<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_25_1324218</id>
	<title>Why Bite the Google Hand That Feeds You?</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261762740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Techdirt pointed out that not long ago, John Byrne, ex-editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek.com and now CEO of newly founded C-Change Media, decided to tackle the problem of why publications seem to be so vehemently opposed to <a href="http://www.c-changemedia.com/2009/12/google-media-biting-hand-that-feeds-you.html">Google being a part of their business process</a>.  While there aren't any earth-shattering revelations, it is a great, succinct description of the problem.  <i>"I received several solid answers from followers of this blog, including Frymaster who immediately took sides in the ongoing war between Traditional Media and Google. Wrote Frymaster: 'I reject out-of-hand the assertion that Google is profiting from others' content. Rather, I say that Google profits from connecting users to content. It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly. Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system. That's why they succeed. There is a direct connection between Google's user-centric, community-oriented approach and their financial success.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Techdirt pointed out that not long ago , John Byrne , ex-editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek.com and now CEO of newly founded C-Change Media , decided to tackle the problem of why publications seem to be so vehemently opposed to Google being a part of their business process .
While there are n't any earth-shattering revelations , it is a great , succinct description of the problem .
" I received several solid answers from followers of this blog , including Frymaster who immediately took sides in the ongoing war between Traditional Media and Google .
Wrote Frymaster : 'I reject out-of-hand the assertion that Google is profiting from others ' content .
Rather , I say that Google profits from connecting users to content .
It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly .
Google , unlike any other search engine ever , goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible .
Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system .
That 's why they succeed .
There is a direct connection between Google 's user-centric , community-oriented approach and their financial success .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Techdirt pointed out that not long ago, John Byrne, ex-editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek.com and now CEO of newly founded C-Change Media, decided to tackle the problem of why publications seem to be so vehemently opposed to Google being a part of their business process.
While there aren't any earth-shattering revelations, it is a great, succinct description of the problem.
"I received several solid answers from followers of this blog, including Frymaster who immediately took sides in the ongoing war between Traditional Media and Google.
Wrote Frymaster: 'I reject out-of-hand the assertion that Google is profiting from others' content.
Rather, I say that Google profits from connecting users to content.
It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly.
Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible.
Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.
That's why they succeed.
There is a direct connection between Google's user-centric, community-oriented approach and their financial success.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552732</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, last generation, adapt or die, k?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261737180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they bring information produced by someone else, make money off the ads they or an advertising partner serve, but don't share the revenue with the content producer(s)? Seems like stealing/copyright violation to me, especially if the content can be attributed to someone by their real name (and many news stories do have an author name).</p><p>Keep in mind that a few years ago, another company got so big and so cocky about using other people's content (i.e., with their Beam-It software tool) that they eventually got sued and soon folded--remember MP3.com? Yeah, they eventually got acquired too, but the massive music library of independent artists was gone by then, thanks to the original owner of that company who was so sure they wouldn't lose in court.</p><p>(Plus, that MP3.com company was actually exploiting its independent artists worse than the RIAA does their own artists and ripping off their customers even more, if one paid enough attention. The D.A.M.--Digital Automatic Music--CD's weren't even factory pressed discs, they were something like a Mitsui branded CD-R... so $7.99 plus shipping charged to the customer for a CD-R costing 50 cents or less per disc, likely purchased in bulk? The MP3 music on the discs was only 128 kbps, certainly not providing the best quality of the artists' music--sounded like the CD Audio tracks were just the 128 kbps MP3 files converted to CD audio too. Payback for playback had minimum earnings before they even got a check of their earnings--wonder how many artists never got their paycheck if they were still below the minimum when the company had to fold.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they bring information produced by someone else , make money off the ads they or an advertising partner serve , but do n't share the revenue with the content producer ( s ) ?
Seems like stealing/copyright violation to me , especially if the content can be attributed to someone by their real name ( and many news stories do have an author name ) .Keep in mind that a few years ago , another company got so big and so cocky about using other people 's content ( i.e. , with their Beam-It software tool ) that they eventually got sued and soon folded--remember MP3.com ?
Yeah , they eventually got acquired too , but the massive music library of independent artists was gone by then , thanks to the original owner of that company who was so sure they would n't lose in court .
( Plus , that MP3.com company was actually exploiting its independent artists worse than the RIAA does their own artists and ripping off their customers even more , if one paid enough attention .
The D.A.M.--Digital Automatic Music--CD 's were n't even factory pressed discs , they were something like a Mitsui branded CD-R... so $ 7.99 plus shipping charged to the customer for a CD-R costing 50 cents or less per disc , likely purchased in bulk ?
The MP3 music on the discs was only 128 kbps , certainly not providing the best quality of the artists ' music--sounded like the CD Audio tracks were just the 128 kbps MP3 files converted to CD audio too .
Payback for playback had minimum earnings before they even got a check of their earnings--wonder how many artists never got their paycheck if they were still below the minimum when the company had to fold .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they bring information produced by someone else, make money off the ads they or an advertising partner serve, but don't share the revenue with the content producer(s)?
Seems like stealing/copyright violation to me, especially if the content can be attributed to someone by their real name (and many news stories do have an author name).Keep in mind that a few years ago, another company got so big and so cocky about using other people's content (i.e., with their Beam-It software tool) that they eventually got sued and soon folded--remember MP3.com?
Yeah, they eventually got acquired too, but the massive music library of independent artists was gone by then, thanks to the original owner of that company who was so sure they wouldn't lose in court.
(Plus, that MP3.com company was actually exploiting its independent artists worse than the RIAA does their own artists and ripping off their customers even more, if one paid enough attention.
The D.A.M.--Digital Automatic Music--CD's weren't even factory pressed discs, they were something like a Mitsui branded CD-R... so $7.99 plus shipping charged to the customer for a CD-R costing 50 cents or less per disc, likely purchased in bulk?
The MP3 music on the discs was only 128 kbps, certainly not providing the best quality of the artists' music--sounded like the CD Audio tracks were just the 128 kbps MP3 files converted to CD audio too.
Payback for playback had minimum earnings before they even got a check of their earnings--wonder how many artists never got their paycheck if they were still below the minimum when the company had to fold.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552250</id>
	<title>Re:Google's Profit is the problem</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1261774020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty funny that suddenly businesses want to bring down Google because fewer people are buying their buggy whips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty funny that suddenly businesses want to bring down Google because fewer people are buying their buggy whips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty funny that suddenly businesses want to bring down Google because fewer people are buying their buggy whips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553770</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1261754460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But these news outfits all want to be that market maker. Like TFA says, its all about building brand image as the trusted source. Right now, people trust Google, not the media outlets. There are two problems (from the POV of 'old media') with this situation:</p><ul><li>Brand loyalty is worth a premium over the commodity value of the product. People are willing to pay a bit more to buy the brand name cereal than the generic stuff.</li><li>That brand loyalty and trust can be sold to interest groups. Its why well known actors and personalities make adverts for products. Old Media used to deliver eyeballs. They could sell a block of consumers and the trust those consumers placed in the new anchor was transferred to the advertisements.</li></ul><p>Google undermines loyalty. People can bounce around between any site for their news. And the trust that people used to put in their chosen source is now given to Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But these news outfits all want to be that market maker .
Like TFA says , its all about building brand image as the trusted source .
Right now , people trust Google , not the media outlets .
There are two problems ( from the POV of 'old media ' ) with this situation : Brand loyalty is worth a premium over the commodity value of the product .
People are willing to pay a bit more to buy the brand name cereal than the generic stuff.That brand loyalty and trust can be sold to interest groups .
Its why well known actors and personalities make adverts for products .
Old Media used to deliver eyeballs .
They could sell a block of consumers and the trust those consumers placed in the new anchor was transferred to the advertisements.Google undermines loyalty .
People can bounce around between any site for their news .
And the trust that people used to put in their chosen source is now given to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But these news outfits all want to be that market maker.
Like TFA says, its all about building brand image as the trusted source.
Right now, people trust Google, not the media outlets.
There are two problems (from the POV of 'old media') with this situation:Brand loyalty is worth a premium over the commodity value of the product.
People are willing to pay a bit more to buy the brand name cereal than the generic stuff.That brand loyalty and trust can be sold to interest groups.
Its why well known actors and personalities make adverts for products.
Old Media used to deliver eyeballs.
They could sell a block of consumers and the trust those consumers placed in the new anchor was transferred to the advertisements.Google undermines loyalty.
People can bounce around between any site for their news.
And the trust that people used to put in their chosen source is now given to Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552064</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>supercrisp</author>
	<datestamp>1261771800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel you, but aren't you blaming the wrong people? The people making the commercials aren't the problems; it's the people running the media you're consuming. To a large extent, the increase in advertisement ratio you're put-out by tracks along with the consolidation of media industries and the narrowing of all sorts of margins as competition became more intense with the deregulation of markets. It also tracks along with the multiplication of media types. As the amount of viewers per minute gets less--because spread more thinly--they shout more loudly. At least I think that's the logic driving them. It probably doesn't add up, but that's the general drift I get from monitoring the whinings of the old media crew.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel you , but are n't you blaming the wrong people ?
The people making the commercials are n't the problems ; it 's the people running the media you 're consuming .
To a large extent , the increase in advertisement ratio you 're put-out by tracks along with the consolidation of media industries and the narrowing of all sorts of margins as competition became more intense with the deregulation of markets .
It also tracks along with the multiplication of media types .
As the amount of viewers per minute gets less--because spread more thinly--they shout more loudly .
At least I think that 's the logic driving them .
It probably does n't add up , but that 's the general drift I get from monitoring the whinings of the old media crew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel you, but aren't you blaming the wrong people?
The people making the commercials aren't the problems; it's the people running the media you're consuming.
To a large extent, the increase in advertisement ratio you're put-out by tracks along with the consolidation of media industries and the narrowing of all sorts of margins as competition became more intense with the deregulation of markets.
It also tracks along with the multiplication of media types.
As the amount of viewers per minute gets less--because spread more thinly--they shout more loudly.
At least I think that's the logic driving them.
It probably doesn't add up, but that's the general drift I get from monitoring the whinings of the old media crew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554934</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Entropy98</author>
	<datestamp>1261823820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>You're right, how dare websites be economically viable.</p><p>The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.</p></div><p>None of those sites have anything of intrinsic value. I noted this in the last paragraph of my post.</p><p>Take Slashdot as an example. I can get all the news here elsewhere. I am only really here for the community. If slashdot were to fold, the community would simply move somewhere else and I would be typing this in a different forum. What exactly has been lost? It's not like the people here cease to exist because slashdot is gone.</p></div><p>You're right, the entire internet should consist of hobby sites paid for out of the pocket of those who choose to run them for a loss.</p><p>These sites should then die as soon as they become too popular for the hobbyist to afford.</p><p>That sounds much better than looking at ads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , how dare websites be economically viable.The Wallstreet Journal , Slashdot , Google , Youtube , Facebook , and the smaller ( and much smaller ) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.None of those sites have anything of intrinsic value .
I noted this in the last paragraph of my post.Take Slashdot as an example .
I can get all the news here elsewhere .
I am only really here for the community .
If slashdot were to fold , the community would simply move somewhere else and I would be typing this in a different forum .
What exactly has been lost ?
It 's not like the people here cease to exist because slashdot is gone.You 're right , the entire internet should consist of hobby sites paid for out of the pocket of those who choose to run them for a loss.These sites should then die as soon as they become too popular for the hobbyist to afford.That sounds much better than looking at ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, how dare websites be economically viable.The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.None of those sites have anything of intrinsic value.
I noted this in the last paragraph of my post.Take Slashdot as an example.
I can get all the news here elsewhere.
I am only really here for the community.
If slashdot were to fold, the community would simply move somewhere else and I would be typing this in a different forum.
What exactly has been lost?
It's not like the people here cease to exist because slashdot is gone.You're right, the entire internet should consist of hobby sites paid for out of the pocket of those who choose to run them for a loss.These sites should then die as soon as they become too popular for the hobbyist to afford.That sounds much better than looking at ads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552212</id>
	<title>+1 Mod parent up</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1261773540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Mod parent up. A+++ WOULD BUY AGAIN</p><p>(By the way, I gave up ads on my news site when I realised that I was taking 1/120 of the money I made working for a living in order to shove FLOATING FUCKING BANNERS in my friends' faces. WTF.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Mod parent up .
A + + + WOULD BUY AGAIN ( By the way , I gave up ads on my news site when I realised that I was taking 1/120 of the money I made working for a living in order to shove FLOATING FUCKING BANNERS in my friends ' faces .
WTF. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Mod parent up.
A+++ WOULD BUY AGAIN(By the way, I gave up ads on my news site when I realised that I was taking 1/120 of the money I made working for a living in order to shove FLOATING FUCKING BANNERS in my friends' faces.
WTF.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555766</id>
	<title>Re:Complete the quote</title>
	<author>sillybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1261843140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apropo that proverb, and whim, it reminds me of the situation between IBM and Microsoft, and how Microsoft bit IBM's hand bigtime around 1993, tanking their stockprice, and driving them to the brink of extinction. Microsoft is one of the most arrogant companies ever to come into existence, driven by the personality of its CEO. Microsoft's path through the business world is littered with carcasses of companies they've obliterated on their way to the top. Embrace, extend, extinguish. They are like the emergence of a flying piranha that enters every river and lake in the world, that eats up anything that moves, and once there is nothing left to eat in the water, flies out of the water for feeding on bears taking a few bites for a few minutes at a time, then returns to catch a breath in water. Of course they are very successful and proliferate well into everything they target. How do you deal with the emergence of such a beast? Well, if you're a snake, and these fish bite you, you can turn into a flying snake that specializes in eating exclusively these flying piranhas. Alien vs. predator. Or maybe a simpler remedy, like a species that carries a poison, like some mushrooms or berries do, after finding themselves on the path to extermination. IBM these days grows fruits filled with the GPL. As in embrace and extend this, biatch, because you cannot extinguish it. Or they can be called a bear with poisoned meat - saying bite me now. GPL'd software is untouchable by Microsoft, because they can embrace, extend but not extinguish, because they cannot put a block on it. IBM had rather deal with something that it has to give away free, but it lets it conduct a profitable business and assure its own survival, than be at the mercy of another corporation, who in the past showed no mercy to them. It's called intensified competition dropping the price of goods, and in this case, that of software. You can stay in business providing services around free software, compared to providing services around someone else's software, who, you know, will take over your business anyway. Now Microsoft can smell their own carcass starting to rot, because its based on purely selling software, so what do they do? They turn to what they do best, embrace, extend, extinguish. Find something that they did not invent, nor were ever good at, but something that represents control and power, and take over and take it into stagnation. These days they are after Google, after the Internet and Search. They wanted to buy yahoo, and they are pushing their own search engine. I don't know what the solution will be in that case, how to stop them if they succeed.<br>
I personally do not like the GPL compared to public domain. In the old days, we had a 14 year artificial construct called 'intellectual property" subject to "copyright" to reward creators, with the understanding that everything would eventually pass into public domain, for the general benefit of human knowledge. This construct was created as an incentive to stop keeping secrets, and simply to reward creators. But it has turned into a mess. I don't like the GPL because it restricts freedom, because it has a clause that say's "you can't." Public domain says do whatever you want, including make software based on it that you sell for 14 years before you have to release the source to public domain. But, we don't have such laws. I don't mind people making money on writing software. But when it comes to the current state of affairs, with 90 year copyright on the way to being extended even further and the behavior of a software monopoly, I can see how things like the GPL are simply a necessity to survive as a business.<br>
If Microsoft can successfully foot themselves and extract cold cash end user money out of a different field, such as internet search, then they too can go for GPL software, and compete with IBM at what IBM does best these days, providing services built around free software. However, while Microsoft's main revenue streams are based on sales of Windows and Office, IBM is immune from such attacks from the Beast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apropo that proverb , and whim , it reminds me of the situation between IBM and Microsoft , and how Microsoft bit IBM 's hand bigtime around 1993 , tanking their stockprice , and driving them to the brink of extinction .
Microsoft is one of the most arrogant companies ever to come into existence , driven by the personality of its CEO .
Microsoft 's path through the business world is littered with carcasses of companies they 've obliterated on their way to the top .
Embrace , extend , extinguish .
They are like the emergence of a flying piranha that enters every river and lake in the world , that eats up anything that moves , and once there is nothing left to eat in the water , flies out of the water for feeding on bears taking a few bites for a few minutes at a time , then returns to catch a breath in water .
Of course they are very successful and proliferate well into everything they target .
How do you deal with the emergence of such a beast ?
Well , if you 're a snake , and these fish bite you , you can turn into a flying snake that specializes in eating exclusively these flying piranhas .
Alien vs. predator. Or maybe a simpler remedy , like a species that carries a poison , like some mushrooms or berries do , after finding themselves on the path to extermination .
IBM these days grows fruits filled with the GPL .
As in embrace and extend this , biatch , because you can not extinguish it .
Or they can be called a bear with poisoned meat - saying bite me now .
GPL 'd software is untouchable by Microsoft , because they can embrace , extend but not extinguish , because they can not put a block on it .
IBM had rather deal with something that it has to give away free , but it lets it conduct a profitable business and assure its own survival , than be at the mercy of another corporation , who in the past showed no mercy to them .
It 's called intensified competition dropping the price of goods , and in this case , that of software .
You can stay in business providing services around free software , compared to providing services around someone else 's software , who , you know , will take over your business anyway .
Now Microsoft can smell their own carcass starting to rot , because its based on purely selling software , so what do they do ?
They turn to what they do best , embrace , extend , extinguish .
Find something that they did not invent , nor were ever good at , but something that represents control and power , and take over and take it into stagnation .
These days they are after Google , after the Internet and Search .
They wanted to buy yahoo , and they are pushing their own search engine .
I do n't know what the solution will be in that case , how to stop them if they succeed .
I personally do not like the GPL compared to public domain .
In the old days , we had a 14 year artificial construct called 'intellectual property " subject to " copyright " to reward creators , with the understanding that everything would eventually pass into public domain , for the general benefit of human knowledge .
This construct was created as an incentive to stop keeping secrets , and simply to reward creators .
But it has turned into a mess .
I do n't like the GPL because it restricts freedom , because it has a clause that say 's " you ca n't .
" Public domain says do whatever you want , including make software based on it that you sell for 14 years before you have to release the source to public domain .
But , we do n't have such laws .
I do n't mind people making money on writing software .
But when it comes to the current state of affairs , with 90 year copyright on the way to being extended even further and the behavior of a software monopoly , I can see how things like the GPL are simply a necessity to survive as a business .
If Microsoft can successfully foot themselves and extract cold cash end user money out of a different field , such as internet search , then they too can go for GPL software , and compete with IBM at what IBM does best these days , providing services built around free software .
However , while Microsoft 's main revenue streams are based on sales of Windows and Office , IBM is immune from such attacks from the Beast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apropo that proverb, and whim, it reminds me of the situation between IBM and Microsoft, and how Microsoft bit IBM's hand bigtime around 1993, tanking their stockprice, and driving them to the brink of extinction.
Microsoft is one of the most arrogant companies ever to come into existence, driven by the personality of its CEO.
Microsoft's path through the business world is littered with carcasses of companies they've obliterated on their way to the top.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
They are like the emergence of a flying piranha that enters every river and lake in the world, that eats up anything that moves, and once there is nothing left to eat in the water, flies out of the water for feeding on bears taking a few bites for a few minutes at a time, then returns to catch a breath in water.
Of course they are very successful and proliferate well into everything they target.
How do you deal with the emergence of such a beast?
Well, if you're a snake, and these fish bite you, you can turn into a flying snake that specializes in eating exclusively these flying piranhas.
Alien vs. predator. Or maybe a simpler remedy, like a species that carries a poison, like some mushrooms or berries do, after finding themselves on the path to extermination.
IBM these days grows fruits filled with the GPL.
As in embrace and extend this, biatch, because you cannot extinguish it.
Or they can be called a bear with poisoned meat - saying bite me now.
GPL'd software is untouchable by Microsoft, because they can embrace, extend but not extinguish, because they cannot put a block on it.
IBM had rather deal with something that it has to give away free, but it lets it conduct a profitable business and assure its own survival, than be at the mercy of another corporation, who in the past showed no mercy to them.
It's called intensified competition dropping the price of goods, and in this case, that of software.
You can stay in business providing services around free software, compared to providing services around someone else's software, who, you know, will take over your business anyway.
Now Microsoft can smell their own carcass starting to rot, because its based on purely selling software, so what do they do?
They turn to what they do best, embrace, extend, extinguish.
Find something that they did not invent, nor were ever good at, but something that represents control and power, and take over and take it into stagnation.
These days they are after Google, after the Internet and Search.
They wanted to buy yahoo, and they are pushing their own search engine.
I don't know what the solution will be in that case, how to stop them if they succeed.
I personally do not like the GPL compared to public domain.
In the old days, we had a 14 year artificial construct called 'intellectual property" subject to "copyright" to reward creators, with the understanding that everything would eventually pass into public domain, for the general benefit of human knowledge.
This construct was created as an incentive to stop keeping secrets, and simply to reward creators.
But it has turned into a mess.
I don't like the GPL because it restricts freedom, because it has a clause that say's "you can't.
" Public domain says do whatever you want, including make software based on it that you sell for 14 years before you have to release the source to public domain.
But, we don't have such laws.
I don't mind people making money on writing software.
But when it comes to the current state of affairs, with 90 year copyright on the way to being extended even further and the behavior of a software monopoly, I can see how things like the GPL are simply a necessity to survive as a business.
If Microsoft can successfully foot themselves and extract cold cash end user money out of a different field, such as internet search, then they too can go for GPL software, and compete with IBM at what IBM does best these days, providing services built around free software.
However, while Microsoft's main revenue streams are based on sales of Windows and Office, IBM is immune from such attacks from the Beast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552086</id>
	<title>Re:"Skewered" Scholar</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1261772040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you can attribute this to malice.  Google Scholar has a very small index.  Even Citeseer does a better job at turning up relevant papers (and, unlike Google Scholar, makes it easy to find where they were originally published).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you can attribute this to malice .
Google Scholar has a very small index .
Even Citeseer does a better job at turning up relevant papers ( and , unlike Google Scholar , makes it easy to find where they were originally published ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you can attribute this to malice.
Google Scholar has a very small index.
Even Citeseer does a better job at turning up relevant papers (and, unlike Google Scholar, makes it easy to find where they were originally published).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018</id>
	<title>some moderate views</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1261771260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This being slashdot, I can predict that there will be lots of people modding each other up for saying that news should be free, comparing newspapers to manufacturers of buggy whips, etc. Actually the positions of both google and the traditional print media are a lot more nuanced than that, so it might be worth considering whether they actually know their own business better than slashdotters do. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091202/media\_nm/us\_media\_summit\_google" title="yahoo.com">This</a> [yahoo.com] article (not paywalled!) has a nice, up-to-date discussion of the issues. Google is trying to work out a compromise that works for both newspapers and users. The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google, and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search, but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription. Essentially you'd be able to read some number of articles over some period of time, but at some point a paywall will kick in.</p><p>
Okay, I hear the howls of disgust. We hate paywalls, etc. Yeah, sure. As an internet user, I hate paywalls, and I especially hate sites that try to get into google search results, but then when you click through on the google search results, you can't actually read the content. It's misleading and a waste of my time. But it's not completely unreasonable for, e.g., the Wall Street Journal to want readers to pay for a subscription. They make money that way. They can only do high-quality reporting if they get income. Different newspapers are trying different models. The NY Times has messed around with its setup over the years, with the current situation being that anyone can read anything for free, without registering. That may be a workable business model for the NY Times in the long run, <i>provided</i> that they have some other revenue stream. That's why I subscribe to the NY Times in print. Editorial work isn't free. Sending reporters to Afghanistan isn't free. Yes, they can get some revenue from advertising, but possibly not enough to support high-quality reporting if it's the sole source of revenue.</p><p>Please, spare me the buggy whip analogy. It's a false analogy. Cars replaced horse-drawn carriages, and were superior to them. We don't have a superior replacement for traditional newspapers. No Digg is not a replacement for the NY Times.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This being slashdot , I can predict that there will be lots of people modding each other up for saying that news should be free , comparing newspapers to manufacturers of buggy whips , etc .
Actually the positions of both google and the traditional print media are a lot more nuanced than that , so it might be worth considering whether they actually know their own business better than slashdotters do .
This [ yahoo.com ] article ( not paywalled !
) has a nice , up-to-date discussion of the issues .
Google is trying to work out a compromise that works for both newspapers and users .
The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google , and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search , but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription .
Essentially you 'd be able to read some number of articles over some period of time , but at some point a paywall will kick in .
Okay , I hear the howls of disgust .
We hate paywalls , etc .
Yeah , sure .
As an internet user , I hate paywalls , and I especially hate sites that try to get into google search results , but then when you click through on the google search results , you ca n't actually read the content .
It 's misleading and a waste of my time .
But it 's not completely unreasonable for , e.g. , the Wall Street Journal to want readers to pay for a subscription .
They make money that way .
They can only do high-quality reporting if they get income .
Different newspapers are trying different models .
The NY Times has messed around with its setup over the years , with the current situation being that anyone can read anything for free , without registering .
That may be a workable business model for the NY Times in the long run , provided that they have some other revenue stream .
That 's why I subscribe to the NY Times in print .
Editorial work is n't free .
Sending reporters to Afghanistan is n't free .
Yes , they can get some revenue from advertising , but possibly not enough to support high-quality reporting if it 's the sole source of revenue.Please , spare me the buggy whip analogy .
It 's a false analogy .
Cars replaced horse-drawn carriages , and were superior to them .
We do n't have a superior replacement for traditional newspapers .
No Digg is not a replacement for the NY Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This being slashdot, I can predict that there will be lots of people modding each other up for saying that news should be free, comparing newspapers to manufacturers of buggy whips, etc.
Actually the positions of both google and the traditional print media are a lot more nuanced than that, so it might be worth considering whether they actually know their own business better than slashdotters do.
This [yahoo.com] article (not paywalled!
) has a nice, up-to-date discussion of the issues.
Google is trying to work out a compromise that works for both newspapers and users.
The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google, and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search, but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription.
Essentially you'd be able to read some number of articles over some period of time, but at some point a paywall will kick in.
Okay, I hear the howls of disgust.
We hate paywalls, etc.
Yeah, sure.
As an internet user, I hate paywalls, and I especially hate sites that try to get into google search results, but then when you click through on the google search results, you can't actually read the content.
It's misleading and a waste of my time.
But it's not completely unreasonable for, e.g., the Wall Street Journal to want readers to pay for a subscription.
They make money that way.
They can only do high-quality reporting if they get income.
Different newspapers are trying different models.
The NY Times has messed around with its setup over the years, with the current situation being that anyone can read anything for free, without registering.
That may be a workable business model for the NY Times in the long run, provided that they have some other revenue stream.
That's why I subscribe to the NY Times in print.
Editorial work isn't free.
Sending reporters to Afghanistan isn't free.
Yes, they can get some revenue from advertising, but possibly not enough to support high-quality reporting if it's the sole source of revenue.Please, spare me the buggy whip analogy.
It's a false analogy.
Cars replaced horse-drawn carriages, and were superior to them.
We don't have a superior replacement for traditional newspapers.
No Digg is not a replacement for the NY Times.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348</id>
	<title>Algorithmically both Good and Evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261732680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is *both* brilliantly customer-centric AND a deeply yet unproveably abusive monopolist. How?</p><p>Google search is so useful, simple, fast, and ubiquitous that no wonder they have 70-90\% market share.  I use it all the time, and no other search engine could approach that usefulness w/o spending BILLIONS of dollars and years of development; hell, even rich old Microsoft can't catch them.  As a service, they're amazing.</p><p>BUT...most of their enormous revenue stream depends on search advertising, and their near-monopoly position lets them set the price for search ads.  They *claim* it's an impartial auction, but unlike real auctions, their system doesn't have clear or even consistent rules for what bidders pay and get in return.  Google could very well be algorithmically "gaming" their own auction--say with shill bids or biased "quality scores"--and no one would be the wiser, since all relevant proof is hidden away on their servers ("Pay no attention to the man behind the firewall!").  The Register has some awesome coverage of some of their well-hidden tricks, and the elaborate deceptions (like the incantation "auction") Google uses to keep people in the dark.</p><p>So as an advertising monopolist, they're evil.</p><p>Imagine where Microsoft might still be if all the solid evidence against them had stayed behind a firewall too....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is * both * brilliantly customer-centric AND a deeply yet unproveably abusive monopolist .
How ? Google search is so useful , simple , fast , and ubiquitous that no wonder they have 70-90 \ % market share .
I use it all the time , and no other search engine could approach that usefulness w/o spending BILLIONS of dollars and years of development ; hell , even rich old Microsoft ca n't catch them .
As a service , they 're amazing.BUT...most of their enormous revenue stream depends on search advertising , and their near-monopoly position lets them set the price for search ads .
They * claim * it 's an impartial auction , but unlike real auctions , their system does n't have clear or even consistent rules for what bidders pay and get in return .
Google could very well be algorithmically " gaming " their own auction--say with shill bids or biased " quality scores " --and no one would be the wiser , since all relevant proof is hidden away on their servers ( " Pay no attention to the man behind the firewall ! " ) .
The Register has some awesome coverage of some of their well-hidden tricks , and the elaborate deceptions ( like the incantation " auction " ) Google uses to keep people in the dark.So as an advertising monopolist , they 're evil.Imagine where Microsoft might still be if all the solid evidence against them had stayed behind a firewall too... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is *both* brilliantly customer-centric AND a deeply yet unproveably abusive monopolist.
How?Google search is so useful, simple, fast, and ubiquitous that no wonder they have 70-90\% market share.
I use it all the time, and no other search engine could approach that usefulness w/o spending BILLIONS of dollars and years of development; hell, even rich old Microsoft can't catch them.
As a service, they're amazing.BUT...most of their enormous revenue stream depends on search advertising, and their near-monopoly position lets them set the price for search ads.
They *claim* it's an impartial auction, but unlike real auctions, their system doesn't have clear or even consistent rules for what bidders pay and get in return.
Google could very well be algorithmically "gaming" their own auction--say with shill bids or biased "quality scores"--and no one would be the wiser, since all relevant proof is hidden away on their servers ("Pay no attention to the man behind the firewall!").
The Register has some awesome coverage of some of their well-hidden tricks, and the elaborate deceptions (like the incantation "auction") Google uses to keep people in the dark.So as an advertising monopolist, they're evil.Imagine where Microsoft might still be if all the solid evidence against them had stayed behind a firewall too....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552862</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1261739580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just don't know how to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just do n't know how to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just don't know how to read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552152</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Entropy98</author>
	<datestamp>1261772760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, how dare websites be economically viable.</p><p>The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , how dare websites be economically viable.The Wallstreet Journal , Slashdot , Google , Youtube , Facebook , and the smaller ( and much smaller ) websites should be free to view AND advertising free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, how dare websites be economically viable.The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552554</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261735200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least some of the "bad" advertising (graphical/animated banners, using redirects through another advertiser if the ad was actually clicked on) is done using the DoubleClick name. Yes, some of this was being done before they got bought, but do consider who currently owns DoubleClick, then rethink your statements.</p><p>Also, a non-trivial amount of the irrelevant/obviously keyword spam type advertising is either as the result of search results returning ads or because of adwords/adsense being run on another site. Do a job search on one of the major internet job search sites, look at the relevance of the ads, then look who is serving them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least some of the " bad " advertising ( graphical/animated banners , using redirects through another advertiser if the ad was actually clicked on ) is done using the DoubleClick name .
Yes , some of this was being done before they got bought , but do consider who currently owns DoubleClick , then rethink your statements.Also , a non-trivial amount of the irrelevant/obviously keyword spam type advertising is either as the result of search results returning ads or because of adwords/adsense being run on another site .
Do a job search on one of the major internet job search sites , look at the relevance of the ads , then look who is serving them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least some of the "bad" advertising (graphical/animated banners, using redirects through another advertiser if the ad was actually clicked on) is done using the DoubleClick name.
Yes, some of this was being done before they got bought, but do consider who currently owns DoubleClick, then rethink your statements.Also, a non-trivial amount of the irrelevant/obviously keyword spam type advertising is either as the result of search results returning ads or because of adwords/adsense being run on another site.
Do a job search on one of the major internet job search sites, look at the relevance of the ads, then look who is serving them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553144</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261744260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So - how much would you be willing to pay to use a search engine that doesn't use advertising to finance their running costs?</p></div><p>I would pay at $10/month for a search engine that was corporate free. Something kind of like Wikipedia where my results are purely information based and where I get no search results from or related to business if I so choose and obviously with no ads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So - how much would you be willing to pay to use a search engine that does n't use advertising to finance their running costs ? I would pay at $ 10/month for a search engine that was corporate free .
Something kind of like Wikipedia where my results are purely information based and where I get no search results from or related to business if I so choose and obviously with no ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So - how much would you be willing to pay to use a search engine that doesn't use advertising to finance their running costs?I would pay at $10/month for a search engine that was corporate free.
Something kind of like Wikipedia where my results are purely information based and where I get no search results from or related to business if I so choose and obviously with no ads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552282</id>
	<title>Re:Google's Profit is the problem</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1261774620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is one of the dillemas of the Internet.  So perhaps localized vendors need to come to grips with the problem of advertising on global media.  This was not much of a problem when newspapers were essentially local, exceptions being the WSJ etc.</p><p>But to hear mass media such as Fox News complain about this would be truly unfortunate.  And to hear their web advertisers complain would be ludicrous.</p><p>Of course, local newspapers that could attract global (or even far-flung) advertisers based on their attraction to remote readers don't have much to complain about.  Of courese they can always say no.</p><p>Just no complaining about how many people hit your site, ok?  Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one of the dillemas of the Internet .
So perhaps localized vendors need to come to grips with the problem of advertising on global media .
This was not much of a problem when newspapers were essentially local , exceptions being the WSJ etc.But to hear mass media such as Fox News complain about this would be truly unfortunate .
And to hear their web advertisers complain would be ludicrous.Of course , local newspapers that could attract global ( or even far-flung ) advertisers based on their attraction to remote readers do n't have much to complain about .
Of courese they can always say no.Just no complaining about how many people hit your site , ok ?
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one of the dillemas of the Internet.
So perhaps localized vendors need to come to grips with the problem of advertising on global media.
This was not much of a problem when newspapers were essentially local, exceptions being the WSJ etc.But to hear mass media such as Fox News complain about this would be truly unfortunate.
And to hear their web advertisers complain would be ludicrous.Of course, local newspapers that could attract global (or even far-flung) advertisers based on their attraction to remote readers don't have much to complain about.
Of courese they can always say no.Just no complaining about how many people hit your site, ok?
Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551968</id>
	<title>Wisdom of the Strong</title>
	<author>pertelote</author>
	<datestamp>1261770600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I have watched this situation unfold, I keep thinking of something I read once. "A wise (powerful?) man keeps his friends close and his enemies closer." I tried Machiavelli, and Sun Tzu but can't quite find it. If Google is bringing them readers who will click on ads, then they are a friend and should be kept close, or in the loop. If Google is truly breaking their business model the choices are even clearer. Quit whining and lure Google into the castle, close the door and win; or just go to war and destroy Google. If the old media have not the sense to do the first and have no way to do the second, then it sounds like their power is gone. If Google is actually doing something wrong, the newspapers should be able to win in court, since they have not had a successful lawsuit, that I am aware of, then Google is not out of bounds.</p><p>I just do not understand the pathetic behavior of the old media. (And yes, my major was Bus. Adm)</p><p>Thank you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have watched this situation unfold , I keep thinking of something I read once .
" A wise ( powerful ?
) man keeps his friends close and his enemies closer .
" I tried Machiavelli , and Sun Tzu but ca n't quite find it .
If Google is bringing them readers who will click on ads , then they are a friend and should be kept close , or in the loop .
If Google is truly breaking their business model the choices are even clearer .
Quit whining and lure Google into the castle , close the door and win ; or just go to war and destroy Google .
If the old media have not the sense to do the first and have no way to do the second , then it sounds like their power is gone .
If Google is actually doing something wrong , the newspapers should be able to win in court , since they have not had a successful lawsuit , that I am aware of , then Google is not out of bounds.I just do not understand the pathetic behavior of the old media .
( And yes , my major was Bus .
Adm ) Thank you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have watched this situation unfold, I keep thinking of something I read once.
"A wise (powerful?
) man keeps his friends close and his enemies closer.
" I tried Machiavelli, and Sun Tzu but can't quite find it.
If Google is bringing them readers who will click on ads, then they are a friend and should be kept close, or in the loop.
If Google is truly breaking their business model the choices are even clearer.
Quit whining and lure Google into the castle, close the door and win; or just go to war and destroy Google.
If the old media have not the sense to do the first and have no way to do the second, then it sounds like their power is gone.
If Google is actually doing something wrong, the newspapers should be able to win in court, since they have not had a successful lawsuit, that I am aware of, then Google is not out of bounds.I just do not understand the pathetic behavior of the old media.
(And yes, my major was Bus.
Adm)Thank you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553648</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1261752540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.</p></div><p>Um...</p><blockquote><div><p>Disable Advertising<br>As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wallstreet Journal , Slashdot , Google , Youtube , Facebook , and the smaller ( and much smaller ) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.Um...Disable AdvertisingAs our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot , you are eligible to disable advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.Um...Disable AdvertisingAs our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552090</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261772100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; STOP THE PRESSES!</p><p>Common sense to us, but yeah, perhaps this will be a glowing epiphany, with holy light and doves flocking, for a large percentage of businesses.</p><p>Christmas is a good time to reflect on how many companies fail to get this simple lesson. Bullet-proof packaging, shoddy quality, draconian terms-of-use, DRM, highway-robbery fees, autistic-robots manning the customer service line... I'm just now thinking it over, and by God there's very, very few products I use in a day that <em>don't</em> piss me off in one way or another.</p><p>In b4 "Donald Norman, is that you?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; STOP THE PRESSES ! Common sense to us , but yeah , perhaps this will be a glowing epiphany , with holy light and doves flocking , for a large percentage of businesses.Christmas is a good time to reflect on how many companies fail to get this simple lesson .
Bullet-proof packaging , shoddy quality , draconian terms-of-use , DRM , highway-robbery fees , autistic-robots manning the customer service line... I 'm just now thinking it over , and by God there 's very , very few products I use in a day that do n't piss me off in one way or another.In b4 " Donald Norman , is that you ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; STOP THE PRESSES!Common sense to us, but yeah, perhaps this will be a glowing epiphany, with holy light and doves flocking, for a large percentage of businesses.Christmas is a good time to reflect on how many companies fail to get this simple lesson.
Bullet-proof packaging, shoddy quality, draconian terms-of-use, DRM, highway-robbery fees, autistic-robots manning the customer service line... I'm just now thinking it over, and by God there's very, very few products I use in a day that don't piss me off in one way or another.In b4 "Donald Norman, is that you?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553624</id>
	<title>Re:Oversimplified ...</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1261752240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bull shit.<br> <br>google follows robots.txt if any producer actually believes that their content is so worthless that people won't read more than the first 2 sentences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>bull shit .
google follows robots.txt if any producer actually believes that their content is so worthless that people wo n't read more than the first 2 sentences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bull shit.
google follows robots.txt if any producer actually believes that their content is so worthless that people won't read more than the first 2 sentences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552384</id>
	<title>I'm not in Soviet Russia, you insensitive clod!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261733280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't live in Soviet Russia, where the Google hand feeds YOU!<br>In the rest of the world, YOU feed the Google hand!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't live in Soviet Russia , where the Google hand feeds YOU ! In the rest of the world , YOU feed the Google hand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't live in Soviet Russia, where the Google hand feeds YOU!In the rest of the world, YOU feed the Google hand!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844</id>
	<title>advertising is the thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261768860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a newspaper or magazine the content attracts readers to the ads.  Manufacturers and merchants depend on the ads to drive business.  The traditional media allowed ads to be the center of attention for at least a little while. It worked.
<p>
Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media.  While this has as much to do with online delivery as google, google has first go at ads, in the search results, which tends to decouple any matching that may be done on the article level.
</p><p>
In effect, google completely breaks the traditional mass advertising model.  Traditional media realizes this, which is why they are rebelling.   The problem is that some traditional media thinks it can replace the ad model with a fully paid subscriber model. I don't think it can.  There has to be a way for traditional media to co-exist with search engines,and this is the challenge.  The companies that can innovate the ad model will be the companies that get out in tact.   The others that just complain about all the money that is being stolen by google will likely be on those lame shows where losers complain about the government taking their jobs,and how socialism is ruining the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a newspaper or magazine the content attracts readers to the ads .
Manufacturers and merchants depend on the ads to drive business .
The traditional media allowed ads to be the center of attention for at least a little while .
It worked .
Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media .
While this has as much to do with online delivery as google , google has first go at ads , in the search results , which tends to decouple any matching that may be done on the article level .
In effect , google completely breaks the traditional mass advertising model .
Traditional media realizes this , which is why they are rebelling .
The problem is that some traditional media thinks it can replace the ad model with a fully paid subscriber model .
I do n't think it can .
There has to be a way for traditional media to co-exist with search engines,and this is the challenge .
The companies that can innovate the ad model will be the companies that get out in tact .
The others that just complain about all the money that is being stolen by google will likely be on those lame shows where losers complain about the government taking their jobs,and how socialism is ruining the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a newspaper or magazine the content attracts readers to the ads.
Manufacturers and merchants depend on the ads to drive business.
The traditional media allowed ads to be the center of attention for at least a little while.
It worked.
Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media.
While this has as much to do with online delivery as google, google has first go at ads, in the search results, which tends to decouple any matching that may be done on the article level.
In effect, google completely breaks the traditional mass advertising model.
Traditional media realizes this, which is why they are rebelling.
The problem is that some traditional media thinks it can replace the ad model with a fully paid subscriber model.
I don't think it can.
There has to be a way for traditional media to co-exist with search engines,and this is the challenge.
The companies that can innovate the ad model will be the companies that get out in tact.
The others that just complain about all the money that is being stolen by google will likely be on those lame shows where losers complain about the government taking their jobs,and how socialism is ruining the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30559254</id>
	<title>Re:Complete the quote</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1261829340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The funny thing is IBM themselves inadvertently helped MS gain a monopoly by choosing it for the IBM PC. Though, they did consider an alternative (DR) before considering MS for the OS. But talks with DR failed, partly because IBM was asking DR to sign an NDA that had many problems, and also that Kildall was more of an idealist, and Gates was an ruthless businessman, part of which led MS to become evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is IBM themselves inadvertently helped MS gain a monopoly by choosing it for the IBM PC .
Though , they did consider an alternative ( DR ) before considering MS for the OS .
But talks with DR failed , partly because IBM was asking DR to sign an NDA that had many problems , and also that Kildall was more of an idealist , and Gates was an ruthless businessman , part of which led MS to become evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is IBM themselves inadvertently helped MS gain a monopoly by choosing it for the IBM PC.
Though, they did consider an alternative (DR) before considering MS for the OS.
But talks with DR failed, partly because IBM was asking DR to sign an NDA that had many problems, and also that Kildall was more of an idealist, and Gates was an ruthless businessman, part of which led MS to become evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552684</id>
	<title>Re:Algorithmically both Good and Evil</title>
	<author>vakuona</author>
	<datestamp>1261736640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of the market is that you should set the price at which the seller maximises their benefit. In the short term, high prices from Google should encourage competition to try and lower prices and perhaps capture some of those excess profits. If Google prices low enough to not entice competition, then in the long term, we could have a worse outcome overall, because there is no profit incentive for someone to come up with a new innovation. In the short term, high prices seem to not benefit consumers, but in the long term, they should, because they could bring competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of the market is that you should set the price at which the seller maximises their benefit .
In the short term , high prices from Google should encourage competition to try and lower prices and perhaps capture some of those excess profits .
If Google prices low enough to not entice competition , then in the long term , we could have a worse outcome overall , because there is no profit incentive for someone to come up with a new innovation .
In the short term , high prices seem to not benefit consumers , but in the long term , they should , because they could bring competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of the market is that you should set the price at which the seller maximises their benefit.
In the short term, high prices from Google should encourage competition to try and lower prices and perhaps capture some of those excess profits.
If Google prices low enough to not entice competition, then in the long term, we could have a worse outcome overall, because there is no profit incentive for someone to come up with a new innovation.
In the short term, high prices seem to not benefit consumers, but in the long term, they should, because they could bring competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552500</id>
	<title>Re:advertising is the thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261734600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, bring up <a href="http://news.google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google News</a> [google.com]  and count the ads on that page.
</p><p>I don't do Google searches looking for news, nor does anyone I know. If I'm just keeping tabs on the news I sequence through the awesome bar:  google news, ars, el reg,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and the rest, with a sprinkling of the bbc or whathaveyou when there's time.
</p><p>In all cases where I'm looking for content traditionally served by media publishers , the only ads I see are on the publishers' sites, not Google's.
</p><p>Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for movie times.  Type "movies, &lt;your zipcode&gt;".
</p><p>Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for concerts. Type "concerts" etc.
</p><p>Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for news.
</p><p>So it isn't that</p><p><div class="quote"><p>google has first go at ads</p></div><p> because google <i>forgoes</i> that opportunity.
</p><p>As the summary points out, </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.</p></div><p>Murdoch's and many others' real objection to Google is that Google's service allows convenient comparison of their companies' product with the competition, and does so honestly.  But they can't say that, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , bring up Google News [ google.com ] and count the ads on that page .
I do n't do Google searches looking for news , nor does anyone I know .
If I 'm just keeping tabs on the news I sequence through the awesome bar : google news , ars , el reg , / .
and the rest , with a sprinkling of the bbc or whathaveyou when there 's time .
In all cases where I 'm looking for content traditionally served by media publishers , the only ads I see are on the publishers ' sites , not Google 's .
Google does n't show ads when you 're looking for movie times .
Type " movies , " .
Google does n't show ads when you 're looking for concerts .
Type " concerts " etc .
Google does n't show ads when you 're looking for news .
So it is n't thatgoogle has first go at ads because google forgoes that opportunity .
As the summary points out , Google , unlike any other search engine ever , goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible .
Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.Murdoch 's and many others ' real objection to Google is that Google 's service allows convenient comparison of their companies ' product with the competition , and does so honestly .
But they ca n't say that , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, bring up Google News [google.com]  and count the ads on that page.
I don't do Google searches looking for news, nor does anyone I know.
If I'm just keeping tabs on the news I sequence through the awesome bar:  google news, ars, el reg, /.
and the rest, with a sprinkling of the bbc or whathaveyou when there's time.
In all cases where I'm looking for content traditionally served by media publishers , the only ads I see are on the publishers' sites, not Google's.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for movie times.
Type "movies, ".
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for concerts.
Type "concerts" etc.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for news.
So it isn't thatgoogle has first go at ads because google forgoes that opportunity.
As the summary points out, Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible.
Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.Murdoch's and many others' real objection to Google is that Google's service allows convenient comparison of their companies' product with the competition, and does so honestly.
But they can't say that, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551700</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261766940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because you are as greedy as a Jew and as dumb as a nigger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you are as greedy as a Jew and as dumb as a nigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you are as greedy as a Jew and as dumb as a nigger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552860</id>
	<title>Re:Complete the quote</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1261739520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News media ALREADY exist at something's whim, that of newsworthy events; at least to the extent they themselves don't create them in order to sell. Ironically, they are themselves a third party between an occurence and the reader interested in it, and they will eventually be replaced by citizen journalism channeled through some future sequel to Twitter or the like. That will be then, sadly this is now.</p><p>They are, as you indicate, businesses: Their mission is to create income, it has not been to inform the public for decades now. But unlike successful businesses they are still mired in ancient trade guild/union thinking where the photographers, journalists and typesetters are kings of their turfs and set in their ways. And that is the part that really needs to die if they want to succeed: Blocking Google et al is just pouring gasoline on the fire that is consuming them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News media ALREADY exist at something 's whim , that of newsworthy events ; at least to the extent they themselves do n't create them in order to sell .
Ironically , they are themselves a third party between an occurence and the reader interested in it , and they will eventually be replaced by citizen journalism channeled through some future sequel to Twitter or the like .
That will be then , sadly this is now.They are , as you indicate , businesses : Their mission is to create income , it has not been to inform the public for decades now .
But unlike successful businesses they are still mired in ancient trade guild/union thinking where the photographers , journalists and typesetters are kings of their turfs and set in their ways .
And that is the part that really needs to die if they want to succeed : Blocking Google et al is just pouring gasoline on the fire that is consuming them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News media ALREADY exist at something's whim, that of newsworthy events; at least to the extent they themselves don't create them in order to sell.
Ironically, they are themselves a third party between an occurence and the reader interested in it, and they will eventually be replaced by citizen journalism channeled through some future sequel to Twitter or the like.
That will be then, sadly this is now.They are, as you indicate, businesses: Their mission is to create income, it has not been to inform the public for decades now.
But unlike successful businesses they are still mired in ancient trade guild/union thinking where the photographers, journalists and typesetters are kings of their turfs and set in their ways.
And that is the part that really needs to die if they want to succeed: Blocking Google et al is just pouring gasoline on the fire that is consuming them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551696</id>
	<title>Google's Profit is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261766940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right Google does profit from connecting users to content.<br>Problem is most traditional content producers - newspapers in particular - gain nothing from Google visitors.<br>Their advertisers - mostly localized vendors - do not want to pay to connect to visitors from half-way across the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right Google does profit from connecting users to content.Problem is most traditional content producers - newspapers in particular - gain nothing from Google visitors.Their advertisers - mostly localized vendors - do not want to pay to connect to visitors from half-way across the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right Google does profit from connecting users to content.Problem is most traditional content producers - newspapers in particular - gain nothing from Google visitors.Their advertisers - mostly localized vendors - do not want to pay to connect to visitors from half-way across the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553190</id>
	<title>Re:Algorithmically both Good and Evil</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1261744920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this hurt the consumer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this hurt the consumer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this hurt the consumer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552322</id>
	<title>Forgot a bit</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1261731960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or if they <i>do</i> have a news site that they like, they subscribe to its headlines via RSS and only actually visit it to read articles which seem worthwhile.</p><p>The only problem with this is when the newspapers compare it with their old business model, where everyone had to buy a <i>whole</i> newspaper in order to be able to skim it for the interesting stuff.</p><p>A bit similar to "the album is dead" phenomenon which has hit the music industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or if they do have a news site that they like , they subscribe to its headlines via RSS and only actually visit it to read articles which seem worthwhile.The only problem with this is when the newspapers compare it with their old business model , where everyone had to buy a whole newspaper in order to be able to skim it for the interesting stuff.A bit similar to " the album is dead " phenomenon which has hit the music industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or if they do have a news site that they like, they subscribe to its headlines via RSS and only actually visit it to read articles which seem worthwhile.The only problem with this is when the newspapers compare it with their old business model, where everyone had to buy a whole newspaper in order to be able to skim it for the interesting stuff.A bit similar to "the album is dead" phenomenon which has hit the music industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553120</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1261743720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most people go to Google News and probably just skim the headlines, while relatively few people bother to click the link and read the full article.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Google has no ads on that page, so they're not clicking ad links there either.</p><p>
&nbsp; rd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people go to Google News and probably just skim the headlines , while relatively few people bother to click the link and read the full article .
      Google has no ads on that page , so they 're not clicking ad links there either .
  rd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people go to Google News and probably just skim the headlines, while relatively few people bother to click the link and read the full article.
      Google has no ads on that page, so they're not clicking ad links there either.
  rd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553620</id>
	<title>Re:Yahoo News</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1261752180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo News actually hires reporters and correspondents to write large amounts of original content. Google purely indexes the works of others. That's a big difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo News actually hires reporters and correspondents to write large amounts of original content .
Google purely indexes the works of others .
That 's a big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo News actually hires reporters and correspondents to write large amounts of original content.
Google purely indexes the works of others.
That's a big difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554364</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1261767120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you make a product people like and don't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they'll use your product?
</p><p>
STOP THE PRESSES!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Of course stop the presses - they're quickly going obsolete.
</p><p>
Just as Google will also go obsolete within 20 years as technology evolves to the point where we don't need centralized "gate-keepers" to tell us what we should be downloading.  The network then WILL be the computer, and the computer will be the network.  Content producers will communicate directly with content consumers, without rent-seekers and tollways imposed by intermediaries who try to insert themselves in the process.
</p><p>
We've already seen this to some extent in the media, and it's going to get worse.  Google has an advantage right now, but technology changes, and the tendency has always been to cut out middlemen.  One day Google will be the middleman, and then it will be in the same position traditional media are in, as others find ways to cut Google out of the loop.
</p><p>
Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make a product people like and do n't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they 'll use your product ?
STOP THE PRESSES !
Of course stop the presses - they 're quickly going obsolete .
Just as Google will also go obsolete within 20 years as technology evolves to the point where we do n't need centralized " gate-keepers " to tell us what we should be downloading .
The network then WILL be the computer , and the computer will be the network .
Content producers will communicate directly with content consumers , without rent-seekers and tollways imposed by intermediaries who try to insert themselves in the process .
We 've already seen this to some extent in the media , and it 's going to get worse .
Google has an advantage right now , but technology changes , and the tendency has always been to cut out middlemen .
One day Google will be the middleman , and then it will be in the same position traditional media are in , as others find ways to cut Google out of the loop .
Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make a product people like and don't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they'll use your product?
STOP THE PRESSES!
Of course stop the presses - they're quickly going obsolete.
Just as Google will also go obsolete within 20 years as technology evolves to the point where we don't need centralized "gate-keepers" to tell us what we should be downloading.
The network then WILL be the computer, and the computer will be the network.
Content producers will communicate directly with content consumers, without rent-seekers and tollways imposed by intermediaries who try to insert themselves in the process.
We've already seen this to some extent in the media, and it's going to get worse.
Google has an advantage right now, but technology changes, and the tendency has always been to cut out middlemen.
One day Google will be the middleman, and then it will be in the same position traditional media are in, as others find ways to cut Google out of the loop.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553192</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Jay L</author>
	<datestamp>1261744980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then you should patronize only businesses that don't advertise.</p><p>Name five?</p></div></blockquote><p>Easy.  First stop: the store that's not only notorious for NOT advertising, but for banning anyone who so much as mentions them on the web: T---</p><p>Hey, wait a minute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you should patronize only businesses that do n't advertise.Name five ? Easy .
First stop : the store that 's not only notorious for NOT advertising , but for banning anyone who so much as mentions them on the web : T---Hey , wait a minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you should patronize only businesses that don't advertise.Name five?Easy.
First stop: the store that's not only notorious for NOT advertising, but for banning anyone who so much as mentions them on the web: T---Hey, wait a minute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552916</id>
	<title>Re:advertising is the thing</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1261740360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your kind of right, Rupert does see the billions google makes and thinks it somehow should be his. The disconnect for these guys is they don't actually understand the concept of choice, because they run their business with an iron fist. customers however are not employee's, so the iron fisted approach isn't going to work.<p>
really if paper publishers had any sense they would see google as a chance to reduce costs and increase readership and advertising sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your kind of right , Rupert does see the billions google makes and thinks it somehow should be his .
The disconnect for these guys is they do n't actually understand the concept of choice , because they run their business with an iron fist .
customers however are not employee 's , so the iron fisted approach is n't going to work .
really if paper publishers had any sense they would see google as a chance to reduce costs and increase readership and advertising sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your kind of right, Rupert does see the billions google makes and thinks it somehow should be his.
The disconnect for these guys is they don't actually understand the concept of choice, because they run their business with an iron fist.
customers however are not employee's, so the iron fisted approach isn't going to work.
really if paper publishers had any sense they would see google as a chance to reduce costs and increase readership and advertising sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30556870</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1261852800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I agree completely.&nbsp; But what are you going to replace it with to create content-rich sites?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely.   But what are you going to replace it with to create content-rich sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.  But what are you going to replace it with to create content-rich sites?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553768</id>
	<title>Re:advertising is the thing</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1261754400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like you're saying that Google allows users to bypass the bloated navigation pages of a site, instead going directly to the page they want to view. Tough luck, guys. I hate dealing with every website's differing and usually annoying navigation a site offers, and use Google almost all the time to find that final page I want to view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like you 're saying that Google allows users to bypass the bloated navigation pages of a site , instead going directly to the page they want to view .
Tough luck , guys .
I hate dealing with every website 's differing and usually annoying navigation a site offers , and use Google almost all the time to find that final page I want to view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like you're saying that Google allows users to bypass the bloated navigation pages of a site, instead going directly to the page they want to view.
Tough luck, guys.
I hate dealing with every website's differing and usually annoying navigation a site offers, and use Google almost all the time to find that final page I want to view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552378</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Sowbug</author>
	<datestamp>1261733220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.</i></p><p>Then you should patronize only businesses that don't advertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.Then you should patronize only businesses that do n't advertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.Then you should patronize only businesses that don't advertise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552048</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>rajanala83</author>
	<datestamp>1261771680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>like the ads on the nascar cars</htmltext>
<tokenext>like the ads on the nascar cars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like the ads on the nascar cars</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553296</id>
	<title>Re:Nostalgia = brain rot</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1261746840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the problem with print ads, and why they're failing:</p><p>* First, there's an intrinsic cycle cost to the advertising company (ie, the papers and magazines): they've got to print a paper.<br>* Second, they've got no way to provide metrics to their users, short of their users communicating where they heard about the company/product/etc. in person.<br>* Third, most print ads are of a limited distribution due to the niche interest of the media; a locally pertinent newspaper, a special interest magazine (Pet Times, Field and Stream, Sports Illustrated, etc.)<br>* Even if the ad is successful, it will likely be days to weeks or months before you see a return on your print ads. People will clip and save them, and so on.<br>* Forth, it's fucking expensive to use print advertising. Newspapers bill on 3-month ad cycles, and insist that you put your ad in for a 3-month cycle "to make sure it's getting saturation" or some such BS. That's hundreds+ of dollars for something which may or may not work, and can't possibly compete with giving it a try for a week and paying by the actual impression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the problem with print ads , and why they 're failing : * First , there 's an intrinsic cycle cost to the advertising company ( ie , the papers and magazines ) : they 've got to print a paper .
* Second , they 've got no way to provide metrics to their users , short of their users communicating where they heard about the company/product/etc .
in person .
* Third , most print ads are of a limited distribution due to the niche interest of the media ; a locally pertinent newspaper , a special interest magazine ( Pet Times , Field and Stream , Sports Illustrated , etc .
) * Even if the ad is successful , it will likely be days to weeks or months before you see a return on your print ads .
People will clip and save them , and so on .
* Forth , it 's fucking expensive to use print advertising .
Newspapers bill on 3-month ad cycles , and insist that you put your ad in for a 3-month cycle " to make sure it 's getting saturation " or some such BS .
That 's hundreds + of dollars for something which may or may not work , and ca n't possibly compete with giving it a try for a week and paying by the actual impression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the problem with print ads, and why they're failing:* First, there's an intrinsic cycle cost to the advertising company (ie, the papers and magazines): they've got to print a paper.
* Second, they've got no way to provide metrics to their users, short of their users communicating where they heard about the company/product/etc.
in person.
* Third, most print ads are of a limited distribution due to the niche interest of the media; a locally pertinent newspaper, a special interest magazine (Pet Times, Field and Stream, Sports Illustrated, etc.
)* Even if the ad is successful, it will likely be days to weeks or months before you see a return on your print ads.
People will clip and save them, and so on.
* Forth, it's fucking expensive to use print advertising.
Newspapers bill on 3-month ad cycles, and insist that you put your ad in for a 3-month cycle "to make sure it's getting saturation" or some such BS.
That's hundreds+ of dollars for something which may or may not work, and can't possibly compete with giving it a try for a week and paying by the actual impression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552354</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1261732740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Advertisers will extract billions at every step of the retail chain with or without google. At least google puts some of the money to better uses than drinking scotch and playing golf.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertisers will extract billions at every step of the retail chain with or without google .
At least google puts some of the money to better uses than drinking scotch and playing golf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertisers will extract billions at every step of the retail chain with or without google.
At least google puts some of the money to better uses than drinking scotch and playing golf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551842</id>
	<title>Publications love Google</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1261768860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They send you traffic, for free, and set up advertising to make you money.</p><p>Papermongers hate google, because no one wants their wares anymore, much as I'm sure horse breeders hated Henry Ford.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They send you traffic , for free , and set up advertising to make you money.Papermongers hate google , because no one wants their wares anymore , much as I 'm sure horse breeders hated Henry Ford .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They send you traffic, for free, and set up advertising to make you money.Papermongers hate google, because no one wants their wares anymore, much as I'm sure horse breeders hated Henry Ford.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553076</id>
	<title>Re:Oversimplified ...</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1261743180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what a load of bullcrap, the couple of lines google shows falls under fair use, and certainly doesn't stop anyone visiting the site. Does rupert plan on hiding the front page of his newspapers, because people might read the first paragraph on the first page and decide not to buy the newspaper?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>what a load of bullcrap , the couple of lines google shows falls under fair use , and certainly does n't stop anyone visiting the site .
Does rupert plan on hiding the front page of his newspapers , because people might read the first paragraph on the first page and decide not to buy the newspaper ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a load of bullcrap, the couple of lines google shows falls under fair use, and certainly doesn't stop anyone visiting the site.
Does rupert plan on hiding the front page of his newspapers, because people might read the first paragraph on the first page and decide not to buy the newspaper?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553758</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261754280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words, it's a non-zero-sum game. Google profits from these online publications, and these online publications profit from Google pointing people to them (and users profit from having easier access to the information!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , it 's a non-zero-sum game .
Google profits from these online publications , and these online publications profit from Google pointing people to them ( and users profit from having easier access to the information !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, it's a non-zero-sum game.
Google profits from these online publications, and these online publications profit from Google pointing people to them (and users profit from having easier access to the information!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551932</id>
	<title>Nostalgia = brain rot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261770000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is this:</p><p>1. Print advertising makes ten times as much per buyer than online advertising.</p><p>2. No-one much is buying print advertising any more.</p><p>The papers are no good at selling print ads any more, so they blame the supplier of online ads. i.e., anyone other than themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is this : 1 .
Print advertising makes ten times as much per buyer than online advertising.2 .
No-one much is buying print advertising any more.The papers are no good at selling print ads any more , so they blame the supplier of online ads .
i.e. , anyone other than themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is this:1.
Print advertising makes ten times as much per buyer than online advertising.2.
No-one much is buying print advertising any more.The papers are no good at selling print ads any more, so they blame the supplier of online ads.
i.e., anyone other than themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551978</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, Sherlock? ^^</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261770660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Q:<i>Are we PHBs, or what?</i> <br>

A: We are Devo!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : Are we PHBs , or what ?
A : We are Devo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q:Are we PHBs, or what?
A: We are Devo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552196</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>Entropy98</author>
	<datestamp>1261773300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem might be something seen here at Slashdot.</p><p>Most people go to Google News and probably just skim the headlines, while relatively few people bother to click the link and read the full article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem might be something seen here at Slashdot.Most people go to Google News and probably just skim the headlines , while relatively few people bother to click the link and read the full article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem might be something seen here at Slashdot.Most people go to Google News and probably just skim the headlines, while relatively few people bother to click the link and read the full article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553204</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261745160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The search engine isn't the product.  YOU are the product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The search engine is n't the product .
YOU are the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The search engine isn't the product.
YOU are the product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553052</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1261742640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I share your hate with advertising, Google does none of the things you listed</p></div><p>As has already been noted, Google owns Doubleclick, so you are wrong. I also never said google was responsible for all those things. Re-read my post.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would I hate a company that is attempting (and somewhat succeeding) at making something I hate better and offering me excellent things while doing so</p></div><p>Last I checked, my opinion isn't a black hole that sucks the light out of yours. The fact that I dislike google has no bearing on you whatsoever. You are free to do and think whatever you like.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, sounds like you're an angry irrational kid whom can type. Your 'generalized' way of thinking is exactly why endless amounts of 'problems' exist in the world (Racism, for example). Congratulations, moron.</p></div><p>You mean like an angry, irrational kid that can't handle someone else having a different opinion than them,  calls them a moron and tries to play the "racist" card through some ridiculous implication?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I share your hate with advertising , Google does none of the things you listedAs has already been noted , Google owns Doubleclick , so you are wrong .
I also never said google was responsible for all those things .
Re-read my post.Why would I hate a company that is attempting ( and somewhat succeeding ) at making something I hate better and offering me excellent things while doing soLast I checked , my opinion is n't a black hole that sucks the light out of yours .
The fact that I dislike google has no bearing on you whatsoever .
You are free to do and think whatever you like.Basically , sounds like you 're an angry irrational kid whom can type .
Your 'generalized ' way of thinking is exactly why endless amounts of 'problems ' exist in the world ( Racism , for example ) .
Congratulations , moron.You mean like an angry , irrational kid that ca n't handle someone else having a different opinion than them , calls them a moron and tries to play the " racist " card through some ridiculous implication ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I share your hate with advertising, Google does none of the things you listedAs has already been noted, Google owns Doubleclick, so you are wrong.
I also never said google was responsible for all those things.
Re-read my post.Why would I hate a company that is attempting (and somewhat succeeding) at making something I hate better and offering me excellent things while doing soLast I checked, my opinion isn't a black hole that sucks the light out of yours.
The fact that I dislike google has no bearing on you whatsoever.
You are free to do and think whatever you like.Basically, sounds like you're an angry irrational kid whom can type.
Your 'generalized' way of thinking is exactly why endless amounts of 'problems' exist in the world (Racism, for example).
Congratulations, moron.You mean like an angry, irrational kid that can't handle someone else having a different opinion than them,  calls them a moron and tries to play the "racist" card through some ridiculous implication?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551744</id>
	<title>"Skewered" Scholar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261767420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you Google Scholar is skewed, for instance by not citing a highly cited (in print) original research article (not even deep in the listings) but citing a later, derivative one instead. I contacted Google about the matter twice, including once when Scholar was quite new, and they've done nothing about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you Google Scholar is skewed , for instance by not citing a highly cited ( in print ) original research article ( not even deep in the listings ) but citing a later , derivative one instead .
I contacted Google about the matter twice , including once when Scholar was quite new , and they 've done nothing about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you Google Scholar is skewed, for instance by not citing a highly cited (in print) original research article (not even deep in the listings) but citing a later, derivative one instead.
I contacted Google about the matter twice, including once when Scholar was quite new, and they've done nothing about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261771680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I share your hate with advertising, Google does none of the things you listed. In fact Google is making an extremely good effort to not have these intrusive, unrelated, and untruthful Ads. That said, I still hate Ads -even Google Ads. But it exists. Google has awesome products and services. Why would I hate a company that is attempting (and somewhat succeeding) at making something I hate better and offering me excellent things while doing so.

Basically, sounds like you're an angry irrational kid whom can type. Your 'generalized' way of thinking is exactly why endless amounts of 'problems' exist in the world (Racism, for example). Congratulations, moron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I share your hate with advertising , Google does none of the things you listed .
In fact Google is making an extremely good effort to not have these intrusive , unrelated , and untruthful Ads .
That said , I still hate Ads -even Google Ads .
But it exists .
Google has awesome products and services .
Why would I hate a company that is attempting ( and somewhat succeeding ) at making something I hate better and offering me excellent things while doing so .
Basically , sounds like you 're an angry irrational kid whom can type .
Your 'generalized ' way of thinking is exactly why endless amounts of 'problems ' exist in the world ( Racism , for example ) .
Congratulations , moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I share your hate with advertising, Google does none of the things you listed.
In fact Google is making an extremely good effort to not have these intrusive, unrelated, and untruthful Ads.
That said, I still hate Ads -even Google Ads.
But it exists.
Google has awesome products and services.
Why would I hate a company that is attempting (and somewhat succeeding) at making something I hate better and offering me excellent things while doing so.
Basically, sounds like you're an angry irrational kid whom can type.
Your 'generalized' way of thinking is exactly why endless amounts of 'problems' exist in the world (Racism, for example).
Congratulations, moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552096</id>
	<title>Hey, last generation, adapt or die, k?</title>
	<author>Pederson</author>
	<datestamp>1261772220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google brings us information, more often than not produced by someone else. This is a concept upon which all of humanity exists upon. The only difference is now there's a new medium and they're doing it better than everyone else. Murdoch (and others) are from a generation were they had control. A generation where they did something, and made lots and lots of money. However, much like the entirety of human history, advances happen. Because of those advancements they can no longer control what they used to. Too often does our society stifle innovation because it threatens a certain sect of individuals control. Adapt or die, thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google brings us information , more often than not produced by someone else .
This is a concept upon which all of humanity exists upon .
The only difference is now there 's a new medium and they 're doing it better than everyone else .
Murdoch ( and others ) are from a generation were they had control .
A generation where they did something , and made lots and lots of money .
However , much like the entirety of human history , advances happen .
Because of those advancements they can no longer control what they used to .
Too often does our society stifle innovation because it threatens a certain sect of individuals control .
Adapt or die , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google brings us information, more often than not produced by someone else.
This is a concept upon which all of humanity exists upon.
The only difference is now there's a new medium and they're doing it better than everyone else.
Murdoch (and others) are from a generation were they had control.
A generation where they did something, and made lots and lots of money.
However, much like the entirety of human history, advances happen.
Because of those advancements they can no longer control what they used to.
Too often does our society stifle innovation because it threatens a certain sect of individuals control.
Adapt or die, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552186</id>
	<title>Re:advertising is the thing</title>
	<author>wisesifu</author>
	<datestamp>1261773240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oblig south park quote:<br><br>Dey took er jobs!</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>oblig south park quote : Dey took er jobs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oblig south park quote:Dey took er jobs!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553940</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1261757880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.</p></div></blockquote><p>Based, seemingly, on a very rose colored remembrance of days past.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.Based , seemingly , on a very rose colored remembrance of days past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.Based, seemingly, on a very rose colored remembrance of days past.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551698</id>
	<title>Excuse me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261766940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody likes middlemen, especially middlemen who control a large part of the business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody likes middlemen , especially middlemen who control a large part of the business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody likes middlemen, especially middlemen who control a large part of the business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553640</id>
	<title>Re:Publications love Google</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1261752360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ?  Many people never move off that page.  Where's their ads?  Where's their revenue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ?
Many people never move off that page .
Where 's their ads ?
Where 's their revenue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ?
Many people never move off that page.
Where's their ads?
Where's their revenue?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552774</id>
	<title>press hate google because it drives UP quality</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1261737900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>People don't use google to find newspapers - they use google to find stories.
<p>
Traditionally, the press have cultivated "loyalty" among their readership - not factual reporting. That means they want people who are comfortable with their output and will believe (or at least agree with) their content and read what is put in front of them without any critical thought. The way people find news with google is that they go and search for a topic or story or word - not for a publications's title (which they already have bookmarked). That puts pressure on the content providers to publish true, concise, and short pieces that googlers will compare with the other search results from other news sources,. before settling on reading the whole story (and advertisements) from one newspaper or news outlet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't use google to find newspapers - they use google to find stories .
Traditionally , the press have cultivated " loyalty " among their readership - not factual reporting .
That means they want people who are comfortable with their output and will believe ( or at least agree with ) their content and read what is put in front of them without any critical thought .
The way people find news with google is that they go and search for a topic or story or word - not for a publications 's title ( which they already have bookmarked ) .
That puts pressure on the content providers to publish true , concise , and short pieces that googlers will compare with the other search results from other news sources, .
before settling on reading the whole story ( and advertisements ) from one newspaper or news outlet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't use google to find newspapers - they use google to find stories.
Traditionally, the press have cultivated "loyalty" among their readership - not factual reporting.
That means they want people who are comfortable with their output and will believe (or at least agree with) their content and read what is put in front of them without any critical thought.
The way people find news with google is that they go and search for a topic or story or word - not for a publications's title (which they already have bookmarked).
That puts pressure on the content providers to publish true, concise, and short pieces that googlers will compare with the other search results from other news sources,.
before settling on reading the whole story (and advertisements) from one newspaper or news outlet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553154</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1261744380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>seriously, mr free market solution, how do you actually accomplish something like that?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; that might have been his point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously , mr free market solution , how do you actually accomplish something like that ?
      that might have been his point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously, mr free market solution, how do you actually accomplish something like that?
      that might have been his point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552988</id>
	<title>The quote answers the article's own question.</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1261741440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The quote answers the article's own question, or at least give one possible part of the answer.<p><div class="quote"><p>goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible</p></div><p>That is the problem they have right there, or at least one of the problems some of the publishers have with Google. The don't want any unhelpful unskewed sources out there. They either want things skewed in their direction or skewed so badly another way that they can gain public support "capital" (or just some common or garden PR fodder) by making an issue of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quote answers the article 's own question , or at least give one possible part of the answer.goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possibleThat is the problem they have right there , or at least one of the problems some of the publishers have with Google .
The do n't want any unhelpful unskewed sources out there .
They either want things skewed in their direction or skewed so badly another way that they can gain public support " capital " ( or just some common or garden PR fodder ) by making an issue of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quote answers the article's own question, or at least give one possible part of the answer.goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possibleThat is the problem they have right there, or at least one of the problems some of the publishers have with Google.
The don't want any unhelpful unskewed sources out there.
They either want things skewed in their direction or skewed so badly another way that they can gain public support "capital" (or just some common or garden PR fodder) by making an issue of it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555406</id>
	<title>Re:Complete the quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261837800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with Ian and there is one more point. In addition to loss of control, Google forces compromises on the technical side which hurts the Internet experience for content consumers. The simple crawling tactics mandated by Google to optimize page ranking limits what a site can do technically. Anything the crawler does not understand, such as flash content, is lost to the search engine and ranking suffers accordingly. Hiding text and such to help the crawler understand is forbidden and as a result,many hours are wasted trying to optimize for search as opposed to creating content, and appealing approaches are discarded if they do not fit the Google mold. I find it most annoying to be forced to jump through hoops for Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with Ian and there is one more point .
In addition to loss of control , Google forces compromises on the technical side which hurts the Internet experience for content consumers .
The simple crawling tactics mandated by Google to optimize page ranking limits what a site can do technically .
Anything the crawler does not understand , such as flash content , is lost to the search engine and ranking suffers accordingly .
Hiding text and such to help the crawler understand is forbidden and as a result,many hours are wasted trying to optimize for search as opposed to creating content , and appealing approaches are discarded if they do not fit the Google mold .
I find it most annoying to be forced to jump through hoops for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with Ian and there is one more point.
In addition to loss of control, Google forces compromises on the technical side which hurts the Internet experience for content consumers.
The simple crawling tactics mandated by Google to optimize page ranking limits what a site can do technically.
Anything the crawler does not understand, such as flash content, is lost to the search engine and ranking suffers accordingly.
Hiding text and such to help the crawler understand is forbidden and as a result,many hours are wasted trying to optimize for search as opposed to creating content, and appealing approaches are discarded if they do not fit the Google mold.
I find it most annoying to be forced to jump through hoops for Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261733160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, you don't like Google because of their use of advertising. Fair enough.</p><p>So - how much would you be willing to pay to use a search engine that doesn't use advertising to finance their running costs?</p><p>Also, would you rather use one that takes money from companies, but doesn't show advertisements and instead bump those companies' websites, or one that tries to return relevant search results and advertisements next to it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , you do n't like Google because of their use of advertising .
Fair enough.So - how much would you be willing to pay to use a search engine that does n't use advertising to finance their running costs ? Also , would you rather use one that takes money from companies , but does n't show advertisements and instead bump those companies ' websites , or one that tries to return relevant search results and advertisements next to it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, you don't like Google because of their use of advertising.
Fair enough.So - how much would you be willing to pay to use a search engine that doesn't use advertising to finance their running costs?Also, would you rather use one that takes money from companies, but doesn't show advertisements and instead bump those companies' websites, or one that tries to return relevant search results and advertisements next to it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555428</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261838220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your signature is an advertisement of your beliefs. I cannot even read your post without you shoving an ad down my throat. Enough!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your signature is an advertisement of your beliefs .
I can not even read your post without you shoving an ad down my throat .
Enough !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your signature is an advertisement of your beliefs.
I cannot even read your post without you shoving an ad down my throat.
Enough!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553006</id>
	<title>Re:some moderate views</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1261741740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Editorial work isn't free. Sending reporters to Afghanistan isn't free. Yes, they can get some revenue from advertising, but possibly not enough to support high-quality reporting if it's the sole source of revenue.</p></div><p>There's more advertising than content in the paper, I don't want to pay to be advertised to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Editorial work is n't free .
Sending reporters to Afghanistan is n't free .
Yes , they can get some revenue from advertising , but possibly not enough to support high-quality reporting if it 's the sole source of revenue.There 's more advertising than content in the paper , I do n't want to pay to be advertised to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editorial work isn't free.
Sending reporters to Afghanistan isn't free.
Yes, they can get some revenue from advertising, but possibly not enough to support high-quality reporting if it's the sole source of revenue.There's more advertising than content in the paper, I don't want to pay to be advertised to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551766</id>
	<title>No shit, Sherlock? ^^</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261767720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFS/TFA just says, what everybody on the net is repeating since the beginning of it all. Including pretty much every commenter here on Slashdot.</p><p>But now it&rsquo;s all news, because a site that PHBs read mentiones it?<br>Are we PHBs, or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS/TFA just says , what everybody on the net is repeating since the beginning of it all .
Including pretty much every commenter here on Slashdot.But now it    s all news , because a site that PHBs read mentiones it ? Are we PHBs , or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS/TFA just says, what everybody on the net is repeating since the beginning of it all.
Including pretty much every commenter here on Slashdot.But now it’s all news, because a site that PHBs read mentiones it?Are we PHBs, or what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553118</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1261743720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're right, how dare websites be economically viable.</p><p>The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.</p></div><p>None of those sites have anything of intrinsic value. I noted this in the last paragraph of my post.</p><p>Take Slashdot as an example. I can get all the news here elsewhere. I am only really here for the community. If slashdot were to fold, the community would simply move somewhere else and I would be typing this in a different forum. What exactly has been lost? It's not like the people here cease to exist because slashdot is gone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , how dare websites be economically viable.The Wallstreet Journal , Slashdot , Google , Youtube , Facebook , and the smaller ( and much smaller ) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.None of those sites have anything of intrinsic value .
I noted this in the last paragraph of my post.Take Slashdot as an example .
I can get all the news here elsewhere .
I am only really here for the community .
If slashdot were to fold , the community would simply move somewhere else and I would be typing this in a different forum .
What exactly has been lost ?
It 's not like the people here cease to exist because slashdot is gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, how dare websites be economically viable.The Wallstreet Journal, Slashdot, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and the smaller (and much smaller) websites should be free to view AND advertising free.None of those sites have anything of intrinsic value.
I noted this in the last paragraph of my post.Take Slashdot as an example.
I can get all the news here elsewhere.
I am only really here for the community.
If slashdot were to fold, the community would simply move somewhere else and I would be typing this in a different forum.
What exactly has been lost?
It's not like the people here cease to exist because slashdot is gone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553784</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>rentmej</author>
	<datestamp>1261754760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I remember a time when kids stayed the HELL OFF MY YARD!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I remember a time when kids stayed the HELL OFF MY YARD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I remember a time when kids stayed the HELL OFF MY YARD!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552638</id>
	<title>Re:some moderate views</title>
	<author>vakuona</author>
	<datestamp>1261736100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Online is a superior replacement for newspapers. For starters, you can have exactly the same content as in the dead tree media. Secondly, you can update stories that are online. With newspapers, you can either release an evening edition, or have to wait until the next day to update stories for new developments. You also get a potentially wider readership with online because you can reach non local areas. Very few newspaper have a national or even international reach.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Online is a superior replacement for newspapers .
For starters , you can have exactly the same content as in the dead tree media .
Secondly , you can update stories that are online .
With newspapers , you can either release an evening edition , or have to wait until the next day to update stories for new developments .
You also get a potentially wider readership with online because you can reach non local areas .
Very few newspaper have a national or even international reach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online is a superior replacement for newspapers.
For starters, you can have exactly the same content as in the dead tree media.
Secondly, you can update stories that are online.
With newspapers, you can either release an evening edition, or have to wait until the next day to update stories for new developments.
You also get a potentially wider readership with online because you can reach non local areas.
Very few newspaper have a national or even international reach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</id>
	<title>Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261766700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make a product people like and don't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they'll use your product?</p><p>STOP THE PRESSES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make a product people like and do n't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they 'll use your product ? STOP THE PRESSES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make a product people like and don't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they'll use your product?STOP THE PRESSES!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30557938</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1261818600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what's in it for the players...i.e. news publishers?</p><p>You're missing the TRADE part.</p><p>If I got to a news page via Google search, Google already has THEIR money. How does the newspaper make money?  Selling ads doesn't work because whatever ad is on my page came from Google too.. and if the person wanted to go to that page they would have just done it already!</p><p>So Google got to "trade" me ads for search answers.</p><p>What did Google trade the newspaper to be searched?  The paper traded a "chance" to get me to read? Is that valuable enough? Trade requires agreement from two sides, so did Google trade anything to the newspaper at all if they just read the page?</p><p>What did I trade the newspaper to read their page? Their ads aren't worth anything because Google already showed them to ME once.  For "market maker" status to apply I'd have to trade something to the news publisher MORE valuable than their cost to put the news up there. Since Google has already seen the whole page I can use Google to subvert whatever revenue the newspaper might try to get out of me.</p><p>I'm not paying the newspaper [remember ads aren't that valuable when coming FROM a search] and Google's not paying the newspaper.</p><p>In the case of Microsoft they're a tolerable monopoly because they mostly stay out of hardware and there's lots of software they don't want to bother with. Microsoft gets $50 for Windows and you buy a $1000 computer from Dell, and some Cad software from Autocad. It's tolerable to deal with Microsoft because they provide a platform to make software development and lots of customers to sell to that offsets the cost of tools.</p><p>Google was essentially a "publisher" of the internet and it was good. It's fine for "little people" but now they are publishing other publishers' works that those people paid to have made. We're just about at the tipping point where Google will have to start paying to link TO pages or people will start pulling the pages from lack of funds to pay the bandwidth bills (cause Google's not paying for that). Selling ads doesn't work on news pages because Google has already collected the Ad revenue once, and what makes publishers most upset is that they would only get a small cut of the links on their pages. Google could help this offering higher value for ads from well read sites, but even then if my business is selling ads why should I pay anything to Google who's my direct competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what 's in it for the players...i.e .
news publishers ? You 're missing the TRADE part.If I got to a news page via Google search , Google already has THEIR money .
How does the newspaper make money ?
Selling ads does n't work because whatever ad is on my page came from Google too.. and if the person wanted to go to that page they would have just done it already ! So Google got to " trade " me ads for search answers.What did Google trade the newspaper to be searched ?
The paper traded a " chance " to get me to read ?
Is that valuable enough ?
Trade requires agreement from two sides , so did Google trade anything to the newspaper at all if they just read the page ? What did I trade the newspaper to read their page ?
Their ads are n't worth anything because Google already showed them to ME once .
For " market maker " status to apply I 'd have to trade something to the news publisher MORE valuable than their cost to put the news up there .
Since Google has already seen the whole page I can use Google to subvert whatever revenue the newspaper might try to get out of me.I 'm not paying the newspaper [ remember ads are n't that valuable when coming FROM a search ] and Google 's not paying the newspaper.In the case of Microsoft they 're a tolerable monopoly because they mostly stay out of hardware and there 's lots of software they do n't want to bother with .
Microsoft gets $ 50 for Windows and you buy a $ 1000 computer from Dell , and some Cad software from Autocad .
It 's tolerable to deal with Microsoft because they provide a platform to make software development and lots of customers to sell to that offsets the cost of tools.Google was essentially a " publisher " of the internet and it was good .
It 's fine for " little people " but now they are publishing other publishers ' works that those people paid to have made .
We 're just about at the tipping point where Google will have to start paying to link TO pages or people will start pulling the pages from lack of funds to pay the bandwidth bills ( cause Google 's not paying for that ) .
Selling ads does n't work on news pages because Google has already collected the Ad revenue once , and what makes publishers most upset is that they would only get a small cut of the links on their pages .
Google could help this offering higher value for ads from well read sites , but even then if my business is selling ads why should I pay anything to Google who 's my direct competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what's in it for the players...i.e.
news publishers?You're missing the TRADE part.If I got to a news page via Google search, Google already has THEIR money.
How does the newspaper make money?
Selling ads doesn't work because whatever ad is on my page came from Google too.. and if the person wanted to go to that page they would have just done it already!So Google got to "trade" me ads for search answers.What did Google trade the newspaper to be searched?
The paper traded a "chance" to get me to read?
Is that valuable enough?
Trade requires agreement from two sides, so did Google trade anything to the newspaper at all if they just read the page?What did I trade the newspaper to read their page?
Their ads aren't worth anything because Google already showed them to ME once.
For "market maker" status to apply I'd have to trade something to the news publisher MORE valuable than their cost to put the news up there.
Since Google has already seen the whole page I can use Google to subvert whatever revenue the newspaper might try to get out of me.I'm not paying the newspaper [remember ads aren't that valuable when coming FROM a search] and Google's not paying the newspaper.In the case of Microsoft they're a tolerable monopoly because they mostly stay out of hardware and there's lots of software they don't want to bother with.
Microsoft gets $50 for Windows and you buy a $1000 computer from Dell, and some Cad software from Autocad.
It's tolerable to deal with Microsoft because they provide a platform to make software development and lots of customers to sell to that offsets the cost of tools.Google was essentially a "publisher" of the internet and it was good.
It's fine for "little people" but now they are publishing other publishers' works that those people paid to have made.
We're just about at the tipping point where Google will have to start paying to link TO pages or people will start pulling the pages from lack of funds to pay the bandwidth bills (cause Google's not paying for that).
Selling ads doesn't work on news pages because Google has already collected the Ad revenue once, and what makes publishers most upset is that they would only get a small cut of the links on their pages.
Google could help this offering higher value for ads from well read sites, but even then if my business is selling ads why should I pay anything to Google who's my direct competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555436</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261838400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my country about 10 years ago we didn't have any flatrates. I used to pay up to $200 for my internet access. Now I pay about $30.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my country about 10 years ago we did n't have any flatrates .
I used to pay up to $ 200 for my internet access .
Now I pay about $ 30 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my country about 10 years ago we didn't have any flatrates.
I used to pay up to $200 for my internet access.
Now I pay about $30.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30559890</id>
	<title>Re:Complete the quote</title>
	<author>sillybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1261836600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking more of Ballmer than of Gates, but when it comes to making business decisions, I don't think they are too different, except one is soft spoken while the other is a screamer. Same difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking more of Ballmer than of Gates , but when it comes to making business decisions , I do n't think they are too different , except one is soft spoken while the other is a screamer .
Same difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking more of Ballmer than of Gates, but when it comes to making business decisions, I don't think they are too different, except one is soft spoken while the other is a screamer.
Same difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30559254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1261740600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.</i> </p><p>Then you should patronize only businesses that don't advertise.</p></div><p>Name five?</p><p>Can't take the bus, can't ride the public roads, can't even use a motor vehicle. Can't shop for groceries, can't eat any food that is sold... seriously, mr free market solution, how do you actually accomplish something like that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked .
Then you should patronize only businesses that do n't advertise.Name five ? Ca n't take the bus , ca n't ride the public roads , ca n't even use a motor vehicle .
Ca n't shop for groceries , ca n't eat any food that is sold... seriously , mr free market solution , how do you actually accomplish something like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.
Then you should patronize only businesses that don't advertise.Name five?Can't take the bus, can't ride the public roads, can't even use a motor vehicle.
Can't shop for groceries, can't eat any food that is sold... seriously, mr free market solution, how do you actually accomplish something like that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553292</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1261746780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To expand on that relative to GP's bickering, as an adblock/flashblock/noscript user I do appreciate reasonably balanced advertising. The only cost is my eyeballs, and sometimes the information is actually useful.</p><p>Newspaper advertising is too expensive relative to the value it provides. This is dangerous for newspapers and sites like Monster where they have long been able to charge a significant premium due to limited access.</p><p>If they want to be able to charge a premium (relative to Craigslist), they had better offer an improved product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To expand on that relative to GP 's bickering , as an adblock/flashblock/noscript user I do appreciate reasonably balanced advertising .
The only cost is my eyeballs , and sometimes the information is actually useful.Newspaper advertising is too expensive relative to the value it provides .
This is dangerous for newspapers and sites like Monster where they have long been able to charge a significant premium due to limited access.If they want to be able to charge a premium ( relative to Craigslist ) , they had better offer an improved product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To expand on that relative to GP's bickering, as an adblock/flashblock/noscript user I do appreciate reasonably balanced advertising.
The only cost is my eyeballs, and sometimes the information is actually useful.Newspaper advertising is too expensive relative to the value it provides.
This is dangerous for newspapers and sites like Monster where they have long been able to charge a significant premium due to limited access.If they want to be able to charge a premium (relative to Craigslist), they had better offer an improved product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30560384</id>
	<title>Re:Nostalgia = brain rot</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1261844280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Print advertising makes ten times as much per buyer than online advertising.</p></div><p>And how! In the 90's when I had a photography business, I looked into buying ads in the local paper. 1/4 page ad was over a thousand dollars a day!</p><p>
52K a year for a small ad once a week for a part time business is just not sustainable. Isn't going to happen when my target profit was around 25K (part time). Given that that was around 15 years ago, I can only assume the rates have gone up. Unless you are a high volume, high cash flow, high profit business, it makes no sense to advertise in a Newspaper. They really put themselves out of business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Print advertising makes ten times as much per buyer than online advertising.And how !
In the 90 's when I had a photography business , I looked into buying ads in the local paper .
1/4 page ad was over a thousand dollars a day !
52K a year for a small ad once a week for a part time business is just not sustainable .
Is n't going to happen when my target profit was around 25K ( part time ) .
Given that that was around 15 years ago , I can only assume the rates have gone up .
Unless you are a high volume , high cash flow , high profit business , it makes no sense to advertise in a Newspaper .
They really put themselves out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Print advertising makes ten times as much per buyer than online advertising.And how!
In the 90's when I had a photography business, I looked into buying ads in the local paper.
1/4 page ad was over a thousand dollars a day!
52K a year for a small ad once a week for a part time business is just not sustainable.
Isn't going to happen when my target profit was around 25K (part time).
Given that that was around 15 years ago, I can only assume the rates have gone up.
Unless you are a high volume, high cash flow, high profit business, it makes no sense to advertise in a Newspaper.
They really put themselves out of business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552192</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1261773300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much. They'd much rather people buy print ads, because print ads pay about ten times as much as online ads. The trouble is, they haven't made the next logical realisation, that that's <i>why</i> people aren't buying print ads much any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much .
They 'd much rather people buy print ads , because print ads pay about ten times as much as online ads .
The trouble is , they have n't made the next logical realisation , that that 's why people are n't buying print ads much any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much.
They'd much rather people buy print ads, because print ads pay about ten times as much as online ads.
The trouble is, they haven't made the next logical realisation, that that's why people aren't buying print ads much any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553148</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261744260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember when magazines had more content than ads? No longer. In fact, they purposefully don't put page numbers on the ad pages so you are forced to page through them to try to find the fucking articles.</p><p>Remember when TV shows only had 2 minutes of commercials? Now they have almost 10 minutes or so, and that doesn't include the logos and ticker/pop-up advertisements during the shows themselves...</p><p>Remember when cable had no commercials at all?</p><p>Remember when radio stations regularly had half hour to hour long blocks of uninterrupted music?</p></div><p>I'm only 38, but I don't remember any of these things.  There were certainly always magazines with more ads than content.  I remember visiting cousins in Britain when I was 9 and finding out our hour-long shows were scheduled for 40 minutes on BBC because they pulled the commercials out.  I remember radio stations promoting blocks of commercial-free music, but it seems like they promoted that it was a commercial-free block of music between each song.  Radio does seem to have more commercials than it did then, though.  And we only had cable since about 1979, but it certainly had commercials even then.</p><p>Also, think of the alternatives to ads, and I'm OK with the ads -- in Britain my understanding is they tax every television set to pay for the BBC.  We've always had ads in magazines even when you pay for them.  If there are more ads now than there used to be, that's kind of annoying, but I rarely buy magazines and I'd buy even fewer if they cost more and had fewer ads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when magazines had more content than ads ?
No longer .
In fact , they purposefully do n't put page numbers on the ad pages so you are forced to page through them to try to find the fucking articles.Remember when TV shows only had 2 minutes of commercials ?
Now they have almost 10 minutes or so , and that does n't include the logos and ticker/pop-up advertisements during the shows themselves...Remember when cable had no commercials at all ? Remember when radio stations regularly had half hour to hour long blocks of uninterrupted music ? I 'm only 38 , but I do n't remember any of these things .
There were certainly always magazines with more ads than content .
I remember visiting cousins in Britain when I was 9 and finding out our hour-long shows were scheduled for 40 minutes on BBC because they pulled the commercials out .
I remember radio stations promoting blocks of commercial-free music , but it seems like they promoted that it was a commercial-free block of music between each song .
Radio does seem to have more commercials than it did then , though .
And we only had cable since about 1979 , but it certainly had commercials even then.Also , think of the alternatives to ads , and I 'm OK with the ads -- in Britain my understanding is they tax every television set to pay for the BBC .
We 've always had ads in magazines even when you pay for them .
If there are more ads now than there used to be , that 's kind of annoying , but I rarely buy magazines and I 'd buy even fewer if they cost more and had fewer ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when magazines had more content than ads?
No longer.
In fact, they purposefully don't put page numbers on the ad pages so you are forced to page through them to try to find the fucking articles.Remember when TV shows only had 2 minutes of commercials?
Now they have almost 10 minutes or so, and that doesn't include the logos and ticker/pop-up advertisements during the shows themselves...Remember when cable had no commercials at all?Remember when radio stations regularly had half hour to hour long blocks of uninterrupted music?I'm only 38, but I don't remember any of these things.
There were certainly always magazines with more ads than content.
I remember visiting cousins in Britain when I was 9 and finding out our hour-long shows were scheduled for 40 minutes on BBC because they pulled the commercials out.
I remember radio stations promoting blocks of commercial-free music, but it seems like they promoted that it was a commercial-free block of music between each song.
Radio does seem to have more commercials than it did then, though.
And we only had cable since about 1979, but it certainly had commercials even then.Also, think of the alternatives to ads, and I'm OK with the ads -- in Britain my understanding is they tax every television set to pay for the BBC.
We've always had ads in magazines even when you pay for them.
If there are more ads now than there used to be, that's kind of annoying, but I rarely buy magazines and I'd buy even fewer if they cost more and had fewer ads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553826</id>
	<title>Re:Oversimplified ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261755600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a content producer wants to block Google, they have three easy mechanisms by doing so.  Robots.txt is the first and foremost, telling Googlebot where to not go.  The second is that Google always uses the same User Agent, so they can block by that on the webserver side.  Finally, Google has its indexing always originating from the same IP blocks, so if a content producer wants to really block Google (as opposed to whine about it), they can drop a router ACL in and all their machines inside won't be indexed.</p><p>From what I've been seeing, I can't figure out why content producers just want to whine about Google.  Either they block them, or they don't.  Maybe if they whine enough, they get more traction in the super secret ACTA treaty negotations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a content producer wants to block Google , they have three easy mechanisms by doing so .
Robots.txt is the first and foremost , telling Googlebot where to not go .
The second is that Google always uses the same User Agent , so they can block by that on the webserver side .
Finally , Google has its indexing always originating from the same IP blocks , so if a content producer wants to really block Google ( as opposed to whine about it ) , they can drop a router ACL in and all their machines inside wo n't be indexed.From what I 've been seeing , I ca n't figure out why content producers just want to whine about Google .
Either they block them , or they do n't .
Maybe if they whine enough , they get more traction in the super secret ACTA treaty negotations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a content producer wants to block Google, they have three easy mechanisms by doing so.
Robots.txt is the first and foremost, telling Googlebot where to not go.
The second is that Google always uses the same User Agent, so they can block by that on the webserver side.
Finally, Google has its indexing always originating from the same IP blocks, so if a content producer wants to really block Google (as opposed to whine about it), they can drop a router ACL in and all their machines inside won't be indexed.From what I've been seeing, I can't figure out why content producers just want to whine about Google.
Either they block them, or they don't.
Maybe if they whine enough, they get more traction in the super secret ACTA treaty negotations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553970</id>
	<title>Re:Yahoo News</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261758720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably because Yahoo News isn't an aggregator?</p><p>They write their own articles, and license content from AP and Reuters, just like any printed paper does. There's no reason publishers should be upset about that, since it's the same thing they're doing-- until recently I'd say the only difference is the lack of a printing press, but now a lot of previously printed papers are online-only too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because Yahoo News is n't an aggregator ? They write their own articles , and license content from AP and Reuters , just like any printed paper does .
There 's no reason publishers should be upset about that , since it 's the same thing they 're doing-- until recently I 'd say the only difference is the lack of a printing press , but now a lot of previously printed papers are online-only too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because Yahoo News isn't an aggregator?They write their own articles, and license content from AP and Reuters, just like any printed paper does.
There's no reason publishers should be upset about that, since it's the same thing they're doing-- until recently I'd say the only difference is the lack of a printing press, but now a lot of previously printed papers are online-only too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551890</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1261769460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like TFS said: No earth-shattering revelations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like TFS said : No earth-shattering revelations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like TFS said: No earth-shattering revelations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718</id>
	<title>Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261767240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is like a market maker. Some people despise market makers, but they are ignorant of how trade works. Does the market maker profit from the trades of others? Yes, but without him there would be much less trade, and everyone would be worse off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is like a market maker .
Some people despise market makers , but they are ignorant of how trade works .
Does the market maker profit from the trades of others ?
Yes , but without him there would be much less trade , and everyone would be worse off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is like a market maker.
Some people despise market makers, but they are ignorant of how trade works.
Does the market maker profit from the trades of others?
Yes, but without him there would be much less trade, and everyone would be worse off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553960</id>
	<title>Google IS the model</title>
	<author>daemonenwind</author>
	<datestamp>1261758480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just don't understand what google is doing.<br>I quote: "Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media."</p><p>Google's content is, "an answer to your question".</p><p>It's not movies.<br>It's not music.<br>It's not political commentary.</p><p>It's an answer to the question, where do I find \_\_\_.</p><p>The essential problem, the reason for revolt, is that on google, THE ADVERTISING CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTENT.<br>Maybe you want to buy a honda.  But here's this nissan ad, and you click on it.  See how this could get someone upset?</p><p>Another example: I want my users to type in my domain and drill down to pages.  This gets me maybe 3 or 4 pageviews.<br>Coming in straight from google gets me one pageview.<br>See how this could get someone upset?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just do n't understand what google is doing.I quote : " Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media .
" Google 's content is , " an answer to your question " .It 's not movies.It 's not music.It 's not political commentary.It 's an answer to the question , where do I find \ _ \ _ \ _.The essential problem , the reason for revolt , is that on google , THE ADVERTISING CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTENT.Maybe you want to buy a honda .
But here 's this nissan ad , and you click on it .
See how this could get someone upset ? Another example : I want my users to type in my domain and drill down to pages .
This gets me maybe 3 or 4 pageviews.Coming in straight from google gets me one pageview.See how this could get someone upset ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just don't understand what google is doing.I quote: "Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media.
"Google's content is, "an answer to your question".It's not movies.It's not music.It's not political commentary.It's an answer to the question, where do I find \_\_\_.The essential problem, the reason for revolt, is that on google, THE ADVERTISING CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTENT.Maybe you want to buy a honda.
But here's this nissan ad, and you click on it.
See how this could get someone upset?Another example: I want my users to type in my domain and drill down to pages.
This gets me maybe 3 or 4 pageviews.Coming in straight from google gets me one pageview.See how this could get someone upset?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122</id>
	<title>Complete the quote</title>
	<author>mccalli</author>
	<datestamp>1261772340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The proverb warns that you should never bite the hand that feeds you, <a href="http://www.famousquotesandauthors.com/authors/thomas\_szasz\_quotes.html" title="famousquot...uthors.com">but maybe you should if it prevents you from feeding yourself."</a> [famousquot...uthors.com]
<br> <br>
You're asking people to accept that they exist at the whim of some other business and through rules that they can't influence or control. Would <i>you</i> put your own business at that level of dependence? Why should a publisher?
<br> <br>
Google may be superficially good for a publisher today, but the reality is that they lose influence and control over their own product. They become commodity suppliers to Google, and that's no good to them. It may or may not be good for you-the-consumer, but that's not the viewpoint being argued.
<br> <br>
Cheers,<br>
Ian</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The proverb warns that you should never bite the hand that feeds you , but maybe you should if it prevents you from feeding yourself .
" [ famousquot...uthors.com ] You 're asking people to accept that they exist at the whim of some other business and through rules that they ca n't influence or control .
Would you put your own business at that level of dependence ?
Why should a publisher ?
Google may be superficially good for a publisher today , but the reality is that they lose influence and control over their own product .
They become commodity suppliers to Google , and that 's no good to them .
It may or may not be good for you-the-consumer , but that 's not the viewpoint being argued .
Cheers , Ian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The proverb warns that you should never bite the hand that feeds you, but maybe you should if it prevents you from feeding yourself.
" [famousquot...uthors.com]
 
You're asking people to accept that they exist at the whim of some other business and through rules that they can't influence or control.
Would you put your own business at that level of dependence?
Why should a publisher?
Google may be superficially good for a publisher today, but the reality is that they lose influence and control over their own product.
They become commodity suppliers to Google, and that's no good to them.
It may or may not be good for you-the-consumer, but that's not the viewpoint being argued.
Cheers,
Ian</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551858</id>
	<title>Yahoo News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261769040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are the news publishers never up in arms about Yahoo News? Yahoo News is more popular than Google News by a <a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/4211126363\_61ac45fbbe.jpg" title="flickr.com">significant amount</a> [flickr.com].<br> <br>

I guess they realize there is more money in going after Google than there is in Yahoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are the news publishers never up in arms about Yahoo News ?
Yahoo News is more popular than Google News by a significant amount [ flickr.com ] .
I guess they realize there is more money in going after Google than there is in Yahoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are the news publishers never up in arms about Yahoo News?
Yahoo News is more popular than Google News by a significant amount [flickr.com].
I guess they realize there is more money in going after Google than there is in Yahoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553728</id>
	<title>lool</title>
	<author>drkamil</author>
	<datestamp>1261753680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>why is google now  the hand??
I NEVER GAVE THEM SOMETHING


btw subject is google forced sht LOOL</htmltext>
<tokenext>why is google now the hand ? ?
I NEVER GAVE THEM SOMETHING btw subject is google forced sht LOOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is google now  the hand??
I NEVER GAVE THEM SOMETHING


btw subject is google forced sht LOOL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554042</id>
	<title>Re:Publications love Google</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1261760520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And what's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ? Many people never move off that page. Where's their ads? Where's their revenue?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I've seen a few articles like that. I would expect it's a business relationship between Google and the news provider, perhaps splitting ad revenue. The news provider was not a news site, it was a news feed service as I recall.</p><p>
&nbsp; rd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ?
Many people never move off that page .
Where 's their ads ?
Where 's their revenue ?
      I 've seen a few articles like that .
I would expect it 's a business relationship between Google and the news provider , perhaps splitting ad revenue .
The news provider was not a news site , it was a news feed service as I recall .
  rd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ?
Many people never move off that page.
Where's their ads?
Where's their revenue?
      I've seen a few articles like that.
I would expect it's a business relationship between Google and the news provider, perhaps splitting ad revenue.
The news provider was not a news site, it was a news feed service as I recall.
  rd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551826</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261768560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they are the wrong kind of people those publishers want (ie something that makes them money), but they also don't want to give content away for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they are the wrong kind of people those publishers want ( ie something that makes them money ) , but they also do n't want to give content away for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they are the wrong kind of people those publishers want (ie something that makes them money), but they also don't want to give content away for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553438</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1261748940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those are irrelevant options. In the age of the internet, a public search engine should be paid for through taxes, in the same way that we already pay for the courts, we pay for the police, we pay for the military, etc. If it's a service that's for everyone and that everyone needs to use, it shouldn't be private. Think NASA or the military, but for information technology.
<p>
It should have no advertising, and it should have no corporate sponsorship, and it should be accountable to the public. It should also be open, with no hidden algorithms, and must not sell your private data.
</p><p>
If at that point you still prefer to use an unaccountable private search engine with advertising and restrictions, more power to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are irrelevant options .
In the age of the internet , a public search engine should be paid for through taxes , in the same way that we already pay for the courts , we pay for the police , we pay for the military , etc .
If it 's a service that 's for everyone and that everyone needs to use , it should n't be private .
Think NASA or the military , but for information technology .
It should have no advertising , and it should have no corporate sponsorship , and it should be accountable to the public .
It should also be open , with no hidden algorithms , and must not sell your private data .
If at that point you still prefer to use an unaccountable private search engine with advertising and restrictions , more power to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are irrelevant options.
In the age of the internet, a public search engine should be paid for through taxes, in the same way that we already pay for the courts, we pay for the police, we pay for the military, etc.
If it's a service that's for everyone and that everyone needs to use, it shouldn't be private.
Think NASA or the military, but for information technology.
It should have no advertising, and it should have no corporate sponsorship, and it should be accountable to the public.
It should also be open, with no hidden algorithms, and must not sell your private data.
If at that point you still prefer to use an unaccountable private search engine with advertising and restrictions, more power to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552538</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261735080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasnt the advertises that made this, it was the fucking media execs who tought they could win more money. It is like saying that the guy who sells alcohol is the one to blame for the people who drive under its effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wasnt the advertises that made this , it was the fucking media execs who tought they could win more money .
It is like saying that the guy who sells alcohol is the one to blame for the people who drive under its effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasnt the advertises that made this, it was the fucking media execs who tought they could win more money.
It is like saying that the guy who sells alcohol is the one to blame for the people who drive under its effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924</id>
	<title>Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261769940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is utterly evil as far as I am concerned. Why? Because they are in league with the worst people in existence: advertisers. Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.</p><p>Remember when magazines had more content than ads? No longer. In fact, they purposefully don't put page numbers on the ad pages so you are forced to page through them to try to find the fucking articles.</p><p>Remember when TV shows only had 2 minutes of commercials? Now they have almost 10 minutes or so, and that doesn't include the logos and ticker/pop-up advertisements during the shows themselves...</p><p>Remember when cable had no commercials at all?</p><p>Remember when radio stations regularly had half hour to hour long blocks of uninterrupted music?</p><p>Remember when the internet wasn't a bunch of fucking pop-ups, banners, and flash crap? In fact, remember when the net was more like a library than a TV?</p><p>I even remember a time when my e-mail was just that and not a bunch of spam. Besides, my dick is rock hard and I don't want a Rolex so STFU already.</p><p>Even Google itself has been getting steadily worse as well over the years with searches returning less and less pertinent results.</p><p>I swear, the day a Minority Report type ad assaults me at the mall, I'm going to go postal. I can only take so much before I have to start making ear necklaces out of these bastards.</p><p>In every case the product has gotten worse, not better due to advertising influence. You would think with all that income it would be otherwise, but not so.</p><p>I've finally blocked google and all their accomplices from my home network to the degree that I am able and I don't care in the slightest if certain sites fail due to lack of advertising income. The internet is like an information based RAID array. Another site will just take their place and fill the void until it too fails and the cycle repeats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is utterly evil as far as I am concerned .
Why ? Because they are in league with the worst people in existence : advertisers .
Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.Remember when magazines had more content than ads ?
No longer .
In fact , they purposefully do n't put page numbers on the ad pages so you are forced to page through them to try to find the fucking articles.Remember when TV shows only had 2 minutes of commercials ?
Now they have almost 10 minutes or so , and that does n't include the logos and ticker/pop-up advertisements during the shows themselves...Remember when cable had no commercials at all ? Remember when radio stations regularly had half hour to hour long blocks of uninterrupted music ? Remember when the internet was n't a bunch of fucking pop-ups , banners , and flash crap ?
In fact , remember when the net was more like a library than a TV ? I even remember a time when my e-mail was just that and not a bunch of spam .
Besides , my dick is rock hard and I do n't want a Rolex so STFU already.Even Google itself has been getting steadily worse as well over the years with searches returning less and less pertinent results.I swear , the day a Minority Report type ad assaults me at the mall , I 'm going to go postal .
I can only take so much before I have to start making ear necklaces out of these bastards.In every case the product has gotten worse , not better due to advertising influence .
You would think with all that income it would be otherwise , but not so.I 've finally blocked google and all their accomplices from my home network to the degree that I am able and I do n't care in the slightest if certain sites fail due to lack of advertising income .
The internet is like an information based RAID array .
Another site will just take their place and fill the void until it too fails and the cycle repeats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is utterly evil as far as I am concerned.
Why? Because they are in league with the worst people in existence: advertisers.
Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.Remember when magazines had more content than ads?
No longer.
In fact, they purposefully don't put page numbers on the ad pages so you are forced to page through them to try to find the fucking articles.Remember when TV shows only had 2 minutes of commercials?
Now they have almost 10 minutes or so, and that doesn't include the logos and ticker/pop-up advertisements during the shows themselves...Remember when cable had no commercials at all?Remember when radio stations regularly had half hour to hour long blocks of uninterrupted music?Remember when the internet wasn't a bunch of fucking pop-ups, banners, and flash crap?
In fact, remember when the net was more like a library than a TV?I even remember a time when my e-mail was just that and not a bunch of spam.
Besides, my dick is rock hard and I don't want a Rolex so STFU already.Even Google itself has been getting steadily worse as well over the years with searches returning less and less pertinent results.I swear, the day a Minority Report type ad assaults me at the mall, I'm going to go postal.
I can only take so much before I have to start making ear necklaces out of these bastards.In every case the product has gotten worse, not better due to advertising influence.
You would think with all that income it would be otherwise, but not so.I've finally blocked google and all their accomplices from my home network to the degree that I am able and I don't care in the slightest if certain sites fail due to lack of advertising income.
The internet is like an information based RAID array.
Another site will just take their place and fill the void until it too fails and the cycle repeats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30565444</id>
	<title>Re:Algorithmically both Good and Evil</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1261907520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty interesting twist on the word "abusive monopolist".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty interesting twist on the word " abusive monopolist " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty interesting twist on the word "abusive monopolist".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552214</id>
	<title>Altavista</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1261773540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I say that Google profits from connecting users to content. It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly. Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system. That's why they succeed.</p></div><p>The quote's a good contrast with Altavista, which started out with "least-skewed" results, but declined when they were attacked by search engine gamers flooding the results with crap that they never really got very good at filtering out.  All the while adding various portal features that cluttered up the site and tried to push users towards content they weren't looking for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say that Google profits from connecting users to content .
It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly .
Google , unlike any other search engine ever , goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible .
Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system .
That 's why they succeed.The quote 's a good contrast with Altavista , which started out with " least-skewed " results , but declined when they were attacked by search engine gamers flooding the results with crap that they never really got very good at filtering out .
All the while adding various portal features that cluttered up the site and tried to push users towards content they were n't looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say that Google profits from connecting users to content.
It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly.
Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible.
Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.
That's why they succeed.The quote's a good contrast with Altavista, which started out with "least-skewed" results, but declined when they were attacked by search engine gamers flooding the results with crap that they never really got very good at filtering out.
All the while adding various portal features that cluttered up the site and tried to push users towards content they weren't looking for.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551950</id>
	<title>Oversimplified ...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1261770300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to distinguish the Google functionality that provides search results and leads users to the content owner's website from the various Google projects that incorporate - in "corporate" terms you'd say "steal" - sufficient content for the user's needs and only provide a link to the owner for further information. For example, most users only read short summaries of news articles - so they never click on the link to the content owner's pages when they can read that on Google News. Or look at blatantly stolen user reviews from other shopping portals that appear on Google Products, where the originating website's owner can't even moderate them anymore in case of slander/false accusations but still has to deal with ramifications.</p><p>We all love Google Search, but could do without Google the content aggregator who monetizes everyone else's content. It's easy to mock the media moguls like Murdoch for taking such a defensive stance, but they have no means whatsoever to get people to pay for their content or even live from advertising as long as Google effectively keeps traffic off their websites by publishing big enough excerpts for most users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to distinguish the Google functionality that provides search results and leads users to the content owner 's website from the various Google projects that incorporate - in " corporate " terms you 'd say " steal " - sufficient content for the user 's needs and only provide a link to the owner for further information .
For example , most users only read short summaries of news articles - so they never click on the link to the content owner 's pages when they can read that on Google News .
Or look at blatantly stolen user reviews from other shopping portals that appear on Google Products , where the originating website 's owner ca n't even moderate them anymore in case of slander/false accusations but still has to deal with ramifications.We all love Google Search , but could do without Google the content aggregator who monetizes everyone else 's content .
It 's easy to mock the media moguls like Murdoch for taking such a defensive stance , but they have no means whatsoever to get people to pay for their content or even live from advertising as long as Google effectively keeps traffic off their websites by publishing big enough excerpts for most users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to distinguish the Google functionality that provides search results and leads users to the content owner's website from the various Google projects that incorporate - in "corporate" terms you'd say "steal" - sufficient content for the user's needs and only provide a link to the owner for further information.
For example, most users only read short summaries of news articles - so they never click on the link to the content owner's pages when they can read that on Google News.
Or look at blatantly stolen user reviews from other shopping portals that appear on Google Products, where the originating website's owner can't even moderate them anymore in case of slander/false accusations but still has to deal with ramifications.We all love Google Search, but could do without Google the content aggregator who monetizes everyone else's content.
It's easy to mock the media moguls like Murdoch for taking such a defensive stance, but they have no means whatsoever to get people to pay for their content or even live from advertising as long as Google effectively keeps traffic off their websites by publishing big enough excerpts for most users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552056</id>
	<title>Blame it on the ad desk.</title>
	<author>dada21</author>
	<datestamp>1261771740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked pretty hard to pull away from the mainstream dead-pulp press sites unless they offer a variety of features I think are necessary:</p><p>1. No login, but if I do voluntarily create an account, I should get some advantages (targeted ads would be nice, like Facebook where I can vote on ads)<br>2. Comments.  If the deadpulpsters don't want my input, I don't want theirs.<br>3. Reasonable variety of facts over what the AP and other wires vomit.  Originality counts, even if I disagree with it.</p><p>Yet there's another short-rule I follow: if they're going to put up ads that make no sense, I will generally back off of their site.  I don't use adblock because I am WILLING to visit advertisers of the blogs and news-sites I read, if the ads are relevant.  But if it's "Rachel Ray lost 40 lbs using this diet" or "Find out more about acai" or "Quit smoking today with a vaporizer" then I'm pretty much done with that site.</p><p>The ad desks need to accept LESS money from advertisers in exchange for ads that are actually relevant.  Why can't these companies offer real-time advertising  on a per-article basis?  That way, Mike Flower Shop can advertise on the poinsettia article, and Subaru can advertise on the article about Saab going under.</p><p>It isn't Google who is killing these papers, it is their lack of advertisers who actually matter to the readers.  Heck, I have no problem giving away my information when I register (voluntarily) for an account.  My age, my sex, my income, my general location -- that way, advertisers can target me at those sites, and maybe I'll even buy.</p><p>For what it's worth, I advertise for some of my businesses on Facebook.  I pick the keywords, the sex, the age and more, and my ad conversion rate is pretty high (I pay about $4 per new buying customer, on average).  It costs me $100 to get a new client through other means (direct mail, even referrals that require me to spend time winning the new customer).  Facebook has it right, even if a lot of their ads are shady (I can dislike them, thumbs down).  It's time for the deadpulp media to do the same thing, or even turn their advertising over to another venture who will shut down the diet, anti-smoking and cleaner skin spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked pretty hard to pull away from the mainstream dead-pulp press sites unless they offer a variety of features I think are necessary : 1 .
No login , but if I do voluntarily create an account , I should get some advantages ( targeted ads would be nice , like Facebook where I can vote on ads ) 2 .
Comments. If the deadpulpsters do n't want my input , I do n't want theirs.3 .
Reasonable variety of facts over what the AP and other wires vomit .
Originality counts , even if I disagree with it.Yet there 's another short-rule I follow : if they 're going to put up ads that make no sense , I will generally back off of their site .
I do n't use adblock because I am WILLING to visit advertisers of the blogs and news-sites I read , if the ads are relevant .
But if it 's " Rachel Ray lost 40 lbs using this diet " or " Find out more about acai " or " Quit smoking today with a vaporizer " then I 'm pretty much done with that site.The ad desks need to accept LESS money from advertisers in exchange for ads that are actually relevant .
Why ca n't these companies offer real-time advertising on a per-article basis ?
That way , Mike Flower Shop can advertise on the poinsettia article , and Subaru can advertise on the article about Saab going under.It is n't Google who is killing these papers , it is their lack of advertisers who actually matter to the readers .
Heck , I have no problem giving away my information when I register ( voluntarily ) for an account .
My age , my sex , my income , my general location -- that way , advertisers can target me at those sites , and maybe I 'll even buy.For what it 's worth , I advertise for some of my businesses on Facebook .
I pick the keywords , the sex , the age and more , and my ad conversion rate is pretty high ( I pay about $ 4 per new buying customer , on average ) .
It costs me $ 100 to get a new client through other means ( direct mail , even referrals that require me to spend time winning the new customer ) .
Facebook has it right , even if a lot of their ads are shady ( I can dislike them , thumbs down ) .
It 's time for the deadpulp media to do the same thing , or even turn their advertising over to another venture who will shut down the diet , anti-smoking and cleaner skin spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked pretty hard to pull away from the mainstream dead-pulp press sites unless they offer a variety of features I think are necessary:1.
No login, but if I do voluntarily create an account, I should get some advantages (targeted ads would be nice, like Facebook where I can vote on ads)2.
Comments.  If the deadpulpsters don't want my input, I don't want theirs.3.
Reasonable variety of facts over what the AP and other wires vomit.
Originality counts, even if I disagree with it.Yet there's another short-rule I follow: if they're going to put up ads that make no sense, I will generally back off of their site.
I don't use adblock because I am WILLING to visit advertisers of the blogs and news-sites I read, if the ads are relevant.
But if it's "Rachel Ray lost 40 lbs using this diet" or "Find out more about acai" or "Quit smoking today with a vaporizer" then I'm pretty much done with that site.The ad desks need to accept LESS money from advertisers in exchange for ads that are actually relevant.
Why can't these companies offer real-time advertising  on a per-article basis?
That way, Mike Flower Shop can advertise on the poinsettia article, and Subaru can advertise on the article about Saab going under.It isn't Google who is killing these papers, it is their lack of advertisers who actually matter to the readers.
Heck, I have no problem giving away my information when I register (voluntarily) for an account.
My age, my sex, my income, my general location -- that way, advertisers can target me at those sites, and maybe I'll even buy.For what it's worth, I advertise for some of my businesses on Facebook.
I pick the keywords, the sex, the age and more, and my ad conversion rate is pretty high (I pay about $4 per new buying customer, on average).
It costs me $100 to get a new client through other means (direct mail, even referrals that require me to spend time winning the new customer).
Facebook has it right, even if a lot of their ads are shady (I can dislike them, thumbs down).
It's time for the deadpulp media to do the same thing, or even turn their advertising over to another venture who will shut down the diet, anti-smoking and cleaner skin spammers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30562678</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1261923600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what bugs me about the whole thing.  Nobody complains about newspaper shops profiting from the sale of newspapers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what bugs me about the whole thing .
Nobody complains about newspaper shops profiting from the sale of newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what bugs me about the whole thing.
Nobody complains about newspaper shops profiting from the sale of newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553084</id>
	<title>Re:some moderate views</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261743360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google, and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search, but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Both things you said are true. This is slashdot, and they are modding each other just as you said they would. Also, the Google plan to mollify Murdoch and others is as you described.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; However, it has nothing to do with Google (other than Murdoch and his type allowing Google continued indexing of his rags with this plan). It doesn't change what Google does. It's a change of news sites from ad supported to paywall.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Look, I don't care what any site does. I'll make my decisions based on the worth of the site to me. All the news sites could go paywall as far as I'm concerned. Rush tells me everything I need to know anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>
&nbsp; rd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google , and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search , but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription .
      Both things you said are true .
This is slashdot , and they are modding each other just as you said they would .
Also , the Google plan to mollify Murdoch and others is as you described .
      However , it has nothing to do with Google ( other than Murdoch and his type allowing Google continued indexing of his rags with this plan ) .
It does n't change what Google does .
It 's a change of news sites from ad supported to paywall .
      Look , I do n't care what any site does .
I 'll make my decisions based on the worth of the site to me .
All the news sites could go paywall as far as I 'm concerned .
Rush tells me everything I need to know anyway .
: P   rd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google, and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search, but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription.
      Both things you said are true.
This is slashdot, and they are modding each other just as you said they would.
Also, the Google plan to mollify Murdoch and others is as you described.
      However, it has nothing to do with Google (other than Murdoch and his type allowing Google continued indexing of his rags with this plan).
It doesn't change what Google does.
It's a change of news sites from ad supported to paywall.
      Look, I don't care what any site does.
I'll make my decisions based on the worth of the site to me.
All the news sites could go paywall as far as I'm concerned.
Rush tells me everything I need to know anyway.
:P
  rd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552306</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, Sherlock? ^^</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1261731600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, we're PHPs and the rest are Pythons</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , we 're PHPs and the rest are Pythons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, we're PHPs and the rest are Pythons</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553196</id>
	<title>Re:Complete the quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261745040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well said... strange that people have not yet found a way to commoditize the search engines...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well said... strange that people have not yet found a way to commoditize the search engines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well said... strange that people have not yet found a way to commoditize the search engines...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553926</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Google.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261757700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on slowly getting to the point that everybody else figured out right away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on slowly getting to the point that everybody else figured out right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on slowly getting to the point that everybody else figured out right away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30560384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30559890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30559254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30557938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30565444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30556870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30562678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_1324218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30559254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30559890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30565444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30562678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30557938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552926
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553926
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553154
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30556870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30555436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30554042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30552638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30560384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30553296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_1324218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_1324218.30551968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
