<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_05_1725223</id>
	<title>Microsoft, Yahoo Finalize Search Agreement</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260037380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Joe Quimby writes <i>"Microsoft and Yahoo have <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/187269.asp">finalized and executed their Web-search agreement</a> after five months of deliberation, <a href="http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=428399">the companies announced Friday</a>. Microsoft and Yahoo <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/0212220/Microsoft-and-Yahoo-Reach-Deal">reached a revenue-sharing agreement in July</a> to combine their search businesses. Under the 10-year agreement, Yahoo's Web search would be powered by Bing and Yahoo would retain most ad revenue from its site."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Joe Quimby writes " Microsoft and Yahoo have finalized and executed their Web-search agreement after five months of deliberation , the companies announced Friday .
Microsoft and Yahoo reached a revenue-sharing agreement in July to combine their search businesses .
Under the 10-year agreement , Yahoo 's Web search would be powered by Bing and Yahoo would retain most ad revenue from its site .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joe Quimby writes "Microsoft and Yahoo have finalized and executed their Web-search agreement after five months of deliberation, the companies announced Friday.
Microsoft and Yahoo reached a revenue-sharing agreement in July to combine their search businesses.
Under the 10-year agreement, Yahoo's Web search would be powered by Bing and Yahoo would retain most ad revenue from its site.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338428</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft monoculture</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1260008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The convicted monopolist is making moves again"</p><p>Assuming for your benefit that you're not misinformed, who are you referring to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The convicted monopolist is making moves again " Assuming for your benefit that you 're not misinformed , who are you referring to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The convicted monopolist is making moves again"Assuming for your benefit that you're not misinformed, who are you referring to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830</id>
	<title>10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 years is a very long time in the Internet world. After all, Google has only existed just slightly longer than 10 years, and look at all it has done in that time.</p><p>It seems very absurd to make a deal for that long. Although it gets much traffic, Yahoo! itself is barely relevant today, and Bing hasn't exactly been shown to be a challenger to Google's search results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 years is a very long time in the Internet world .
After all , Google has only existed just slightly longer than 10 years , and look at all it has done in that time.It seems very absurd to make a deal for that long .
Although it gets much traffic , Yahoo !
itself is barely relevant today , and Bing has n't exactly been shown to be a challenger to Google 's search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 years is a very long time in the Internet world.
After all, Google has only existed just slightly longer than 10 years, and look at all it has done in that time.It seems very absurd to make a deal for that long.
Although it gets much traffic, Yahoo!
itself is barely relevant today, and Bing hasn't exactly been shown to be a challenger to Google's search results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30340690</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft monoculture</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1260028860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just imagine somebody who considers their browser to be a search engine. So they search through the search box on Firefox. Then the search box on Opera. Then the search box on Safari. They even try the web browser on their phone. And they keep getting the same results until they try Internet Explorer and finally get something different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine somebody who considers their browser to be a search engine .
So they search through the search box on Firefox .
Then the search box on Opera .
Then the search box on Safari .
They even try the web browser on their phone .
And they keep getting the same results until they try Internet Explorer and finally get something different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine somebody who considers their browser to be a search engine.
So they search through the search box on Firefox.
Then the search box on Opera.
Then the search box on Safari.
They even try the web browser on their phone.
And they keep getting the same results until they try Internet Explorer and finally get something different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337320</id>
	<title>do77</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">today. It's about my calling. Now I leaving core. I bloc in orde8 to hapless *BSD with THOUSANDS of vitality. Its but many find it it a break, if</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>today .
It 's about my calling .
Now I leaving core .
I bloc in orde8 to hapless * BSD with THOUSANDS of vitality .
Its but many find it it a break , if [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>today.
It's about my calling.
Now I leaving core.
I bloc in orde8 to hapless *BSD with THOUSANDS of vitality.
Its but many find it it a break, if [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339928</id>
	<title>Re: Lots of garbage creation</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1260020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd love to know what's going to become of all of the servers/networking gear that used to power yahoo search. Doubt they'll reformat and install windows/BING on them.</p></div><p>TFA story is:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft and Yahoo have finalized and executed their Web-search agreement after <strong>five months of deliberation,</strong> (..)</p></div><p>The servers and networking gear is already obsolete and will likely soon cause major amounts of pollution when it is burned in order to extract gold, copper, aluminum and other raw materials.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to know what 's going to become of all of the servers/networking gear that used to power yahoo search .
Doubt they 'll reformat and install windows/BING on them.TFA story is : Microsoft and Yahoo have finalized and executed their Web-search agreement after five months of deliberation , ( .. ) The servers and networking gear is already obsolete and will likely soon cause major amounts of pollution when it is burned in order to extract gold , copper , aluminum and other raw materials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to know what's going to become of all of the servers/networking gear that used to power yahoo search.
Doubt they'll reformat and install windows/BING on them.TFA story is:Microsoft and Yahoo have finalized and executed their Web-search agreement after five months of deliberation, (..)The servers and networking gear is already obsolete and will likely soon cause major amounts of pollution when it is burned in order to extract gold, copper, aluminum and other raw materials.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337204</id>
	<title>Yahoo is still relevant, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yahoo is still relevant, but probably not how you'd imagine.
<p>
Pretty much any new (and existing) ATT and Comcast accounts use Yahoo for mail services, not to mention they set Yahoo as the homepage that most users don't bother to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo is still relevant , but probably not how you 'd imagine .
Pretty much any new ( and existing ) ATT and Comcast accounts use Yahoo for mail services , not to mention they set Yahoo as the homepage that most users do n't bother to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo is still relevant, but probably not how you'd imagine.
Pretty much any new (and existing) ATT and Comcast accounts use Yahoo for mail services, not to mention they set Yahoo as the homepage that most users don't bother to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337368</id>
	<title>I believe the term is...</title>
	<author>Aurisor</author>
	<datestamp>1260044700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Confederation of Dunces"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Confederation of Dunces "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Confederation of Dunces"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008</id>
	<title>Re:10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is bing??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is bing ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is bing?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337274</id>
	<title>Re:Can any good come of this?</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1260043980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>end users rarely benefit from this kind of deal.</p><p>MSFT gets to double their bragging, er market share, yahoo gets money and gets to lay off search developers who weren't keeping up with google and msft anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>end users rarely benefit from this kind of deal.MSFT gets to double their bragging , er market share , yahoo gets money and gets to lay off search developers who were n't keeping up with google and msft anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>end users rarely benefit from this kind of deal.MSFT gets to double their bragging, er market share, yahoo gets money and gets to lay off search developers who weren't keeping up with google and msft anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338608</id>
	<title>Re:Can any good come of this?</title>
	<author>LoverOfJoy</author>
	<datestamp>1260010320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The end users in this case are advertisers. This will result in more eyeballs seeing their ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end users in this case are advertisers .
This will result in more eyeballs seeing their ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end users in this case are advertisers.
This will result in more eyeballs seeing their ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337352</id>
	<title>They'll go to Weird Stuff Warehouse</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1260044580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They'll go to <a href="http://www.weirdstuff.com/cgi-bin/category/BAR000" title="weirdstuff.com">Weird Stuff Warehouse</a> [weirdstuff.com], the surplus place near Yahoo HQ.  Want a few hundred servers cheap?  They have them stacked up.
</p><p>
Dismantling a failed company is routine in Silicon Valley.  Big assets are auctioned off by DoveBid.  Miscellaneous computers go to Weird Stuff.  Furniture and partitions go to Consolidated Office Outfitters.  In less than a month, the building will be empty and ready for rental.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll go to Weird Stuff Warehouse [ weirdstuff.com ] , the surplus place near Yahoo HQ .
Want a few hundred servers cheap ?
They have them stacked up .
Dismantling a failed company is routine in Silicon Valley .
Big assets are auctioned off by DoveBid .
Miscellaneous computers go to Weird Stuff .
Furniture and partitions go to Consolidated Office Outfitters .
In less than a month , the building will be empty and ready for rental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They'll go to Weird Stuff Warehouse [weirdstuff.com], the surplus place near Yahoo HQ.
Want a few hundred servers cheap?
They have them stacked up.
Dismantling a failed company is routine in Silicon Valley.
Big assets are auctioned off by DoveBid.
Miscellaneous computers go to Weird Stuff.
Furniture and partitions go to Consolidated Office Outfitters.
In less than a month, the building will be empty and ready for rental.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337202</id>
	<title>Re:Can any good come of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Bing is quite a bit better a search engine than Yahoo, so the end users win there.</p><p>Yahoo gets to line their pockets in what has been a pretty rough economy.</p><p>Microsoft gets to stick it to Google and gets access to the elusive Asian market which Yahoo has a large presence in.</p><p>Governments around the world get to use this as fodder to extort^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fine Microsoft for millions.</p><p>Google gets to wipe its tears with the mega-billions it has made and whimper, "Woe is us."</p><p>That about sums it up, thanks for playing Monopoly(tm), come again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Bing is quite a bit better a search engine than Yahoo , so the end users win there.Yahoo gets to line their pockets in what has been a pretty rough economy.Microsoft gets to stick it to Google and gets access to the elusive Asian market which Yahoo has a large presence in.Governments around the world get to use this as fodder to extort ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H fine Microsoft for millions.Google gets to wipe its tears with the mega-billions it has made and whimper , " Woe is us .
" That about sums it up , thanks for playing Monopoly ( tm ) , come again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Bing is quite a bit better a search engine than Yahoo, so the end users win there.Yahoo gets to line their pockets in what has been a pretty rough economy.Microsoft gets to stick it to Google and gets access to the elusive Asian market which Yahoo has a large presence in.Governments around the world get to use this as fodder to extort^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fine Microsoft for millions.Google gets to wipe its tears with the mega-billions it has made and whimper, "Woe is us.
"That about sums it up, thanks for playing Monopoly(tm), come again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338376</id>
	<title>Re:10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1260008640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bing hasn't exactly been shown to be a challenger to Google's search results."</p><p>Bing hasn't made much of a dent in Google's market share, but I do note that I've seen Google ads on TV for the first time after Bing came out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bing has n't exactly been shown to be a challenger to Google 's search results .
" Bing has n't made much of a dent in Google 's market share , but I do note that I 've seen Google ads on TV for the first time after Bing came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bing hasn't exactly been shown to be a challenger to Google's search results.
"Bing hasn't made much of a dent in Google's market share, but I do note that I've seen Google ads on TV for the first time after Bing came out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338596</id>
	<title>I use Yahoo</title>
	<author>Ritchie70</author>
	<datestamp>1260010200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Yahoo, I just don't use it for search..</p><p>But if you want weather, movies, or cute cat videos, they're OK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Yahoo , I just do n't use it for search..But if you want weather , movies , or cute cat videos , they 're OK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Yahoo, I just don't use it for search..But if you want weather, movies, or cute cat videos, they're OK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339090</id>
	<title>Re:Oh dear no</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1260014280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By using it and adding a search engine as Bing who tries to achieve some success to your hosts (127.0.x I guess), you create the monster you mention "Google".</p><p>I kept using Yahoo for a long time since I got SICK of the easily hacked Google results and horrible advertising control. Now I end up having only Bing.com as my provider since there are no other CREDIBLE engines left. It is MY right to get frustrated, you can keep on using Google.</p><p>I hate MS and their puppets in open source, the MSCE idiots but I have tried Bing to see what did they manage to do after all that work. Result? I was impressed with my local language results, very much and I openly told everyone about it, including open source fanatics I know. Of course, unless MS fixes their culture, 30 minutes downtime like comedy will happen, IE will get "better features" eventually and all will get wasted in that corrupt company. Don't I know it? Still not enough to treat it like some spyware host.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By using it and adding a search engine as Bing who tries to achieve some success to your hosts ( 127.0.x I guess ) , you create the monster you mention " Google " .I kept using Yahoo for a long time since I got SICK of the easily hacked Google results and horrible advertising control .
Now I end up having only Bing.com as my provider since there are no other CREDIBLE engines left .
It is MY right to get frustrated , you can keep on using Google.I hate MS and their puppets in open source , the MSCE idiots but I have tried Bing to see what did they manage to do after all that work .
Result ? I was impressed with my local language results , very much and I openly told everyone about it , including open source fanatics I know .
Of course , unless MS fixes their culture , 30 minutes downtime like comedy will happen , IE will get " better features " eventually and all will get wasted in that corrupt company .
Do n't I know it ?
Still not enough to treat it like some spyware host .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By using it and adding a search engine as Bing who tries to achieve some success to your hosts (127.0.x I guess), you create the monster you mention "Google".I kept using Yahoo for a long time since I got SICK of the easily hacked Google results and horrible advertising control.
Now I end up having only Bing.com as my provider since there are no other CREDIBLE engines left.
It is MY right to get frustrated, you can keep on using Google.I hate MS and their puppets in open source, the MSCE idiots but I have tried Bing to see what did they manage to do after all that work.
Result? I was impressed with my local language results, very much and I openly told everyone about it, including open source fanatics I know.
Of course, unless MS fixes their culture, 30 minutes downtime like comedy will happen, IE will get "better features" eventually and all will get wasted in that corrupt company.
Don't I know it?
Still not enough to treat it like some spyware host.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337730</id>
	<title>Not the first time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260003840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yahoo has historically had a number of search providers other than themselves. Starting in 1996 with Altavista. They used Google as well at some point, maybe Inkitoni too? Whatever makes yahoo whatever yahoo is, isn't the search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo has historically had a number of search providers other than themselves .
Starting in 1996 with Altavista .
They used Google as well at some point , maybe Inkitoni too ?
Whatever makes yahoo whatever yahoo is , is n't the search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo has historically had a number of search providers other than themselves.
Starting in 1996 with Altavista.
They used Google as well at some point, maybe Inkitoni too?
Whatever makes yahoo whatever yahoo is, isn't the search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339478</id>
	<title>Someone needs to tell Ballmer</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1260016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That while they were so busy spending billions to scrape a few points in market share back, Google were busy making sure they were the default search engine in the most popular mobile devices for the next 10 years: Android and the iPhone, Microsoft's mobile platform is all but dead in the water, and even then, devices like  HTC's Windows Mobile smartphones also default to Google. <br> <br>
They're so busy catching up they have no idea what beyond the next corner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That while they were so busy spending billions to scrape a few points in market share back , Google were busy making sure they were the default search engine in the most popular mobile devices for the next 10 years : Android and the iPhone , Microsoft 's mobile platform is all but dead in the water , and even then , devices like HTC 's Windows Mobile smartphones also default to Google .
They 're so busy catching up they have no idea what beyond the next corner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That while they were so busy spending billions to scrape a few points in market share back, Google were busy making sure they were the default search engine in the most popular mobile devices for the next 10 years: Android and the iPhone, Microsoft's mobile platform is all but dead in the water, and even then, devices like  HTC's Windows Mobile smartphones also default to Google.
They're so busy catching up they have no idea what beyond the next corner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30343042</id>
	<title>Where are those DOJ regulators when you need'm...</title>
	<author>makinsky</author>
	<datestamp>1260113460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS started crushing the Google-Yahoo deal months prior to the DOJ antitrust division's meeting through their political lobbying and the usual tactics, it concluded by <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-02/ff\_killgoogle?currentPage=all" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">DOJ picking that deal apart</a> [wired.com]. Now lets see how the <b>new office</b> deals with all those <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/03/government-in-microsoft-pocket/" title="boycottnovell.com" rel="nofollow">MS donations</a> [boycottnovell.com] and astroturfing against Google. Lets see if DOJ kicks this deal too.
Why would anyone want to strengthen the second biggest search-engine market competitor and antitrust-laws-breaking firm by giving <b>them</b> the bigger market share and allowing to take out a smaller one?! Lets really take a good look at Obama's office' DOJ decision on this one...</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS started crushing the Google-Yahoo deal months prior to the DOJ antitrust division 's meeting through their political lobbying and the usual tactics , it concluded by DOJ picking that deal apart [ wired.com ] .
Now lets see how the new office deals with all those MS donations [ boycottnovell.com ] and astroturfing against Google .
Lets see if DOJ kicks this deal too .
Why would anyone want to strengthen the second biggest search-engine market competitor and antitrust-laws-breaking firm by giving them the bigger market share and allowing to take out a smaller one ? !
Lets really take a good look at Obama 's office ' DOJ decision on this one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS started crushing the Google-Yahoo deal months prior to the DOJ antitrust division's meeting through their political lobbying and the usual tactics, it concluded by DOJ picking that deal apart [wired.com].
Now lets see how the new office deals with all those MS donations [boycottnovell.com] and astroturfing against Google.
Lets see if DOJ kicks this deal too.
Why would anyone want to strengthen the second biggest search-engine market competitor and antitrust-laws-breaking firm by giving them the bigger market share and allowing to take out a smaller one?!
Lets really take a good look at Obama's office' DOJ decision on this one...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30341364</id>
	<title>Re:Two irrelevants joining will remain irrelevant</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1260038760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're simplifying this all too much.</p><p>First, because trying to be the leader in search was never really Yahoo's game.  They were about being a web portal -- basically, they wanted to be your home page.  Personally, I prefer a clean home page for searching like Google's, and I suspect a lot of the people who read Slashdot do too, but an awful lot of people don't.</p><p>To that end they went after a lot of different things.  Webmail, video, fantasy sports leagues, photo hosting (Flickr), games, news, etc.  I'm not saying that's necessarily been a winning strategy for them as a company, but what they were trying to do was never strictly about search.</p><p>Microsoft, too, has a very multi-pronged business plan, even for the web.  Sure, we've seen their mostly unsuccessful efforts in the search, web portal, webmail, and instant messenging areas, but there's also IE, ASP.NET, Silverlight, and too many other things to count, to say nothing of all the more indirect efforts like the XBox which start to bleed back over into the online space.  In a lot of these areas they've taken on more successful established players or technologies and fought to gain market share, something that's been good for everyone since it's forced those established options to become better to stay ahead.  Microsoft is the kind of company that will try to compete in a hundred different arenas, knowing that someone else might falter and that, even if not, maybe you can still make something good out of being #2 in a couple related areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're simplifying this all too much.First , because trying to be the leader in search was never really Yahoo 's game .
They were about being a web portal -- basically , they wanted to be your home page .
Personally , I prefer a clean home page for searching like Google 's , and I suspect a lot of the people who read Slashdot do too , but an awful lot of people do n't.To that end they went after a lot of different things .
Webmail , video , fantasy sports leagues , photo hosting ( Flickr ) , games , news , etc .
I 'm not saying that 's necessarily been a winning strategy for them as a company , but what they were trying to do was never strictly about search.Microsoft , too , has a very multi-pronged business plan , even for the web .
Sure , we 've seen their mostly unsuccessful efforts in the search , web portal , webmail , and instant messenging areas , but there 's also IE , ASP.NET , Silverlight , and too many other things to count , to say nothing of all the more indirect efforts like the XBox which start to bleed back over into the online space .
In a lot of these areas they 've taken on more successful established players or technologies and fought to gain market share , something that 's been good for everyone since it 's forced those established options to become better to stay ahead .
Microsoft is the kind of company that will try to compete in a hundred different arenas , knowing that someone else might falter and that , even if not , maybe you can still make something good out of being # 2 in a couple related areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're simplifying this all too much.First, because trying to be the leader in search was never really Yahoo's game.
They were about being a web portal -- basically, they wanted to be your home page.
Personally, I prefer a clean home page for searching like Google's, and I suspect a lot of the people who read Slashdot do too, but an awful lot of people don't.To that end they went after a lot of different things.
Webmail, video, fantasy sports leagues, photo hosting (Flickr), games, news, etc.
I'm not saying that's necessarily been a winning strategy for them as a company, but what they were trying to do was never strictly about search.Microsoft, too, has a very multi-pronged business plan, even for the web.
Sure, we've seen their mostly unsuccessful efforts in the search, web portal, webmail, and instant messenging areas, but there's also IE, ASP.NET, Silverlight, and too many other things to count, to say nothing of all the more indirect efforts like the XBox which start to bleed back over into the online space.
In a lot of these areas they've taken on more successful established players or technologies and fought to gain market share, something that's been good for everyone since it's forced those established options to become better to stay ahead.
Microsoft is the kind of company that will try to compete in a hundred different arenas, knowing that someone else might falter and that, even if not, maybe you can still make something good out of being #2 in a couple related areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337898</id>
	<title>An yahoo now sucks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Within 48 hours of the deal, Yahoo had already been corrupted as badly as Bing is.  Search results are twisted to not show anything critical of M$, and instead give results that include M$ FUD.  Goodbye Yahoo!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Within 48 hours of the deal , Yahoo had already been corrupted as badly as Bing is .
Search results are twisted to not show anything critical of M $ , and instead give results that include M $ FUD .
Goodbye Yahoo !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Within 48 hours of the deal, Yahoo had already been corrupted as badly as Bing is.
Search results are twisted to not show anything critical of M$, and instead give results that include M$ FUD.
Goodbye Yahoo!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30340404</id>
	<title>tu3gi8l</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260025680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">The chaanel To sign</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The chaanel To sign [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chaanel To sign [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337776</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft monoculture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many cases, Bing gives less relevant search results, and when giving relevant results they tend to be fewer in number than Yahoo. IMHO, Bing is not a mature enough search engine, and if Yahoo is going to be powered by Bing, it may very well be a serious downgrade of the Yahoo search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many cases , Bing gives less relevant search results , and when giving relevant results they tend to be fewer in number than Yahoo .
IMHO , Bing is not a mature enough search engine , and if Yahoo is going to be powered by Bing , it may very well be a serious downgrade of the Yahoo search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many cases, Bing gives less relevant search results, and when giving relevant results they tend to be fewer in number than Yahoo.
IMHO, Bing is not a mature enough search engine, and if Yahoo is going to be powered by Bing, it may very well be a serious downgrade of the Yahoo search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336998</id>
	<title>Oh dear no</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1260042240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh dear no!! That's bad news for.. ehm.. no one!<br>No one use Yahoo nor Bing (i've even put www.bing.com in my hosts)</p><p>But frankly Google must have competition from somewhere. Google<br>is becoming more privicy Evil for every day that goes by. The<br>non-savvy users are screwed by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear no ! !
That 's bad news for.. ehm.. no one ! No one use Yahoo nor Bing ( i 've even put www.bing.com in my hosts ) But frankly Google must have competition from somewhere .
Googleis becoming more privicy Evil for every day that goes by .
Thenon-savvy users are screwed by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear no!!
That's bad news for.. ehm.. no one!No one use Yahoo nor Bing (i've even put www.bing.com in my hosts)But frankly Google must have competition from somewhere.
Googleis becoming more privicy Evil for every day that goes by.
Thenon-savvy users are screwed by default.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960</id>
	<title>Microsoft monoculture</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1260041940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Yahoo's Web search would be powered by Bing</i>

</p><p>One of the advantages of having several search sites is that if one site doesn't find what you're looking for, another site might.  That's why it makes sense to have multiple search engines.  Now there is no point in going to Yahoo if Microsoft can't find it.  Same engine - same results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo 's Web search would be powered by Bing One of the advantages of having several search sites is that if one site does n't find what you 're looking for , another site might .
That 's why it makes sense to have multiple search engines .
Now there is no point in going to Yahoo if Microsoft ca n't find it .
Same engine - same results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Yahoo's Web search would be powered by Bing

One of the advantages of having several search sites is that if one site doesn't find what you're looking for, another site might.
That's why it makes sense to have multiple search engines.
Now there is no point in going to Yahoo if Microsoft can't find it.
Same engine - same results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906</id>
	<title>Reclamation of infrastructure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to know what's going to become of all of the servers/networking gear that used to power yahoo search.  Doubt they'll reformat and install windows/BING on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to know what 's going to become of all of the servers/networking gear that used to power yahoo search .
Doubt they 'll reformat and install windows/BING on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to know what's going to become of all of the servers/networking gear that used to power yahoo search.
Doubt they'll reformat and install windows/BING on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338904</id>
	<title>Re:10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>lanceran</author>
	<datestamp>1260012840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know what it is, but i definitely know that Bing Is Not Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what it is , but i definitely know that Bing Is Not Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what it is, but i definitely know that Bing Is Not Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337184</id>
	<title>Re:10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1260043440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is a talking bunny, created as the lead character of a semi-popular <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted\_Dewan#Bing\_Bunny" title="wikipedia.org">series of children's books</a> [wikipedia.org]. Yahoo is wisely betting that in this Web 3.0 universe, old-style text search just isn't that relevant anymore: maybe in 1998 internet users were mainly looking for things like a Geocities page with an obsessive-compulsively categorized list of rare postage stamps, but today's convergence culture leverages always-on internet as an integral part of our everyday lives, and search engines must adapt likewise. Since Bing Bunny "tackles [real-world] challenges such as getting dressed, eating breakfast, and going to the park", it's a perfect fit for the forward-looking management team of this joint Microsoft/Yahoo initiative, the rabbit serving as a launchpad to transform 20th-century text-search-as-service into 21st-century search-as-lifestyle-accessory.</p><p>Microsoft and Yahoo understand that there's more to life than text on the internet. That's why they're proud to announce, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038575020X?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=abxxm-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=038575020X" title="amazon.com">"Getting dressed---it&rsquo;s a Bing thing!"</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is a talking bunny , created as the lead character of a semi-popular series of children 's books [ wikipedia.org ] .
Yahoo is wisely betting that in this Web 3.0 universe , old-style text search just is n't that relevant anymore : maybe in 1998 internet users were mainly looking for things like a Geocities page with an obsessive-compulsively categorized list of rare postage stamps , but today 's convergence culture leverages always-on internet as an integral part of our everyday lives , and search engines must adapt likewise .
Since Bing Bunny " tackles [ real-world ] challenges such as getting dressed , eating breakfast , and going to the park " , it 's a perfect fit for the forward-looking management team of this joint Microsoft/Yahoo initiative , the rabbit serving as a launchpad to transform 20th-century text-search-as-service into 21st-century search-as-lifestyle-accessory.Microsoft and Yahoo understand that there 's more to life than text on the internet .
That 's why they 're proud to announce , " Getting dressed---it    s a Bing thing !
" [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is a talking bunny, created as the lead character of a semi-popular series of children's books [wikipedia.org].
Yahoo is wisely betting that in this Web 3.0 universe, old-style text search just isn't that relevant anymore: maybe in 1998 internet users were mainly looking for things like a Geocities page with an obsessive-compulsively categorized list of rare postage stamps, but today's convergence culture leverages always-on internet as an integral part of our everyday lives, and search engines must adapt likewise.
Since Bing Bunny "tackles [real-world] challenges such as getting dressed, eating breakfast, and going to the park", it's a perfect fit for the forward-looking management team of this joint Microsoft/Yahoo initiative, the rabbit serving as a launchpad to transform 20th-century text-search-as-service into 21st-century search-as-lifestyle-accessory.Microsoft and Yahoo understand that there's more to life than text on the internet.
That's why they're proud to announce, "Getting dressed---it’s a Bing thing!
" [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337396</id>
	<title>Damn I like Yahoo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nooooo! Yahoo is the only way to search for results in pages pre-2005. Google won't match those pages even if you type the exact title of the document and an exact phrase on the page. (That's a generalization, but seriously, I can find things in a few clicks at Yahoo from old websites like band pages I routinely used in 2002) How will I find information from pages that stopped being updated a long time ago, and did you know that sometimes people lose their bookmarks, and static information isn't invalid information? Goodbye, web that I grew with...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nooooo !
Yahoo is the only way to search for results in pages pre-2005 .
Google wo n't match those pages even if you type the exact title of the document and an exact phrase on the page .
( That 's a generalization , but seriously , I can find things in a few clicks at Yahoo from old websites like band pages I routinely used in 2002 ) How will I find information from pages that stopped being updated a long time ago , and did you know that sometimes people lose their bookmarks , and static information is n't invalid information ?
Goodbye , web that I grew with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nooooo!
Yahoo is the only way to search for results in pages pre-2005.
Google won't match those pages even if you type the exact title of the document and an exact phrase on the page.
(That's a generalization, but seriously, I can find things in a few clicks at Yahoo from old websites like band pages I routinely used in 2002) How will I find information from pages that stopped being updated a long time ago, and did you know that sometimes people lose their bookmarks, and static information isn't invalid information?
Goodbye, web that I grew with...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337580</id>
	<title>Re:Have I misunderstood</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would guess that microsoft would put some sort of "Powered by Bing" logo near the search box, so I don't think that it will even be the brand name of the search anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would guess that microsoft would put some sort of " Powered by Bing " logo near the search box , so I do n't think that it will even be the brand name of the search anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would guess that microsoft would put some sort of "Powered by Bing" logo near the search box, so I don't think that it will even be the brand name of the search anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339140</id>
	<title>Re:Reclamation of infrastructure</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1260014580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps MS has written the engine in true portable way and it will run under FreeBSD Yahoo uses. As you know, MS never had problem with BSD folks and even the license itself. I wouldn't be surprised a bit if MS released some high end software (e.g. Dynamics etc.) on FreeBSD tomorrow. They kinda code for it anyway, I mean they must have learned a lot already thanks to OS X department.</p><p>I compile gettext etc. and they keep checking for documented MS languages to support, I don't think they would spare time to some imaginary languages which doesn't really exist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps MS has written the engine in true portable way and it will run under FreeBSD Yahoo uses .
As you know , MS never had problem with BSD folks and even the license itself .
I would n't be surprised a bit if MS released some high end software ( e.g .
Dynamics etc .
) on FreeBSD tomorrow .
They kinda code for it anyway , I mean they must have learned a lot already thanks to OS X department.I compile gettext etc .
and they keep checking for documented MS languages to support , I do n't think they would spare time to some imaginary languages which does n't really exist : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps MS has written the engine in true portable way and it will run under FreeBSD Yahoo uses.
As you know, MS never had problem with BSD folks and even the license itself.
I wouldn't be surprised a bit if MS released some high end software (e.g.
Dynamics etc.
) on FreeBSD tomorrow.
They kinda code for it anyway, I mean they must have learned a lot already thanks to OS X department.I compile gettext etc.
and they keep checking for documented MS languages to support, I don't think they would spare time to some imaginary languages which doesn't really exist :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30340668</id>
	<title>Re:10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>outriding9800</author>
	<datestamp>1260028440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sound of found</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sound of found</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sound of found</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337508</id>
	<title>Two irrelevants joining will remain irrelevant</title>
	<author>LibrePensador</author>
	<datestamp>1260045720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo by making itself technologically dependent on Microsoft for 10 years has given up on search. This effectively puts Yahoo out of business. It's a golden parachute for Yahoo's executives but jeopardizes any chances that Yahoo will ever be able to play in the search business again.</p><p>As for Microsoft, it allows microsoft to gain instantly a few percentage points in web search, which should allow them to extract higher ad fees.</p><p>Microsoft is patient and they hope that they are buying 10 years with which to figure out how to bring down Google. They have enough money, but when it comes to the web, I think Microsoft is largely irrelevant.</p><p>If it wasn't for their desktop monopoly, nobody would even care about anything LIVE. They shove that stuff down users throat every time a user tries to download messenger, which they are only interested in because of the network effects that allowed Messenger to become relevant in the first place. I remember when no one even knew what messenger was and people hated it initially, but it kept popping up after every single XP install and telling people that they needed an account and enough people fell for this crap.</p><p>Only another Google-like startup could outgoogle google, but it certainly won't be Microsoft or Microsoft and Yahoo's dead skeleton.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo by making itself technologically dependent on Microsoft for 10 years has given up on search .
This effectively puts Yahoo out of business .
It 's a golden parachute for Yahoo 's executives but jeopardizes any chances that Yahoo will ever be able to play in the search business again.As for Microsoft , it allows microsoft to gain instantly a few percentage points in web search , which should allow them to extract higher ad fees.Microsoft is patient and they hope that they are buying 10 years with which to figure out how to bring down Google .
They have enough money , but when it comes to the web , I think Microsoft is largely irrelevant.If it was n't for their desktop monopoly , nobody would even care about anything LIVE .
They shove that stuff down users throat every time a user tries to download messenger , which they are only interested in because of the network effects that allowed Messenger to become relevant in the first place .
I remember when no one even knew what messenger was and people hated it initially , but it kept popping up after every single XP install and telling people that they needed an account and enough people fell for this crap.Only another Google-like startup could outgoogle google , but it certainly wo n't be Microsoft or Microsoft and Yahoo 's dead skeleton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo by making itself technologically dependent on Microsoft for 10 years has given up on search.
This effectively puts Yahoo out of business.
It's a golden parachute for Yahoo's executives but jeopardizes any chances that Yahoo will ever be able to play in the search business again.As for Microsoft, it allows microsoft to gain instantly a few percentage points in web search, which should allow them to extract higher ad fees.Microsoft is patient and they hope that they are buying 10 years with which to figure out how to bring down Google.
They have enough money, but when it comes to the web, I think Microsoft is largely irrelevant.If it wasn't for their desktop monopoly, nobody would even care about anything LIVE.
They shove that stuff down users throat every time a user tries to download messenger, which they are only interested in because of the network effects that allowed Messenger to become relevant in the first place.
I remember when no one even knew what messenger was and people hated it initially, but it kept popping up after every single XP install and telling people that they needed an account and enough people fell for this crap.Only another Google-like startup could outgoogle google, but it certainly won't be Microsoft or Microsoft and Yahoo's dead skeleton.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337380</id>
	<title>Have I misunderstood</title>
	<author>Pop69</author>
	<datestamp>1260044760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or has Yahoo search now ceased to exist and is now just a brand name for Bing search ?

<br> <br>

Is this some way Microsoft have found of getting round anti trust by setting the default search in IE to Yahoo not Bing thereby avoiding the accusation that they are yet again trying to illegally leverage a monopoly in one area to create one in another ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>or has Yahoo search now ceased to exist and is now just a brand name for Bing search ?
Is this some way Microsoft have found of getting round anti trust by setting the default search in IE to Yahoo not Bing thereby avoiding the accusation that they are yet again trying to illegally leverage a monopoly in one area to create one in another ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or has Yahoo search now ceased to exist and is now just a brand name for Bing search ?
Is this some way Microsoft have found of getting round anti trust by setting the default search in IE to Yahoo not Bing thereby avoiding the accusation that they are yet again trying to illegally leverage a monopoly in one area to create one in another ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338232</id>
	<title>Re:10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing is a wielder of quintessence an it's strong than Vampires and Werewolves, combined.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is a wielder of quintessence an it 's strong than Vampires and Werewolves , combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is a wielder of quintessence an it's strong than Vampires and Werewolves, combined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882</id>
	<title>Can any good come of this?</title>
	<author>mikeroySoft</author>
	<datestamp>1260041460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see the mutual advantage of this deal.
<br>
How will the end user benefit from this at all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see the mutual advantage of this deal .
How will the end user benefit from this at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see the mutual advantage of this deal.
How will the end user benefit from this at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337244</id>
	<title>Re:Reclamation of infrastructure</title>
	<author>twiddlingbits</author>
	<datestamp>1260043800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing happens to them.  IIRC, Yahoo Seach is just going to be "powered by Bing" just like many companies internal seach engines are powered by Google. There may need to be some migration to WIndows (If not there already) but that's going to be trivial cost. All the networking equipment is still needed, no one said anythng about closing down data centers on either side. They still got a long way to match Big G, as even if this WAS a combination of Bing and Yahoo it would still be less than 30\% market share or about 1/2 the size of Google. Eventually MS will find a way to own Yahoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing happens to them .
IIRC , Yahoo Seach is just going to be " powered by Bing " just like many companies internal seach engines are powered by Google .
There may need to be some migration to WIndows ( If not there already ) but that 's going to be trivial cost .
All the networking equipment is still needed , no one said anythng about closing down data centers on either side .
They still got a long way to match Big G , as even if this WAS a combination of Bing and Yahoo it would still be less than 30 \ % market share or about 1/2 the size of Google .
Eventually MS will find a way to own Yahoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing happens to them.
IIRC, Yahoo Seach is just going to be "powered by Bing" just like many companies internal seach engines are powered by Google.
There may need to be some migration to WIndows (If not there already) but that's going to be trivial cost.
All the networking equipment is still needed, no one said anythng about closing down data centers on either side.
They still got a long way to match Big G, as even if this WAS a combination of Bing and Yahoo it would still be less than 30\% market share or about 1/2 the size of Google.
Eventually MS will find a way to own Yahoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338494</id>
	<title>Oh, SNAP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260009360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30341284</id>
	<title>Re:10 years is a LOOOOOOOOONG time...</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1260037260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the hell is bing??</p></div><p>Dunno, I'm gunna google "Bing" and find out what it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is bing ?
? Dunno , I 'm gunna google " Bing " and find out what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is bing?
?Dunno, I'm gunna google "Bing" and find out what it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337206</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft monoculture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The convicted monopolist is making moves again. This is the latest step in a long series of M$ plots <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo#Acquisition\_attempt\_by\_Microsoft" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo#Acquisition\_attempt\_by\_Microsoft</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>One step closer to world domination. Sickening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The convicted monopolist is making moves again .
This is the latest step in a long series of M $ plots http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo # Acquisition \ _attempt \ _by \ _Microsoft [ wikipedia.org ] One step closer to world domination .
Sickening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The convicted monopolist is making moves again.
This is the latest step in a long series of M$ plots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo#Acquisition\_attempt\_by\_Microsoft [wikipedia.org]One step closer to world domination.
Sickening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30340690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30341364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30341284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30340668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1725223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30341364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30340668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30341284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30340690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30338428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30337580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1725223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30336998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1725223.30339090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
