss the nineties when Yahoo looked like Craigslist does today. I never visit Yahoo anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As another point , Craig wants a totally vanilla interface , a fact that I think most of us appreciate ( at the same time that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry , another fact that most of us appreciate ) .You do n't know how true that is .
I used to work at a company that has ( sells ) a web 2.0 site with JavaScript / DHTML / Ajax up the ying yang .
Using it makes you feel like you 're trapped in Candyland .
In a bunch of design meetings I brought up Craigslist as an example of a user interface that people really like .
Nobody even considered that a serious comment .
I miss the nineties when Yahoo looked like Craigslist does today .
I never visit Yahoo anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As another point, Craig wants a totally vanilla interface, a fact that I think most of us appreciate (at the same time that it makes Web2.0 weenies cry, another fact that most of us appreciate).You don't know how true that is.
I used to work at a company that has (sells) a web 2.0 site with JavaScript / DHTML / Ajax up the ying yang.
Using it makes you feel like you're trapped in Candyland.
In a bunch of design meetings I brought up Craigslist as an example of a user interface that people really like.
Nobody even considered that a serious comment.
I miss the nineties when Yahoo looked like Craigslist does today.
I never visit Yahoo anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292742</id>
	<title>But did they block...</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1259681940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Craigslist's series of tubes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Craigslist 's series of tubes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craigslist's series of tubes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293518</id>
	<title>Did this long ago ...</title>
	<author>dougmc</author>
	<datestamp>1259689260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and found CL's RSS feeds to be too unreliable to really use with Yahoo Pipes -- the pipe would get wedged because the RSS feeds were.  I kept thinking that they had intentionally blocked YP -- and sometimes it seemed like they did, because the feeds worked properly if I went to them directly.  And then it would start working again.  (It might have simply been something that looked for abuse and blocked it, and with lots of people using YP, it might have looked like a DoS attack, all coming from just one or a few IP addresses.)

<p>

Ultimately I just wrote my own setup that worked very much like Yahoo Pipes, but without the GUI to configure things (I just wrote perl code to do what I wanted) and it also did caching of the RSS feeds for a while and if there was an error it would simply work with the cached data rather than failing.  Took a while to get right, but now that I have it working properly, I love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and found CL 's RSS feeds to be too unreliable to really use with Yahoo Pipes -- the pipe would get wedged because the RSS feeds were .
I kept thinking that they had intentionally blocked YP -- and sometimes it seemed like they did , because the feeds worked properly if I went to them directly .
And then it would start working again .
( It might have simply been something that looked for abuse and blocked it , and with lots of people using YP , it might have looked like a DoS attack , all coming from just one or a few IP addresses .
) Ultimately I just wrote my own setup that worked very much like Yahoo Pipes , but without the GUI to configure things ( I just wrote perl code to do what I wanted ) and it also did caching of the RSS feeds for a while and if there was an error it would simply work with the cached data rather than failing .
Took a while to get right , but now that I have it working properly , I love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and found CL's RSS feeds to be too unreliable to really use with Yahoo Pipes -- the pipe would get wedged because the RSS feeds were.
I kept thinking that they had intentionally blocked YP -- and sometimes it seemed like they did, because the feeds worked properly if I went to them directly.
And then it would start working again.
(It might have simply been something that looked for abuse and blocked it, and with lots of people using YP, it might have looked like a DoS attack, all coming from just one or a few IP addresses.
)



Ultimately I just wrote my own setup that worked very much like Yahoo Pipes, but without the GUI to configure things (I just wrote perl code to do what I wanted) and it also did caching of the RSS feeds for a while and if there was an error it would simply work with the cached data rather than failing.
Took a while to get right, but now that I have it working properly, I love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293508</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere Sort of Fast</title>
	<author>trenton</author>
	<datestamp>1259689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... the computer is good for a limited number of uses. These include calculations,
entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I've got to ask, did you go to the <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-office/business-school/episode/964761/trivia.html?tag=episode\_header;trivia" title="tv.com">Michael Scott school of business</a> [tv.com]?</p><blockquote><div><p>Michael: There are four kinds of business: tourism, food service, railroads, and sales; and hospitals/manufacturing; and air travel.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the computer is good for a limited number of uses .
These include calculations , entertainment , information retrieval , image manipulation , and word processing .
I 've got to ask , did you go to the Michael Scott school of business [ tv.com ] ? Michael : There are four kinds of business : tourism , food service , railroads , and sales ; and hospitals/manufacturing ; and air travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the computer is good for a limited number of uses.
These include calculations,
entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing.
I've got to ask, did you go to the Michael Scott school of business [tv.com]?Michael: There are four kinds of business: tourism, food service, railroads, and sales; and hospitals/manufacturing; and air travel.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30296844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30315426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30294252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30301570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30297238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30296336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30294512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30307706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30322292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0049231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30297238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30294512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30307706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30296844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30315426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30292842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30322292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30301570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30296336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30294252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30299552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0049231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30293510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0049231.30295602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
