<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_04_1755240</id>
	<title>Comcast to Buy 51\% of NBC, GE Goes After 49\%</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259953320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes to tell us that Comcast and General Electric announced a joint venture yesterday to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/03/news/companies/comcast\_nbc/index.htm">control NBC Universal</a>, with Comcast coming out with the controlling interest.  Comcast's hopes seem to be on succeeding in a marriage of distribution and content, where Time Warner failed.  <i>"The deal was approved by the companies' boards, and is subject to regulatory approval. GE said it expects the deal to go through in the third quarter of 2010.  Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate whether Comcast will gain 'undue advantages' from the deal that gives it access to programming."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes to tell us that Comcast and General Electric announced a joint venture yesterday to control NBC Universal , with Comcast coming out with the controlling interest .
Comcast 's hopes seem to be on succeeding in a marriage of distribution and content , where Time Warner failed .
" The deal was approved by the companies ' boards , and is subject to regulatory approval .
GE said it expects the deal to go through in the third quarter of 2010 .
Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate whether Comcast will gain 'undue advantages ' from the deal that gives it access to programming .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes to tell us that Comcast and General Electric announced a joint venture yesterday to control NBC Universal, with Comcast coming out with the controlling interest.
Comcast's hopes seem to be on succeeding in a marriage of distribution and content, where Time Warner failed.
"The deal was approved by the companies' boards, and is subject to regulatory approval.
GE said it expects the deal to go through in the third quarter of 2010.
Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate whether Comcast will gain 'undue advantages' from the deal that gives it access to programming.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327914</id>
	<title>Filed in 1938... it took until '48 to decide...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259960220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share.</i></p><p>This makes me think of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Paramount\_Pictures,\_Inc." title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">US v. Paramount Pictures</a> [wikipedia.org] Supreme Court case, also known as the "Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948".  Once upon a time, film studios owned a large number of theaters.  The studios-- and not the theater owners-- could dictate which films would be played and for how long (aka "block booking"), how much money would go to the studio vs. the theater etc.  The result was less competition for good films, less profit for the theaters, and the studio dictated what the people saw.</p><p>This "vertical integration" -- controlling the production and delivery of the product top-to-bottom -- was decided 7-1 as an anti-competitive de facto oligopoly and the studios had to divest themselves of their theaters.  The courts said that having one industry substantially control production of entertainment as well as its delivery network was monopolistic and a restraint on trade.  They actually separated Paramount into two companies-- the studio (Paramount Pictures Corp.) and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters).</p><p>I don't see how this Comcast thing is much different, but then, the underlying principals of this and most <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass\%E2\%80\%93Steagall\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">other regulatory decisions of the 1930s-40s</a> [wikipedia.org] have been thrown out the window to favor corporations interests over those of the public.</p><p>Note that the decision in this case, if you put it in the digital age, is even more dramatic than simple "network neutrality".  It doesn't just suggest you must treat all content the same when delivering content.  The principal idea as I read it is that if the studios-- say, Time Warner-- produces content, they shouldn't also monopolize the industry that delivers that content (say via Time Warner Cable).  NBC and Comcast, to me, would have similar issues.</p><p>I've never understood why the Paramount Decree doesn't apply automatically.  Probably because the Internet grew so fast as a legit media delivery system that the laws haven't yet caught up.  But it seems to me that Network Neutrality would be a compromise position <i>promoted by these cable/ISPs</i> to ensure fair competition so they don't get separated from their parent companies.</p><p>In fact, thinking about it, yeah-- Network Neutrality does seem to be the compromise position (almost like the public option vs. single payer).  Why isn't the public (EFF, etc.) asking to kill the whole vertical monopoly system?  (Or... given the makeup of the court, it might backfire, and we'd be back to Fox Theaters and Paramount Theaters everwhere...)</p><p>Incidentally, as I understand it, the same thing has already happened in TV.  Back in the day, individual producers would make shows and sell the rights to show them to the networks.  Now, the networks produce the shows, own the shows, and distribute the shows.  Top to bottom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share.This makes me think of the US v. Paramount Pictures [ wikipedia.org ] Supreme Court case , also known as the " Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948 " .
Once upon a time , film studios owned a large number of theaters .
The studios-- and not the theater owners-- could dictate which films would be played and for how long ( aka " block booking " ) , how much money would go to the studio vs. the theater etc .
The result was less competition for good films , less profit for the theaters , and the studio dictated what the people saw.This " vertical integration " -- controlling the production and delivery of the product top-to-bottom -- was decided 7-1 as an anti-competitive de facto oligopoly and the studios had to divest themselves of their theaters .
The courts said that having one industry substantially control production of entertainment as well as its delivery network was monopolistic and a restraint on trade .
They actually separated Paramount into two companies-- the studio ( Paramount Pictures Corp. ) and the theater chain ( United Paramount Theaters ) .I do n't see how this Comcast thing is much different , but then , the underlying principals of this and most other regulatory decisions of the 1930s-40s [ wikipedia.org ] have been thrown out the window to favor corporations interests over those of the public.Note that the decision in this case , if you put it in the digital age , is even more dramatic than simple " network neutrality " .
It does n't just suggest you must treat all content the same when delivering content .
The principal idea as I read it is that if the studios-- say , Time Warner-- produces content , they should n't also monopolize the industry that delivers that content ( say via Time Warner Cable ) .
NBC and Comcast , to me , would have similar issues.I 've never understood why the Paramount Decree does n't apply automatically .
Probably because the Internet grew so fast as a legit media delivery system that the laws have n't yet caught up .
But it seems to me that Network Neutrality would be a compromise position promoted by these cable/ISPs to ensure fair competition so they do n't get separated from their parent companies.In fact , thinking about it , yeah-- Network Neutrality does seem to be the compromise position ( almost like the public option vs. single payer ) .
Why is n't the public ( EFF , etc .
) asking to kill the whole vertical monopoly system ?
( Or... given the makeup of the court , it might backfire , and we 'd be back to Fox Theaters and Paramount Theaters everwhere... ) Incidentally , as I understand it , the same thing has already happened in TV .
Back in the day , individual producers would make shows and sell the rights to show them to the networks .
Now , the networks produce the shows , own the shows , and distribute the shows .
Top to bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share.This makes me think of the US v. Paramount Pictures [wikipedia.org] Supreme Court case, also known as the "Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948".
Once upon a time, film studios owned a large number of theaters.
The studios-- and not the theater owners-- could dictate which films would be played and for how long (aka "block booking"), how much money would go to the studio vs. the theater etc.
The result was less competition for good films, less profit for the theaters, and the studio dictated what the people saw.This "vertical integration" -- controlling the production and delivery of the product top-to-bottom -- was decided 7-1 as an anti-competitive de facto oligopoly and the studios had to divest themselves of their theaters.
The courts said that having one industry substantially control production of entertainment as well as its delivery network was monopolistic and a restraint on trade.
They actually separated Paramount into two companies-- the studio (Paramount Pictures Corp.) and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters).I don't see how this Comcast thing is much different, but then, the underlying principals of this and most other regulatory decisions of the 1930s-40s [wikipedia.org] have been thrown out the window to favor corporations interests over those of the public.Note that the decision in this case, if you put it in the digital age, is even more dramatic than simple "network neutrality".
It doesn't just suggest you must treat all content the same when delivering content.
The principal idea as I read it is that if the studios-- say, Time Warner-- produces content, they shouldn't also monopolize the industry that delivers that content (say via Time Warner Cable).
NBC and Comcast, to me, would have similar issues.I've never understood why the Paramount Decree doesn't apply automatically.
Probably because the Internet grew so fast as a legit media delivery system that the laws haven't yet caught up.
But it seems to me that Network Neutrality would be a compromise position promoted by these cable/ISPs to ensure fair competition so they don't get separated from their parent companies.In fact, thinking about it, yeah-- Network Neutrality does seem to be the compromise position (almost like the public option vs. single payer).
Why isn't the public (EFF, etc.
) asking to kill the whole vertical monopoly system?
(Or... given the makeup of the court, it might backfire, and we'd be back to Fox Theaters and Paramount Theaters everwhere...)Incidentally, as I understand it, the same thing has already happened in TV.
Back in the day, individual producers would make shows and sell the rights to show them to the networks.
Now, the networks produce the shows, own the shows, and distribute the shows.
Top to bottom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327454</id>
	<title>How can if fail?</title>
	<author>OglinTatas</author>
	<datestamp>1259958180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When TW bought AoL, AoL had chatrooms which were already horribly out of date and irrelevant.<br>NBC has Leno.  I don't see how this could fail</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When TW bought AoL , AoL had chatrooms which were already horribly out of date and irrelevant.NBC has Leno .
I do n't see how this could fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When TW bought AoL, AoL had chatrooms which were already horribly out of date and irrelevant.NBC has Leno.
I don't see how this could fail</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327430</id>
	<title>Bad news for viewers and Internet competition</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1259958120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but good news for GE bond holders. Cash from Comcast should enable them to pay off some of their debts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but good news for GE bond holders .
Cash from Comcast should enable them to pay off some of their debts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but good news for GE bond holders.
Cash from Comcast should enable them to pay off some of their debts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328746</id>
	<title>Re:What happens to Hulu?</title>
	<author>srollyson</author>
	<datestamp>1259920620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04hulu.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [nytimes.com] that discusses the conflict of interest. Of particular interest is this quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>&ldquo;Hollywood needs a toll collector,&rdquo; said Todd Dagres of the venture capital firm Spark Capital, and &ldquo;Comcast can play the part because online video will erode traditional cable.&rdquo;</p></div> </blockquote><p>Hulu's not going anywhere. Instead, it will probably be relegated to second-tier content. The content providers will charge for the new stuff and continue to file DMCA notices if content ends up elsewhere. They'll throw the people a bone, charge for the meat, and sue the pants off the vegetarians. Sounds like a Murdochian utopia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a New York Times article [ nytimes.com ] that discusses the conflict of interest .
Of particular interest is this quote :    Hollywood needs a toll collector ,    said Todd Dagres of the venture capital firm Spark Capital , and    Comcast can play the part because online video will erode traditional cable.    Hulu 's not going anywhere .
Instead , it will probably be relegated to second-tier content .
The content providers will charge for the new stuff and continue to file DMCA notices if content ends up elsewhere .
They 'll throw the people a bone , charge for the meat , and sue the pants off the vegetarians .
Sounds like a Murdochian utopia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a New York Times article [nytimes.com] that discusses the conflict of interest.
Of particular interest is this quote:“Hollywood needs a toll collector,” said Todd Dagres of the venture capital firm Spark Capital, and “Comcast can play the part because online video will erode traditional cable.” Hulu's not going anywhere.
Instead, it will probably be relegated to second-tier content.
The content providers will charge for the new stuff and continue to file DMCA notices if content ends up elsewhere.
They'll throw the people a bone, charge for the meat, and sue the pants off the vegetarians.
Sounds like a Murdochian utopia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328302</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today!</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1259918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here at slashdot we get news articles later than elsewhere because of the large ammount of background research and spellchecking the editors put into each article.  You pay a price for good editing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here at slashdot we get news articles later than elsewhere because of the large ammount of background research and spellchecking the editors put into each article .
You pay a price for good editing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here at slashdot we get news articles later than elsewhere because of the large ammount of background research and spellchecking the editors put into each article.
You pay a price for good editing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327894</id>
	<title>Monopoly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259960100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My local government has said that if I get cable television or internet, it must be Comcast.  Meanwhile the Federal government is going to investigate to see if Comcast has "undue advantages."  Um...yes, but not in the way you're going to spend 9 months and thousands upon thousands of tax-payer dollars you're investigating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My local government has said that if I get cable television or internet , it must be Comcast .
Meanwhile the Federal government is going to investigate to see if Comcast has " undue advantages .
" Um...yes , but not in the way you 're going to spend 9 months and thousands upon thousands of tax-payer dollars you 're investigating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My local government has said that if I get cable television or internet, it must be Comcast.
Meanwhile the Federal government is going to investigate to see if Comcast has "undue advantages.
"  Um...yes, but not in the way you're going to spend 9 months and thousands upon thousands of tax-payer dollars you're investigating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327338</id>
	<title>Note to Jay Leno</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1259957700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Mr Leno,<p>

Consequent to we being acquired by Comcast, our new CEO Heisa I Diot has directed you to  remove all Cable Guy coming late, Cable companies forcing you to stay home all day for a 5 minute service jokes from your repertoire. Please remember the number of stattelite receptions breaking off at the most importunate moment will have a bearing when the annual bonuses are discussed. Have a nice day </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Mr Leno , Consequent to we being acquired by Comcast , our new CEO Heisa I Diot has directed you to remove all Cable Guy coming late , Cable companies forcing you to stay home all day for a 5 minute service jokes from your repertoire .
Please remember the number of stattelite receptions breaking off at the most importunate moment will have a bearing when the annual bonuses are discussed .
Have a nice day</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Mr Leno,

Consequent to we being acquired by Comcast, our new CEO Heisa I Diot has directed you to  remove all Cable Guy coming late, Cable companies forcing you to stay home all day for a 5 minute service jokes from your repertoire.
Please remember the number of stattelite receptions breaking off at the most importunate moment will have a bearing when the annual bonuses are discussed.
Have a nice day </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327482</id>
	<title>Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the dinosaurs who are the ones funding the production of the entertainments that you are, ummm, appropriating from the torrents. You'd better hope they stay flush somehow, or the only piece of new content left to pirate will be Joss Whedon's grocery list.  Oh, wait, I know -- we'll just instruct all the professional producers and directors to put their work on their blogs and fund production on what we tip them in PayPal.  <a href="http://www.rcreader.com/liftestyle/ted-rall-september-6-2009/" title="rcreader.com">Worked for This Guy</a> [rcreader.com], didn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the dinosaurs who are the ones funding the production of the entertainments that you are , ummm , appropriating from the torrents .
You 'd better hope they stay flush somehow , or the only piece of new content left to pirate will be Joss Whedon 's grocery list .
Oh , wait , I know -- we 'll just instruct all the professional producers and directors to put their work on their blogs and fund production on what we tip them in PayPal .
Worked for This Guy [ rcreader.com ] , did n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the dinosaurs who are the ones funding the production of the entertainments that you are, ummm, appropriating from the torrents.
You'd better hope they stay flush somehow, or the only piece of new content left to pirate will be Joss Whedon's grocery list.
Oh, wait, I know -- we'll just instruct all the professional producers and directors to put their work on their blogs and fund production on what we tip them in PayPal.
Worked for This Guy [rcreader.com], didn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328200</id>
	<title>Re:Ruinous for customers.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1259918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we need is for Americans to value principles more than cheap entertainment. Everyone complains about what they pay and what little they get but the vast majority of people just grin and bear it. More than that, they'd go nuts without their daily fix of American Idol or some other crap tv show. If even half their subscribers canceled all of a sudden I'm pretty sure things would start changing. But then most don't even know or care to know what's going on. There's not much we can do about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is for Americans to value principles more than cheap entertainment .
Everyone complains about what they pay and what little they get but the vast majority of people just grin and bear it .
More than that , they 'd go nuts without their daily fix of American Idol or some other crap tv show .
If even half their subscribers canceled all of a sudden I 'm pretty sure things would start changing .
But then most do n't even know or care to know what 's going on .
There 's not much we can do about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is for Americans to value principles more than cheap entertainment.
Everyone complains about what they pay and what little they get but the vast majority of people just grin and bear it.
More than that, they'd go nuts without their daily fix of American Idol or some other crap tv show.
If even half their subscribers canceled all of a sudden I'm pretty sure things would start changing.
But then most don't even know or care to know what's going on.
There's not much we can do about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328848</id>
	<title>Re:Also announced...</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1259921040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NOT funny. WAY too plausible.<br>I've said it before in other places this week, and I'll say it again here: <b>No good will come of this.</b> I'm surprised that the government will <i>allow</i> this sale to go through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOT funny .
WAY too plausible.I 've said it before in other places this week , and I 'll say it again here : No good will come of this .
I 'm surprised that the government will allow this sale to go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOT funny.
WAY too plausible.I've said it before in other places this week, and I'll say it again here: No good will come of this.
I'm surprised that the government will allow this sale to go through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329246</id>
	<title>Re:Comcast needs to be split up</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1259922720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.</p></div><p>Big business wants free markets, not competitive ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.Big business wants free markets , not competitive ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.Big business wants free markets, not competitive ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327926</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>jeffshoaf</author>
	<datestamp>1259960280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they're already dead. There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.</p></div><p>
So, where will the stuff on BitTorrent come from once the dinosaurs realize they're dead because the ad revenues are gone and stop producing content?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they 're already dead .
There 's virtually nothing good on television anyway ; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend , and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway .
So , where will the stuff on BitTorrent come from once the dinosaurs realize they 're dead because the ad revenues are gone and stop producing content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they're already dead.
There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.
So, where will the stuff on BitTorrent come from once the dinosaurs realize they're dead because the ad revenues are gone and stop producing content?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328096</id>
	<title>Re:Bad News for TW customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AT&amp;T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.</p></div><p>And you think that'll change the way your new cable company will treat you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T , please extend your service about 10 more miles south.And you think that 'll change the way your new cable company will treat you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.And you think that'll change the way your new cable company will treat you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328586</id>
	<title>Controlling Interest</title>
	<author>Roxton</author>
	<datestamp>1259919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stock ownership is about two things: financial speculation and power.  Why can't consumer interests snap up controlling interests?  You know, through user-directed 401k's and coordinated pension funds?  Oh right, the Republicans murdered that option with the Taft-Hartley Act after WWII.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stock ownership is about two things : financial speculation and power .
Why ca n't consumer interests snap up controlling interests ?
You know , through user-directed 401k 's and coordinated pension funds ?
Oh right , the Republicans murdered that option with the Taft-Hartley Act after WWII .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stock ownership is about two things: financial speculation and power.
Why can't consumer interests snap up controlling interests?
You know, through user-directed 401k's and coordinated pension funds?
Oh right, the Republicans murdered that option with the Taft-Hartley Act after WWII.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329662</id>
	<title>GEC, RCA, NBC, ETC.</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259924760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As noted above the 49\% share for GE is a reduction, not a buy in. You can pretty sure this is the case if they take the time to state it's not. The whole family of companies that come and go over and under each others' names, and equally as often with one or more names or the action itself masked, do so for reasons often so obscure that one begins to think they conduct these "mergers" for misdirection. Frequently these activities are carried out to minimize predicted losses, to protect the others from association in the case of law suits, and for what appears to be which relationship between them will be most profitable in the near enough future to make it worth the trouble.</p><p>It's a long standing historical note that belies the relationship between NBC and GE. Specifically, 3 notes: G, E and C, the chimes that make up the NBC musical call sign. They've been in use for 80 years now.  They stand for General Electric Company.</p><p>The refutation that's found its way into Wikipedia that this is false, essentially a business urban myth, is itself incorrect. The refutation states that "someone heard" the chimes being played over Atlanta's WSB during a football game and "asked to use" the signal, making them a trademark in 1931. Such is true, however the association between them was already close and tight. The football game in question was the 1929 Georgia Tech/Yale game. One would hope that NBC heard the chimes then, or even earlier if they'd been used. WSB was a charter affiliate of NBC, officially since Jan 9, 1927. That's all supported by data from the relevant Wikipedia sites as well as WSB and Ga. Tech histories. I'd heard about it from someone deep enough into early electronics business to know folks like Farnsworth, DuMont and Armstrong.</p><p>In those periods where one didn't "own" another, the relationship was a matter of business convenience. They have all been components in the largest body of business in the US if not the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As noted above the 49 \ % share for GE is a reduction , not a buy in .
You can pretty sure this is the case if they take the time to state it 's not .
The whole family of companies that come and go over and under each others ' names , and equally as often with one or more names or the action itself masked , do so for reasons often so obscure that one begins to think they conduct these " mergers " for misdirection .
Frequently these activities are carried out to minimize predicted losses , to protect the others from association in the case of law suits , and for what appears to be which relationship between them will be most profitable in the near enough future to make it worth the trouble.It 's a long standing historical note that belies the relationship between NBC and GE .
Specifically , 3 notes : G , E and C , the chimes that make up the NBC musical call sign .
They 've been in use for 80 years now .
They stand for General Electric Company.The refutation that 's found its way into Wikipedia that this is false , essentially a business urban myth , is itself incorrect .
The refutation states that " someone heard " the chimes being played over Atlanta 's WSB during a football game and " asked to use " the signal , making them a trademark in 1931 .
Such is true , however the association between them was already close and tight .
The football game in question was the 1929 Georgia Tech/Yale game .
One would hope that NBC heard the chimes then , or even earlier if they 'd been used .
WSB was a charter affiliate of NBC , officially since Jan 9 , 1927 .
That 's all supported by data from the relevant Wikipedia sites as well as WSB and Ga. Tech histories .
I 'd heard about it from someone deep enough into early electronics business to know folks like Farnsworth , DuMont and Armstrong.In those periods where one did n't " own " another , the relationship was a matter of business convenience .
They have all been components in the largest body of business in the US if not the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As noted above the 49\% share for GE is a reduction, not a buy in.
You can pretty sure this is the case if they take the time to state it's not.
The whole family of companies that come and go over and under each others' names, and equally as often with one or more names or the action itself masked, do so for reasons often so obscure that one begins to think they conduct these "mergers" for misdirection.
Frequently these activities are carried out to minimize predicted losses, to protect the others from association in the case of law suits, and for what appears to be which relationship between them will be most profitable in the near enough future to make it worth the trouble.It's a long standing historical note that belies the relationship between NBC and GE.
Specifically, 3 notes: G, E and C, the chimes that make up the NBC musical call sign.
They've been in use for 80 years now.
They stand for General Electric Company.The refutation that's found its way into Wikipedia that this is false, essentially a business urban myth, is itself incorrect.
The refutation states that "someone heard" the chimes being played over Atlanta's WSB during a football game and "asked to use" the signal, making them a trademark in 1931.
Such is true, however the association between them was already close and tight.
The football game in question was the 1929 Georgia Tech/Yale game.
One would hope that NBC heard the chimes then, or even earlier if they'd been used.
WSB was a charter affiliate of NBC, officially since Jan 9, 1927.
That's all supported by data from the relevant Wikipedia sites as well as WSB and Ga. Tech histories.
I'd heard about it from someone deep enough into early electronics business to know folks like Farnsworth, DuMont and Armstrong.In those periods where one didn't "own" another, the relationship was a matter of business convenience.
They have all been components in the largest body of business in the US if not the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329026</id>
	<title>GE is not "going after" 49 percent.</title>
	<author>Perp Atuitie</author>
	<datestamp>1259921820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GE already had more than that. They are selling enough shares to bring them down to that figure.

Either way, this is a terrible idea for our information access system. Mixing content with information distribution infrastructure is exactly the wrong way to go if we want broad-based content and interactivity. Regulators need to be pushing for a return to the Ma Bell model -- the common carrier that has nothing to do with the conversations on its lines. Even if Comcast were a trustworthy company, there's no way it will overcome the temptation to make its own content a little easier and cheaper to access. The owners of the cables need to choose whether to be common carriers or content providers, but not both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>GE already had more than that .
They are selling enough shares to bring them down to that figure .
Either way , this is a terrible idea for our information access system .
Mixing content with information distribution infrastructure is exactly the wrong way to go if we want broad-based content and interactivity .
Regulators need to be pushing for a return to the Ma Bell model -- the common carrier that has nothing to do with the conversations on its lines .
Even if Comcast were a trustworthy company , there 's no way it will overcome the temptation to make its own content a little easier and cheaper to access .
The owners of the cables need to choose whether to be common carriers or content providers , but not both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GE already had more than that.
They are selling enough shares to bring them down to that figure.
Either way, this is a terrible idea for our information access system.
Mixing content with information distribution infrastructure is exactly the wrong way to go if we want broad-based content and interactivity.
Regulators need to be pushing for a return to the Ma Bell model -- the common carrier that has nothing to do with the conversations on its lines.
Even if Comcast were a trustworthy company, there's no way it will overcome the temptation to make its own content a little easier and cheaper to access.
The owners of the cables need to choose whether to be common carriers or content providers, but not both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1259956920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, comcast announced today that they have a revolutionary way of throtteling high-tv viewers during "primetime" hours. While primetime was not explicitly defined (nor was "high-tv viewer"), they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share.
</p><p>Seriously though, it'll be interesting to see what happens here. Ads for new NBC shows over broadband anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , comcast announced today that they have a revolutionary way of throtteling high-tv viewers during " primetime " hours .
While primetime was not explicitly defined ( nor was " high-tv viewer " ) , they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share .
Seriously though , it 'll be interesting to see what happens here .
Ads for new NBC shows over broadband anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, comcast announced today that they have a revolutionary way of throtteling high-tv viewers during "primetime" hours.
While primetime was not explicitly defined (nor was "high-tv viewer"), they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share.
Seriously though, it'll be interesting to see what happens here.
Ads for new NBC shows over broadband anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328436</id>
	<title>OTA HDTV is compressed</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259919240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While friends are spending $100/month to watch a compressed TV signal, I get uncompressed HDTV for free.</p></div><p>An over-the-air DTV channel is 19 Mbps. "Uncompressed HDTV" is 1920x1080 pixels * 30 frames per second * 12 bits per pixel (assuming downsampled chroma) = 746 Mbps, and that's without audio. So the networks use MPEG-2 video compression and AC-3 audio compression, the same used on DVD-Video, to squeeze the signal into something your antenna can pick up. But I will grant you that OTA is not <em>re-</em>compressed unless your local affiliate tries to pull a PBS and squeeze 1 HDTV channel and three SDTV subchannels into that 19 Mbps stream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While friends are spending $ 100/month to watch a compressed TV signal , I get uncompressed HDTV for free.An over-the-air DTV channel is 19 Mbps .
" Uncompressed HDTV " is 1920x1080 pixels * 30 frames per second * 12 bits per pixel ( assuming downsampled chroma ) = 746 Mbps , and that 's without audio .
So the networks use MPEG-2 video compression and AC-3 audio compression , the same used on DVD-Video , to squeeze the signal into something your antenna can pick up .
But I will grant you that OTA is not re-compressed unless your local affiliate tries to pull a PBS and squeeze 1 HDTV channel and three SDTV subchannels into that 19 Mbps stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While friends are spending $100/month to watch a compressed TV signal, I get uncompressed HDTV for free.An over-the-air DTV channel is 19 Mbps.
"Uncompressed HDTV" is 1920x1080 pixels * 30 frames per second * 12 bits per pixel (assuming downsampled chroma) = 746 Mbps, and that's without audio.
So the networks use MPEG-2 video compression and AC-3 audio compression, the same used on DVD-Video, to squeeze the signal into something your antenna can pick up.
But I will grant you that OTA is not re-compressed unless your local affiliate tries to pull a PBS and squeeze 1 HDTV channel and three SDTV subchannels into that 19 Mbps stream.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327336</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259957700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is so bad, you should call them ShitTorrents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is so bad , you should call them ShitTorrents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is so bad, you should call them ShitTorrents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327480</id>
	<title>You're missing the big picture.</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259958300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast is gunning for vertical integration. In order to optimize the benefits from its vertical integration, it has a very strong incentive to prioritize NBC sites and content over other sites and content.</p><p>I'm convinced that Comcast's package will include optimized delivery for NBC sites and content, only available to Comcast users. In and of itself not a bad deal, but there is very little difference to the end-user between optimizing delivery of your own stuff and throttling delivery of other people's stuff - except that one is dirt cheap to do, and the other is expensive. In a few years, I'm expecting Comcast to offer sites like it currently offers channels: with different pay tiers and different performance.</p><p>Nice troll sig, by the way. I'll reply with a quote from Sagan: " They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast is gunning for vertical integration .
In order to optimize the benefits from its vertical integration , it has a very strong incentive to prioritize NBC sites and content over other sites and content.I 'm convinced that Comcast 's package will include optimized delivery for NBC sites and content , only available to Comcast users .
In and of itself not a bad deal , but there is very little difference to the end-user between optimizing delivery of your own stuff and throttling delivery of other people 's stuff - except that one is dirt cheap to do , and the other is expensive .
In a few years , I 'm expecting Comcast to offer sites like it currently offers channels : with different pay tiers and different performance.Nice troll sig , by the way .
I 'll reply with a quote from Sagan : " They laughed at Columbus , they laughed at Fulton , they laughed at the Wright brothers .
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast is gunning for vertical integration.
In order to optimize the benefits from its vertical integration, it has a very strong incentive to prioritize NBC sites and content over other sites and content.I'm convinced that Comcast's package will include optimized delivery for NBC sites and content, only available to Comcast users.
In and of itself not a bad deal, but there is very little difference to the end-user between optimizing delivery of your own stuff and throttling delivery of other people's stuff - except that one is dirt cheap to do, and the other is expensive.
In a few years, I'm expecting Comcast to offer sites like it currently offers channels: with different pay tiers and different performance.Nice troll sig, by the way.
I'll reply with a quote from Sagan: " They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328070</id>
	<title>Not Funny...</title>
	<author>tunapez</author>
	<datestamp>1259917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't mod the OP funny, mod Insightful.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versus\_Channel#DirecTV\_carriage\_dispute" title="wikipedia.org">DTV Versus Comcast</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't mod the OP funny , mod Insightful.DTV Versus Comcast [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't mod the OP funny, mod Insightful.DTV Versus Comcast [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329744</id>
	<title>some needs to buy comcast's 20\% of csn chicago be</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259925180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some needs to buy comcast's 20\% of csn chicago before nbc can mess the network up. At lest the teams have the power there and I don't want it to end like what nbc has done with the weather channel.</p><p>and one good over this is that the gov maybe force comcarp to put csn philly on dish and direct tv.</p><p>But THE NFL will not let comcast make Sunday night foot ball cable only much less not OTA for the locals teams in the game. even ESPN MNF games are on OTA for the local teams.</p><p>I don't the think the IOC and USIOC will let them make the 2012 games cable only or if that happens they will not be on nbc / comcarp in 2016. EPSN or FOX will have them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some needs to buy comcast 's 20 \ % of csn chicago before nbc can mess the network up .
At lest the teams have the power there and I do n't want it to end like what nbc has done with the weather channel.and one good over this is that the gov maybe force comcarp to put csn philly on dish and direct tv.But THE NFL will not let comcast make Sunday night foot ball cable only much less not OTA for the locals teams in the game .
even ESPN MNF games are on OTA for the local teams.I do n't the think the IOC and USIOC will let them make the 2012 games cable only or if that happens they will not be on nbc / comcarp in 2016 .
EPSN or FOX will have them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some needs to buy comcast's 20\% of csn chicago before nbc can mess the network up.
At lest the teams have the power there and I don't want it to end like what nbc has done with the weather channel.and one good over this is that the gov maybe force comcarp to put csn philly on dish and direct tv.But THE NFL will not let comcast make Sunday night foot ball cable only much less not OTA for the locals teams in the game.
even ESPN MNF games are on OTA for the local teams.I don't the think the IOC and USIOC will let them make the 2012 games cable only or if that happens they will not be on nbc / comcarp in 2016.
EPSN or FOX will have them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328376</id>
	<title>So will my bill go down in price?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean now that Comcast won't have to pay NBC and all NBC owned stations, I should have a reduced Comcast bill correct? Of course, I could just be naive....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean now that Comcast wo n't have to pay NBC and all NBC owned stations , I should have a reduced Comcast bill correct ?
Of course , I could just be naive... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean now that Comcast won't have to pay NBC and all NBC owned stations, I should have a reduced Comcast bill correct?
Of course, I could just be naive....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328402</id>
	<title>Re:Bad News for TW customers</title>
	<author>fishthegeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259919120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AT&amp;T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.</p></div><p>So you WANT to be an AT&amp;T customer?  You don't hear that every day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T , please extend your service about 10 more miles south.So you WANT to be an AT&amp;T customer ?
You do n't hear that every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.So you WANT to be an AT&amp;T customer?
You don't hear that every day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329596</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259924580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.</p></div><p>OK, Mr. Genius. Put down the floppy diskette and slowly step away from the "time machine."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a true genius appears , you can know him by this sign : that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.OK , Mr. Genius. Put down the floppy diskette and slowly step away from the " time machine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.OK, Mr. Genius. Put down the floppy diskette and slowly step away from the "time machine.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388</id>
	<title>Bad News for TW customers</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1259957940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Time Warner customer, I look forward to losing NBC again this Summer as Time Warner tries to convince me that the evil NBC wants to charge me more money for my tv, and how Time Warner is either forced to raise my rates, or drop NBC coverage.  Lame, lame, lame.  AT&amp;T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Time Warner customer , I look forward to losing NBC again this Summer as Time Warner tries to convince me that the evil NBC wants to charge me more money for my tv , and how Time Warner is either forced to raise my rates , or drop NBC coverage .
Lame , lame , lame .
AT&amp;T , please extend your service about 10 more miles south .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Time Warner customer, I look forward to losing NBC again this Summer as Time Warner tries to convince me that the evil NBC wants to charge me more money for my tv, and how Time Warner is either forced to raise my rates, or drop NBC coverage.
Lame, lame, lame.
AT&amp;T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330876</id>
	<title>The Tonight Show</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1259930820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See <a href="http://www.tonightshowwithconanobrien.com/video/clips/sucking-up-to-comcast-120109/1181128/" title="tonightsho...obrien.com">here</a> [tonightsho...obrien.com] to see and hear what Conan, Andy, etc. said about this news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See here [ tonightsho...obrien.com ] to see and hear what Conan , Andy , etc .
said about this news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See here [tonightsho...obrien.com] to see and hear what Conan, Andy, etc.
said about this news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327554</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be spied upon via new and improved comcast generally evil cable boxes.</p><p>Relational corporate assets like this ARE creepy. Suspect government and giant corporation's intentions as covertly malicious until justified otherwise.</p><p>If you're a comcast user, do yourself a favor and support a smaller or local ISP and alternative cable source, dish or direct tv.</p><p>Matured and bloated corporate capitalistic society easily transitions to enduring Fascism through government takeovers of private infrastructure. Support your local vendors, get informed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be spied upon via new and improved comcast generally evil cable boxes.Relational corporate assets like this ARE creepy .
Suspect government and giant corporation 's intentions as covertly malicious until justified otherwise.If you 're a comcast user , do yourself a favor and support a smaller or local ISP and alternative cable source , dish or direct tv.Matured and bloated corporate capitalistic society easily transitions to enduring Fascism through government takeovers of private infrastructure .
Support your local vendors , get informed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be spied upon via new and improved comcast generally evil cable boxes.Relational corporate assets like this ARE creepy.
Suspect government and giant corporation's intentions as covertly malicious until justified otherwise.If you're a comcast user, do yourself a favor and support a smaller or local ISP and alternative cable source, dish or direct tv.Matured and bloated corporate capitalistic society easily transitions to enduring Fascism through government takeovers of private infrastructure.
Support your local vendors, get informed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327368</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1259957880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's virtually nothing good on television anyway</p></div><p>It's ok dude, I'm sure they're gonna bring back Firefly. It's true cause I signed this one petition online and everything!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's virtually nothing good on television anywayIt 's ok dude , I 'm sure they 're gon na bring back Firefly .
It 's true cause I signed this one petition online and everything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's virtually nothing good on television anywayIt's ok dude, I'm sure they're gonna bring back Firefly.
It's true cause I signed this one petition online and everything!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328532</id>
	<title>Re:Did anyone consult Shinehart Wigs?</title>
	<author>TheTrollToll</author>
	<datestamp>1259919540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though i suppose there are many other more valuable questions to ask that was my first and most pressing question in regards to this story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though i suppose there are many other more valuable questions to ask that was my first and most pressing question in regards to this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though i suppose there are many other more valuable questions to ask that was my first and most pressing question in regards to this story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329374</id>
	<title>Re:What happens to Hulu?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259923440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Isn't Comcast's Cable system in competition with Hulu?</p></div><p>Not anymore!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Comcast 's Cable system in competition with Hulu ? Not anymore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Isn't Comcast's Cable system in competition with Hulu?Not anymore!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328230</id>
	<title>Re:Well, there goes what's left of G4</title>
	<author>zero0ne</author>
	<datestamp>1259918520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?</p><p>Those shows are targeted at the EXACT group of people that see 0\% benefit in watching a show vs going to Google and searching "new ATI video card"</p><p>Why the HELL would I want to listen to some 40 year old guy go over technology news?  What can he tell me that I can't find on the internet?</p><p>I'd rather see a Springer ripoff that pits MS employees vs Google employees.  Now THAT has entertainment value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? Those shows are targeted at the EXACT group of people that see 0 \ % benefit in watching a show vs going to Google and searching " new ATI video card " Why the HELL would I want to listen to some 40 year old guy go over technology news ?
What can he tell me that I ca n't find on the internet ? I 'd rather see a Springer ripoff that pits MS employees vs Google employees .
Now THAT has entertainment value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?Those shows are targeted at the EXACT group of people that see 0\% benefit in watching a show vs going to Google and searching "new ATI video card"Why the HELL would I want to listen to some 40 year old guy go over technology news?
What can he tell me that I can't find on the internet?I'd rather see a Springer ripoff that pits MS employees vs Google employees.
Now THAT has entertainment value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327522</id>
	<title>GE goes AFTER 49\%?</title>
	<author>aengblom</author>
	<datestamp>1259958480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were the majority owner previously. Way to be a day late AND wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were the majority owner previously .
Way to be a day late AND wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were the majority owner previously.
Way to be a day late AND wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328952</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just made my day, good sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just made my day , good sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just made my day, good sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330754</id>
	<title>AOL / Time Warner part 2</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1259930160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone should start a pool for how long this will last before they separate again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should start a pool for how long this will last before they separate again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should start a pool for how long this will last before they separate again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328046</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're an idiot....<br>There is this thing called money, people and companies want more of it, to obtain more of it they purchase other companies....<br>Living in your Mom's basement you probably don't have much experience with this thing called money but it is what enables your mother to pay for the internet that you use to post on slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an idiot....There is this thing called money , people and companies want more of it , to obtain more of it they purchase other companies....Living in your Mom 's basement you probably do n't have much experience with this thing called money but it is what enables your mother to pay for the internet that you use to post on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an idiot....There is this thing called money, people and companies want more of it, to obtain more of it they purchase other companies....Living in your Mom's basement you probably don't have much experience with this thing called money but it is what enables your mother to pay for the internet that you use to post on slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328560</id>
	<title>Goodbye NBC</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1259919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the majority of Slashdot remembers TechTV.  Then Comcast came along, bought it up, and merged it with G4.  Then the good parts of TechTV went away (G4 never had good parts).  Then TechTV went away entirely.  Then most of G4 went away as well; I don't have it in my cable package (thank goodness), but as I understand it G4 has become Spike2, showing 6 hours of COPS, 6 hours of Wrestling, and late at night they might show some gaming content and a rerun of Screensavers.</p><p>NBC has been lacking, but they still have some quality content.  You can kiss that all goodbye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the majority of Slashdot remembers TechTV .
Then Comcast came along , bought it up , and merged it with G4 .
Then the good parts of TechTV went away ( G4 never had good parts ) .
Then TechTV went away entirely .
Then most of G4 went away as well ; I do n't have it in my cable package ( thank goodness ) , but as I understand it G4 has become Spike2 , showing 6 hours of COPS , 6 hours of Wrestling , and late at night they might show some gaming content and a rerun of Screensavers.NBC has been lacking , but they still have some quality content .
You can kiss that all goodbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the majority of Slashdot remembers TechTV.
Then Comcast came along, bought it up, and merged it with G4.
Then the good parts of TechTV went away (G4 never had good parts).
Then TechTV went away entirely.
Then most of G4 went away as well; I don't have it in my cable package (thank goodness), but as I understand it G4 has become Spike2, showing 6 hours of COPS, 6 hours of Wrestling, and late at night they might show some gaming content and a rerun of Screensavers.NBC has been lacking, but they still have some quality content.
You can kiss that all goodbye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328082</id>
	<title>Directv must be feeling the heat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First <a href="http://www.directv.com/versus" title="directv.com">Versus</a> [directv.com], and now this.  Directv must feel like they can't win.
<br> <br>
I guess when the time comes I'll cut the lines to my satellite dish and just accept my new cable company overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Versus [ directv.com ] , and now this .
Directv must feel like they ca n't win .
I guess when the time comes I 'll cut the lines to my satellite dish and just accept my new cable company overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Versus [directv.com], and now this.
Directv must feel like they can't win.
I guess when the time comes I'll cut the lines to my satellite dish and just accept my new cable company overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327634</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1259958960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny, I read this yesterday on CNN... And for some reason, not long after I got home, NBC got blocked on my TV.</p><p>Strange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , I read this yesterday on CNN... And for some reason , not long after I got home , NBC got blocked on my TV.Strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, I read this yesterday on CNN... And for some reason, not long after I got home, NBC got blocked on my TV.Strange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330128</id>
	<title>Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259926620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We <a href="http://www.starwreck.com/" title="starwreck.com">dont need</a> [starwreck.com] them. Their budgets are way too high, they pay their actors more per film than most people make in a lifetime, and for what...for them to stand around and woodenly repeat lines made by writers who are worse than your average third grader?</p><p><a href="http://www.the-editing-room.com/star-trek.html" title="the-editing-room.com">trek '09</a> [the-editing-room.com]? <a href="http://www.the-editing-room.com/terminator-salvation.html" title="the-editing-room.com">terminator salvation</a> [the-editing-room.com]? <a href="http://www.the-editing-room.com/harrypotterhalfblood.html" title="the-editing-room.com">harry potter</a> [the-editing-room.com]?<br>give me a BREAK!</p><p>We don't need them! The faster they die the better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We dont need [ starwreck.com ] them .
Their budgets are way too high , they pay their actors more per film than most people make in a lifetime , and for what...for them to stand around and woodenly repeat lines made by writers who are worse than your average third grader ? trek '09 [ the-editing-room.com ] ?
terminator salvation [ the-editing-room.com ] ?
harry potter [ the-editing-room.com ] ? give me a BREAK ! We do n't need them !
The faster they die the better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We dont need [starwreck.com] them.
Their budgets are way too high, they pay their actors more per film than most people make in a lifetime, and for what...for them to stand around and woodenly repeat lines made by writers who are worse than your average third grader?trek '09 [the-editing-room.com]?
terminator salvation [the-editing-room.com]?
harry potter [the-editing-room.com]?give me a BREAK!We don't need them!
The faster they die the better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774</id>
	<title>What happens to Hulu?</title>
	<author>midicase</author>
	<datestamp>1259959620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't NBC partly own Hulu?  Isn't Comcast's Cable system in competition with Hulu?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't NBC partly own Hulu ?
Is n't Comcast 's Cable system in competition with Hulu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't NBC partly own Hulu?
Isn't Comcast's Cable system in competition with Hulu?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328162</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.</i> <br>
<br>
So, what exactly is it that you're torrenting again? After all, you just said that there's nothing worth watching. So clearly you aren't watching any TV shows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's virtually nothing good on television anyway ; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend , and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway .
So , what exactly is it that you 're torrenting again ?
After all , you just said that there 's nothing worth watching .
So clearly you are n't watching any TV shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.
So, what exactly is it that you're torrenting again?
After all, you just said that there's nothing worth watching.
So clearly you aren't watching any TV shows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330184</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>dem0n1</author>
	<datestamp>1259926920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While primetime was not explicitly defined (nor was "high-tv viewer")</p></div><p>A "high-tv viewer" is anyone too stoned to pay attention to the ads. Those viewers are causing a burden on the system by not generating the correct ad revenues to allow Comcast to continue providing content to users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While primetime was not explicitly defined ( nor was " high-tv viewer " ) A " high-tv viewer " is anyone too stoned to pay attention to the ads .
Those viewers are causing a burden on the system by not generating the correct ad revenues to allow Comcast to continue providing content to users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While primetime was not explicitly defined (nor was "high-tv viewer")A "high-tv viewer" is anyone too stoned to pay attention to the ads.
Those viewers are causing a burden on the system by not generating the correct ad revenues to allow Comcast to continue providing content to users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327712</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me...</title>
	<author>daivzhavue</author>
	<datestamp>1259959380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They own it already?  Well, a majority stake anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They own it already ?
Well , a majority stake anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They own it already?
Well, a majority stake anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327488</id>
	<title>Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, this was on the front page of every news outlet... almost two days ago. I know that there's a bit of a lag time to get things on Slashdot, but honestly, is it asking that much to post big stories the same day they happen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this was on the front page of every news outlet... almost two days ago .
I know that there 's a bit of a lag time to get things on Slashdot , but honestly , is it asking that much to post big stories the same day they happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this was on the front page of every news outlet... almost two days ago.
I know that there's a bit of a lag time to get things on Slashdot, but honestly, is it asking that much to post big stories the same day they happen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329372</id>
	<title>Re:What happens to Hulu?</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1259923440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu" title="wikipedia.org">Hulu</a> [wikipedia.org] is mainly a joint venture between NBC, ABC, and Fox.
<br>
<br>
I noticed all the articles about this deal killing Hulu--sure NBC has nearly all their shows on Hulu, but why bloggers are trying to make Hulu = NBC... I don't understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu [ wikipedia.org ] is mainly a joint venture between NBC , ABC , and Fox .
I noticed all the articles about this deal killing Hulu--sure NBC has nearly all their shows on Hulu , but why bloggers are trying to make Hulu = NBC... I do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hulu [wikipedia.org] is mainly a joint venture between NBC, ABC, and Fox.
I noticed all the articles about this deal killing Hulu--sure NBC has nearly all their shows on Hulu, but why bloggers are trying to make Hulu = NBC... I don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328442</id>
	<title>Re:Bad News for TW customers</title>
	<author>Vancorps</author>
	<datestamp>1259919300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think ATT is any better? What do you do when you have to pick between Company A that will abuse you, Company B that will abuse you, or Company C that will abuse you? You get modern America! We did it! Yay! I have the opposite problem you do, at one of my event sites all I can get is ATT DSL which got slower after they bought out SBC. Comcast needs to extend their cable 1000 feet and I can have cable Internet at my site instead of 3meg DSL! Course Comcast cable sucks there too at something like 15meg which is frustrating since I live in AZ where I can get 50meg residential cable. Quite annoying!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think ATT is any better ?
What do you do when you have to pick between Company A that will abuse you , Company B that will abuse you , or Company C that will abuse you ?
You get modern America !
We did it !
Yay ! I have the opposite problem you do , at one of my event sites all I can get is ATT DSL which got slower after they bought out SBC .
Comcast needs to extend their cable 1000 feet and I can have cable Internet at my site instead of 3meg DSL !
Course Comcast cable sucks there too at something like 15meg which is frustrating since I live in AZ where I can get 50meg residential cable .
Quite annoying !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think ATT is any better?
What do you do when you have to pick between Company A that will abuse you, Company B that will abuse you, or Company C that will abuse you?
You get modern America!
We did it!
Yay! I have the opposite problem you do, at one of my event sites all I can get is ATT DSL which got slower after they bought out SBC.
Comcast needs to extend their cable 1000 feet and I can have cable Internet at my site instead of 3meg DSL!
Course Comcast cable sucks there too at something like 15meg which is frustrating since I live in AZ where I can get 50meg residential cable.
Quite annoying!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327800</id>
	<title>Double-Plus Un-Good</title>
	<author>WheezyJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1259959740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a really cool <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [arstechnica.com] at <a href="http://arstechnica.com/" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">ArsTechnica</a> [arstechnica.com] describing what can happen when a monopoly controls the information pipeline from source to delivery... in this case, the pipeline was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">telegraph network</a> [wikipedia.org], aka the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian\_Internet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Victorian Internet</a> [wikipedia.org].<blockquote><div><p>"Western Union secretly siphoned to AP's [Associated Press] general agent Henry Nash Smith the telegraph correspondence of key Democrats during the struggle. Smith, in turn, relayed this intelligence to the Hayes camp with instructions on how to proceed. On top of that, AP constantly published propaganda supporting the Republican side of the story. Meanwhile, Western Union insisted that it kept "all messages whatsoever . . . strictly private and confidential."  Tilden supporters weren't fooled. By the end of the debacle -- [Rutherford] Hayes having won the White House -- they called AP "Hayessociated Press."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Anyway, I would feel better if beleaguered NBC was being bought by a company a little less awful.  A typical Comcast "service" center looks like the visitor's lounge at a prison, bullet-proof glass and everything.  This is the company that will have editorial control over NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a really cool article [ arstechnica.com ] at ArsTechnica [ arstechnica.com ] describing what can happen when a monopoly controls the information pipeline from source to delivery... in this case , the pipeline was the telegraph network [ wikipedia.org ] , aka the Victorian Internet [ wikipedia.org ] .
" Western Union secretly siphoned to AP 's [ Associated Press ] general agent Henry Nash Smith the telegraph correspondence of key Democrats during the struggle .
Smith , in turn , relayed this intelligence to the Hayes camp with instructions on how to proceed .
On top of that , AP constantly published propaganda supporting the Republican side of the story .
Meanwhile , Western Union insisted that it kept " all messages whatsoever .
. .
strictly private and confidential .
" Tilden supporters were n't fooled .
By the end of the debacle -- [ Rutherford ] Hayes having won the White House -- they called AP " Hayessociated Press .
" Anyway , I would feel better if beleaguered NBC was being bought by a company a little less awful .
A typical Comcast " service " center looks like the visitor 's lounge at a prison , bullet-proof glass and everything .
This is the company that will have editorial control over NBC , MSNBC , and CNBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a really cool article [arstechnica.com] at ArsTechnica [arstechnica.com] describing what can happen when a monopoly controls the information pipeline from source to delivery... in this case, the pipeline was the telegraph network [wikipedia.org], aka the Victorian Internet [wikipedia.org].
"Western Union secretly siphoned to AP's [Associated Press] general agent Henry Nash Smith the telegraph correspondence of key Democrats during the struggle.
Smith, in turn, relayed this intelligence to the Hayes camp with instructions on how to proceed.
On top of that, AP constantly published propaganda supporting the Republican side of the story.
Meanwhile, Western Union insisted that it kept "all messages whatsoever .
. .
strictly private and confidential.
"  Tilden supporters weren't fooled.
By the end of the debacle -- [Rutherford] Hayes having won the White House -- they called AP "Hayessociated Press.
"

Anyway, I would feel better if beleaguered NBC was being bought by a company a little less awful.
A typical Comcast "service" center looks like the visitor's lounge at a prison, bullet-proof glass and everything.
This is the company that will have editorial control over NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330816</id>
	<title>Good luck wiht that</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259930580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The days of the government stepping in and help out the citizens have long since past. Might as well get used to the idea of all our content ( and eventually, knowledge ) being controlled by 1 or 2 giant monopolies.  And later, our freedom as they buy more 'ip enforcement' laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The days of the government stepping in and help out the citizens have long since past .
Might as well get used to the idea of all our content ( and eventually , knowledge ) being controlled by 1 or 2 giant monopolies .
And later , our freedom as they buy more 'ip enforcement ' laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The days of the government stepping in and help out the citizens have long since past.
Might as well get used to the idea of all our content ( and eventually, knowledge ) being controlled by 1 or 2 giant monopolies.
And later, our freedom as they buy more 'ip enforcement' laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327394</id>
	<title>Well, there goes what's left of G4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259957940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Attack of the Show," "X-play" and all the other last lingering remnants of the TechTV glory days are probably going to be replaced with old "Cheers" reruns. They've already started rerunning "Lost" and "Heroes" on G4. Pretty soon the G will stand for "generic."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Attack of the Show , " " X-play " and all the other last lingering remnants of the TechTV glory days are probably going to be replaced with old " Cheers " reruns .
They 've already started rerunning " Lost " and " Heroes " on G4 .
Pretty soon the G will stand for " generic .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Attack of the Show," "X-play" and all the other last lingering remnants of the TechTV glory days are probably going to be replaced with old "Cheers" reruns.
They've already started rerunning "Lost" and "Heroes" on G4.
Pretty soon the G will stand for "generic.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328326</id>
	<title>What's This Really About?</title>
	<author>WheezyJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1259918820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-the-real-reason-brian-roberts-is-buying-nbc-2009-12" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [businessinsider.com] supposes that the merger is principally a business bet against the future of the industry.
<br>That is, Comcast is sitting on wads of cash, and buying NBC/Universal will protect it from...<blockquote><div><p>    * Further extortionist increases in cable content carriage fees
<br>    * The gradual conversion of cable into dumb pipes that just deliver Internet access and IP-video</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
FTFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Brian Roberts is thinking that he's sick to death of that bastard Bob Iger at Disney holding him up for higher carriage fees on ESPN, et al, every few years.  And, before he bought NBC, Brian was sick to death of that bastard Jeff Zucker holding him up for higher fees on CNBC, et al.  Etc.

Now, in the future, if anyone does any holding up, Brian Roberts is:

1) going to cash in, too (because now he owns a lot of cable programming), and
2) going to have more leverage in telling Bob Iger, et al, to take a hike.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Here's where it gets really interesting:</p><blockquote><div><p>Eventually, the current cable TV business is toast.  There is NO WAY today's teenagers are going to be shelling out $150 a month to get 500 channels they don't watch when what they do watch is available for free over the Internet.  Eventually, therefore, this whole "carriage fee" game is done--or at least radically changed.

But it's going to take a while.  At least 10 years.

And all those future adults who are going to be watching TV for free over the Internet in 10 years are still going to need Internet access (or else how are they going to watch?).  And Comcast is in a great position to keep providing it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

So there you have it.  What could possibly  go wrong with that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article [ businessinsider.com ] supposes that the merger is principally a business bet against the future of the industry .
That is , Comcast is sitting on wads of cash , and buying NBC/Universal will protect it from... * Further extortionist increases in cable content carriage fees * The gradual conversion of cable into dumb pipes that just deliver Internet access and IP-video FTFA : Brian Roberts is thinking that he 's sick to death of that bastard Bob Iger at Disney holding him up for higher carriage fees on ESPN , et al , every few years .
And , before he bought NBC , Brian was sick to death of that bastard Jeff Zucker holding him up for higher fees on CNBC , et al .
Etc . Now , in the future , if anyone does any holding up , Brian Roberts is : 1 ) going to cash in , too ( because now he owns a lot of cable programming ) , and 2 ) going to have more leverage in telling Bob Iger , et al , to take a hike .
Here 's where it gets really interesting : Eventually , the current cable TV business is toast .
There is NO WAY today 's teenagers are going to be shelling out $ 150 a month to get 500 channels they do n't watch when what they do watch is available for free over the Internet .
Eventually , therefore , this whole " carriage fee " game is done--or at least radically changed .
But it 's going to take a while .
At least 10 years .
And all those future adults who are going to be watching TV for free over the Internet in 10 years are still going to need Internet access ( or else how are they going to watch ? ) .
And Comcast is in a great position to keep providing it .
So there you have it .
What could possibly go wrong with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article [businessinsider.com] supposes that the merger is principally a business bet against the future of the industry.
That is, Comcast is sitting on wads of cash, and buying NBC/Universal will protect it from...    * Further extortionist increases in cable content carriage fees
    * The gradual conversion of cable into dumb pipes that just deliver Internet access and IP-video

FTFA:Brian Roberts is thinking that he's sick to death of that bastard Bob Iger at Disney holding him up for higher carriage fees on ESPN, et al, every few years.
And, before he bought NBC, Brian was sick to death of that bastard Jeff Zucker holding him up for higher fees on CNBC, et al.
Etc.

Now, in the future, if anyone does any holding up, Brian Roberts is:

1) going to cash in, too (because now he owns a lot of cable programming), and
2) going to have more leverage in telling Bob Iger, et al, to take a hike.
Here's where it gets really interesting:Eventually, the current cable TV business is toast.
There is NO WAY today's teenagers are going to be shelling out $150 a month to get 500 channels they don't watch when what they do watch is available for free over the Internet.
Eventually, therefore, this whole "carriage fee" game is done--or at least radically changed.
But it's going to take a while.
At least 10 years.
And all those future adults who are going to be watching TV for free over the Internet in 10 years are still going to need Internet access (or else how are they going to watch?).
And Comcast is in a great position to keep providing it.
So there you have it.
What could possibly  go wrong with that?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327570</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1259958720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW it's also amusing how much you disparage their content and yet you still download it from BitTorrent to watch it.  Rage out, dude!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW it 's also amusing how much you disparage their content and yet you still download it from BitTorrent to watch it .
Rage out , dude ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW it's also amusing how much you disparage their content and yet you still download it from BitTorrent to watch it.
Rage out, dude!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327516</id>
	<title>Ruinous for customers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When are we as a country going to learn? We gave these shitheads municipal monopoly power, and now they want to radically expand their control.

What we need is a law that states this: You can own the pipe, or you can deliver through the pipe, but you cannot do both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are we as a country going to learn ?
We gave these shitheads municipal monopoly power , and now they want to radically expand their control .
What we need is a law that states this : You can own the pipe , or you can deliver through the pipe , but you can not do both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are we as a country going to learn?
We gave these shitheads municipal monopoly power, and now they want to radically expand their control.
What we need is a law that states this: You can own the pipe, or you can deliver through the pipe, but you cannot do both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327234</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>The Clockwork Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1259957160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So will the Scranton branch be absorbing Stamford?</p><p>Who will Jan find to run it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So will the Scranton branch be absorbing Stamford ? Who will Jan find to run it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So will the Scranton branch be absorbing Stamford?Who will Jan find to run it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327434</id>
	<title>They are evil, not stupid</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1259958120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could only hope this would end in disaster for both evil corporations.<br> <br>
Yet, I have serious doubts about that.  When two legions that have sold their souls to the devil for money combine on a project that seems doomed from the start, I'm wary to dismiss it on the grounds that it defies common sense, and try to find out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas\_City\_Shuffle" title="wikipedia.org">what they're looking at</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could only hope this would end in disaster for both evil corporations .
Yet , I have serious doubts about that .
When two legions that have sold their souls to the devil for money combine on a project that seems doomed from the start , I 'm wary to dismiss it on the grounds that it defies common sense , and try to find out what they 're looking at [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could only hope this would end in disaster for both evil corporations.
Yet, I have serious doubts about that.
When two legions that have sold their souls to the devil for money combine on a project that seems doomed from the start, I'm wary to dismiss it on the grounds that it defies common sense, and try to find out what they're looking at [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327506</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>qoncept</author>
	<datestamp>1259958420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dead? Wow. Apparently the 300 million people in the US that are going to turn their TVs on tonight are pretty oblivious, too. Who knew?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dead ?
Wow. Apparently the 300 million people in the US that are going to turn their TVs on tonight are pretty oblivious , too .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dead?
Wow. Apparently the 300 million people in the US that are going to turn their TVs on tonight are pretty oblivious, too.
Who knew?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327542</id>
	<title>Terrible wording</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259958540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GE currently owns a majority stake in NBC Universal (they needed to negotiate with the other owner, Vivendi, before they could proceed with this deal). Under the deal, a new company is being formed, with GE contributing NBC Universal and Comcast contributing some of their content assets and a bunch cash (or cash like assets). Comcast ends up with 51\% ownership of the new company, and GE 49\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GE currently owns a majority stake in NBC Universal ( they needed to negotiate with the other owner , Vivendi , before they could proceed with this deal ) .
Under the deal , a new company is being formed , with GE contributing NBC Universal and Comcast contributing some of their content assets and a bunch cash ( or cash like assets ) .
Comcast ends up with 51 \ % ownership of the new company , and GE 49 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GE currently owns a majority stake in NBC Universal (they needed to negotiate with the other owner, Vivendi, before they could proceed with this deal).
Under the deal, a new company is being formed, with GE contributing NBC Universal and Comcast contributing some of their content assets and a bunch cash (or cash like assets).
Comcast ends up with 51\% ownership of the new company, and GE 49\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330802</id>
	<title>And the big</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259930460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get bigger.</p><p>Once they are big enough, they will be bought by Disney for a true 'end to end' control of the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get bigger.Once they are big enough , they will be bought by Disney for a true 'end to end ' control of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get bigger.Once they are big enough, they will be bought by Disney for a true 'end to end' control of the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327724</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>rnelsonee</author>
	<datestamp>1259959440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lack of money is exactly why I watch the networks, and while they're not going anywhere. While friends are spending $100/month to watch a compressed TV signal, I get uncompressed HDTV for free. Sure I miss the cable channels, but it's not like there's nothing on. NBC alone has Conan O'Brien, The Office, 30 Rock, Law and Order, and SNL.</p><p>People are realizing that the networks are the most affordable way to watch good TV and that's not going to change anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lack of money is exactly why I watch the networks , and while they 're not going anywhere .
While friends are spending $ 100/month to watch a compressed TV signal , I get uncompressed HDTV for free .
Sure I miss the cable channels , but it 's not like there 's nothing on .
NBC alone has Conan O'Brien , The Office , 30 Rock , Law and Order , and SNL.People are realizing that the networks are the most affordable way to watch good TV and that 's not going to change anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lack of money is exactly why I watch the networks, and while they're not going anywhere.
While friends are spending $100/month to watch a compressed TV signal, I get uncompressed HDTV for free.
Sure I miss the cable channels, but it's not like there's nothing on.
NBC alone has Conan O'Brien, The Office, 30 Rock, Law and Order, and SNL.People are realizing that the networks are the most affordable way to watch good TV and that's not going to change anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327318</id>
	<title>We have FAR too many large companies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259957580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this happens, then we need to disallow ANY monopolies that comcast has. That includes all their cable connections.<br> <br>
Otherwise, the feds sould say no.  As it is, we have far too many large companies that 'can not fail'. Instead, we need more competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this happens , then we need to disallow ANY monopolies that comcast has .
That includes all their cable connections .
Otherwise , the feds sould say no .
As it is , we have far too many large companies that 'can not fail' .
Instead , we need more competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this happens, then we need to disallow ANY monopolies that comcast has.
That includes all their cable connections.
Otherwise, the feds sould say no.
As it is, we have far too many large companies that 'can not fail'.
Instead, we need more competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327604</id>
	<title>Did anyone consult Shinehart Wigs?</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1259958840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder what effect this will have on plots in 30 Rock.  Is Jack going to gun for CEO of Comcast now?  That lacks the same punch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder what effect this will have on plots in 30 Rock .
Is Jack going to gun for CEO of Comcast now ?
That lacks the same punch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder what effect this will have on plots in 30 Rock.
Is Jack going to gun for CEO of Comcast now?
That lacks the same punch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327790</id>
	<title>Does this make sense?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1259959680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like America keeps making the same mistake over and over again.  Don't allow a regulated monopoly to be a distributor and the content provider.  Failure to follow this inevitably results in corruption and anti-competitive behavior.  This applies to:</p><p>- Power production and power distribution<br>- Cellular network providers, cellular phone manufacturers, voice service providers<br>- Phone companies and voice providers<br>- Internet service providers and internet content providers<br>- Cable television delivery and cable content providers<br>- The Telegraph (recent Slashdot article on this)</p><p>The smoke has not yet cleared over Comcast illegally throttling connections.  Why the heck would we consider allowing them to own a major content provider?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like America keeps making the same mistake over and over again .
Do n't allow a regulated monopoly to be a distributor and the content provider .
Failure to follow this inevitably results in corruption and anti-competitive behavior .
This applies to : - Power production and power distribution- Cellular network providers , cellular phone manufacturers , voice service providers- Phone companies and voice providers- Internet service providers and internet content providers- Cable television delivery and cable content providers- The Telegraph ( recent Slashdot article on this ) The smoke has not yet cleared over Comcast illegally throttling connections .
Why the heck would we consider allowing them to own a major content provider ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like America keeps making the same mistake over and over again.
Don't allow a regulated monopoly to be a distributor and the content provider.
Failure to follow this inevitably results in corruption and anti-competitive behavior.
This applies to:- Power production and power distribution- Cellular network providers, cellular phone manufacturers, voice service providers- Phone companies and voice providers- Internet service providers and internet content providers- Cable television delivery and cable content providers- The Telegraph (recent Slashdot article on this)The smoke has not yet cleared over Comcast illegally throttling connections.
Why the heck would we consider allowing them to own a major content provider?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327618</id>
	<title>Excuse me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call me an idiot (and im sure people will<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) but what the frak does a company like General Electric want with a company like NBC Universal in the first place ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me an idiot ( and im sure people will : ) but what the frak does a company like General Electric want with a company like NBC Universal in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me an idiot (and im sure people will :) but what the frak does a company like General Electric want with a company like NBC Universal in the first place ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327990</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when Slashdot did finally post it (I'm sure 50 different submitters submitted the story), they picked on with an incorrect title:</p><p>"Comcast to Buy 51\% of NBC, GE Goes After 49\%"</p><p>GE is not "going after" 49\% of NBC--GE already owns NBC; it's just decided to sell 51\% of something it currently owns 100\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when Slashdot did finally post it ( I 'm sure 50 different submitters submitted the story ) , they picked on with an incorrect title : " Comcast to Buy 51 \ % of NBC , GE Goes After 49 \ % " GE is not " going after " 49 \ % of NBC--GE already owns NBC ; it 's just decided to sell 51 \ % of something it currently owns 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when Slashdot did finally post it (I'm sure 50 different submitters submitted the story), they picked on with an incorrect title:"Comcast to Buy 51\% of NBC, GE Goes After 49\%"GE is not "going after" 49\% of NBC--GE already owns NBC; it's just decided to sell 51\% of something it currently owns 100\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30332274</id>
	<title>Great!  More corporate mergers!</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1259943600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the giant conglomerates just need to start failing one by one, so the government can hand them trillions of dollars for being "Too Big to Fail".</p><p>Hey!  It worked for the banks!</p><p>"Free Market" is THE OPPOSITE of the corporate monopoly system we are currently living in.  And this system is bad for every single living thing on the planet, and most importantly the development and prosperity of our own species, humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the giant conglomerates just need to start failing one by one , so the government can hand them trillions of dollars for being " Too Big to Fail " .Hey !
It worked for the banks !
" Free Market " is THE OPPOSITE of the corporate monopoly system we are currently living in .
And this system is bad for every single living thing on the planet , and most importantly the development and prosperity of our own species , humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the giant conglomerates just need to start failing one by one, so the government can hand them trillions of dollars for being "Too Big to Fail".Hey!
It worked for the banks!
"Free Market" is THE OPPOSITE of the corporate monopoly system we are currently living in.
And this system is bad for every single living thing on the planet, and most importantly the development and prosperity of our own species, humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30333244</id>
	<title>Re:They are evil, not stupid</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1260043800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last time I heard about Comcast buying a TV channel, it was Tech TV and it did end in disaster...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I heard about Comcast buying a TV channel , it was Tech TV and it did end in disaster.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I heard about Comcast buying a TV channel, it was Tech TV and it did end in disaster...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</id>
	<title>whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1259957220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares? Does anybody still watch that crap? All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they're already dead. There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.<br> <br>
Good to see these propaganda arms of the State cannibalizing each other, kuru and death should follow soon enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
Does anybody still watch that crap ?
All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they 're already dead .
There 's virtually nothing good on television anyway ; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend , and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway .
Good to see these propaganda arms of the State cannibalizing each other , kuru and death should follow soon enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
Does anybody still watch that crap?
All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they're already dead.
There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.
Good to see these propaganda arms of the State cannibalizing each other, kuru and death should follow soon enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327442</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must've missed the part about NBC Universal having several highly lucrative cable channels such as Bravo, USA, MSNBC, and perhaps most of interest to slashdotters, SyFy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must 've missed the part about NBC Universal having several highly lucrative cable channels such as Bravo , USA , MSNBC , and perhaps most of interest to slashdotters , SyFy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must've missed the part about NBC Universal having several highly lucrative cable channels such as Bravo, USA, MSNBC, and perhaps most of interest to slashdotters, SyFy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327232</id>
	<title>Also announced...</title>
	<author>smurphmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259957160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Starting immediately, CBS and ABC will now only be available as pay per view for all Comcast customers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Starting immediately , CBS and ABC will now only be available as pay per view for all Comcast customers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starting immediately, CBS and ABC will now only be available as pay per view for all Comcast customers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328840</id>
	<title>Re:Well, there goes what's left of G4</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1259920980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh man, you will smoke a turd in the deepest sewer of hell for insulting Leo Laporte. Even Jesus looks up to that guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man , you will smoke a turd in the deepest sewer of hell for insulting Leo Laporte .
Even Jesus looks up to that guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man, you will smoke a turd in the deepest sewer of hell for insulting Leo Laporte.
Even Jesus looks up to that guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327784</id>
	<title>Re:Note to Jay Leno</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259959680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Comcast,</p><p>I'm moving to ABC.</p><p>signed,<br>Mr.Leno</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Comcast,I 'm moving to ABC.signed,Mr.Leno</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Comcast,I'm moving to ABC.signed,Mr.Leno</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327236</id>
	<title>More like...</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1259957160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate <b>how much money Comcast will line their pockets with in order to</b> gain "undue advantages" from the deal that gives it access to programming.</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate how much money Comcast will line their pockets with in order to gain " undue advantages " from the deal that gives it access to programming.FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate how much money Comcast will line their pockets with in order to gain "undue advantages" from the deal that gives it access to programming.FTFY
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327808</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>dunezone</author>
	<datestamp>1259959740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.</p></div><p>
I assume you're talking about using BitTorrent to download copyrighted material?
<br>
<br>
That free ride wont last forever.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There's virtually nothing good on television anyway</p></div><p>
Southpark</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway .
I assume you 're talking about using BitTorrent to download copyrighted material ?
That free ride wont last forever.There 's virtually nothing good on television anyway Southpark</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.
I assume you're talking about using BitTorrent to download copyrighted material?
That free ride wont last forever.There's virtually nothing good on television anyway
Southpark
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327212</id>
	<title>Why can't they all just get along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259957040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and buy 50\% each?</htmltext>
<tokenext>and buy 50 \ % each ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and buy 50\% each?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328970</id>
	<title>Re:You're missing the big picture.</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1259921640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone remind me, did Congress pass net neutrality laws yet or not?  Because if they did, that would stop Comcast from pulling that crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone remind me , did Congress pass net neutrality laws yet or not ?
Because if they did , that would stop Comcast from pulling that crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone remind me, did Congress pass net neutrality laws yet or not?
Because if they did, that would stop Comcast from pulling that crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327662</id>
	<title>Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1259959080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Office, 30 Rock, Better of Ted just to name a few.  I just hope Comcast doesn't take them off Hulu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Office , 30 Rock , Better of Ted just to name a few .
I just hope Comcast does n't take them off Hulu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Office, 30 Rock, Better of Ted just to name a few.
I just hope Comcast doesn't take them off Hulu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328202</id>
	<title>Axis of Evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Comcast + GE + a part-of-the-problem partisan frenzy news [MSNBC] = Axis of Evil.
If I didn't like jet engines, light bulbs, and power plants so much, I would try to avoid this new conglomeration as much as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast + GE + a part-of-the-problem partisan frenzy news [ MSNBC ] = Axis of Evil .
If I did n't like jet engines , light bulbs , and power plants so much , I would try to avoid this new conglomeration as much as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast + GE + a part-of-the-problem partisan frenzy news [MSNBC] = Axis of Evil.
If I didn't like jet engines, light bulbs, and power plants so much, I would try to avoid this new conglomeration as much as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327602</id>
	<title>Comcast needs to be split up</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259958840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>into three separate companies:
<ol>
<li>infrastructure, i.e., the wire and fibre on the poles</li>
<li>ISP and phone services</li>
<li>content provider</li>
</ol><p>

This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>into three separate companies : infrastructure , i.e. , the wire and fibre on the poles ISP and phone services content provider This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>into three separate companies:

infrastructure, i.e., the wire and fibre on the poles
ISP and phone services
content provider


This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327676</id>
	<title>Hulu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259959140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NBC Universal owns (a large part of) Hulu.</p><p>Hulu obviously competes with Comcast's cable TV offerings.  They'd much rather you pay for a cable TV subscription than watch the same shows for free, legally, online.</p><p>Ever since the deal was announced, Comcast has made a few noises about not wanting to kill Hulu off, but excuse me if I don't quite believe them given their track record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NBC Universal owns ( a large part of ) Hulu.Hulu obviously competes with Comcast 's cable TV offerings .
They 'd much rather you pay for a cable TV subscription than watch the same shows for free , legally , online.Ever since the deal was announced , Comcast has made a few noises about not wanting to kill Hulu off , but excuse me if I do n't quite believe them given their track record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NBC Universal owns (a large part of) Hulu.Hulu obviously competes with Comcast's cable TV offerings.
They'd much rather you pay for a cable TV subscription than watch the same shows for free, legally, online.Ever since the deal was announced, Comcast has made a few noises about not wanting to kill Hulu off, but excuse me if I don't quite believe them given their track record.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30333244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1755240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1755240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30330128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30328436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30329596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30327434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1755240.30333244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
