<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_30_0027217</id>
	<title>Following In Bing's Footsteps, Yahoo! and Flickr Censor Porn In India</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262189160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bhagwad writes <i>"Following recent news on how Bing decided <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/06/2338233/Microsofts-Bing-Refuses-Search-Term-Sex-In-India">sex was too sensitive</a> for India, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/28/sex-internet-india-law">Yahoo! and its associated site Flickr have decided to do the same</a>. While it's true that this is because of India passing laws that <a href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/01/03/0246252/India-Sleepwalks-Into-a-Surveillance-Society">prohibit the publication of porn</a>, no complaint was ever launched (and never will be), and glorious Google still continues to return accurate and unbiased results. So why is Yahoo! doing this? Is it because of its tie-up with Bing? I assume this is the case. Indian ISPs have already told the government and the courts that it's not their job to restrict porn and it's technologically infeasible too. In the absence of a complaint, I can only assume that Yahoo! has decided to do this of their own volition. Given that the 'sex' search term is searched more in India than in any other country, isn't it the duty of Yahoo! to provide accurate results to its customers? It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible. Since Yahoo! already has a low search market share in India, this will drive it even lower."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bhagwad writes " Following recent news on how Bing decided sex was too sensitive for India , Yahoo !
and its associated site Flickr have decided to do the same .
While it 's true that this is because of India passing laws that prohibit the publication of porn , no complaint was ever launched ( and never will be ) , and glorious Google still continues to return accurate and unbiased results .
So why is Yahoo !
doing this ?
Is it because of its tie-up with Bing ?
I assume this is the case .
Indian ISPs have already told the government and the courts that it 's not their job to restrict porn and it 's technologically infeasible too .
In the absence of a complaint , I can only assume that Yahoo !
has decided to do this of their own volition .
Given that the 'sex ' search term is searched more in India than in any other country , is n't it the duty of Yahoo !
to provide accurate results to its customers ?
It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible .
Since Yahoo !
already has a low search market share in India , this will drive it even lower .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bhagwad writes "Following recent news on how Bing decided sex was too sensitive for India, Yahoo!
and its associated site Flickr have decided to do the same.
While it's true that this is because of India passing laws that prohibit the publication of porn, no complaint was ever launched (and never will be), and glorious Google still continues to return accurate and unbiased results.
So why is Yahoo!
doing this?
Is it because of its tie-up with Bing?
I assume this is the case.
Indian ISPs have already told the government and the courts that it's not their job to restrict porn and it's technologically infeasible too.
In the absence of a complaint, I can only assume that Yahoo!
has decided to do this of their own volition.
Given that the 'sex' search term is searched more in India than in any other country, isn't it the duty of Yahoo!
to provide accurate results to its customers?
It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible.
Since Yahoo!
already has a low search market share in India, this will drive it even lower.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591302</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259873820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of examples of democracies getting it wrong.  Just look at the California gay marriage bill that passed last year, or the various EU plans that were shot down by voters.  Thank goodness there are ways around those.</p><p>Voting is pure gambling, there is no guarantee of a positive outcome.  Any sort of referendum is just a roll of the dice and you hope the voters will get it right, but frequently they get it wrong.  Simply saying "the voters have spoken" is childish and not at all fashionable among the intelligentsia these days.  You need a solid core of well-educated people to ensure that society makes the correct decisions, otherwise you'll end up with a racist hate-state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of examples of democracies getting it wrong .
Just look at the California gay marriage bill that passed last year , or the various EU plans that were shot down by voters .
Thank goodness there are ways around those.Voting is pure gambling , there is no guarantee of a positive outcome .
Any sort of referendum is just a roll of the dice and you hope the voters will get it right , but frequently they get it wrong .
Simply saying " the voters have spoken " is childish and not at all fashionable among the intelligentsia these days .
You need a solid core of well-educated people to ensure that society makes the correct decisions , otherwise you 'll end up with a racist hate-state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of examples of democracies getting it wrong.
Just look at the California gay marriage bill that passed last year, or the various EU plans that were shot down by voters.
Thank goodness there are ways around those.Voting is pure gambling, there is no guarantee of a positive outcome.
Any sort of referendum is just a roll of the dice and you hope the voters will get it right, but frequently they get it wrong.
Simply saying "the voters have spoken" is childish and not at all fashionable among the intelligentsia these days.
You need a solid core of well-educated people to ensure that society makes the correct decisions, otherwise you'll end up with a racist hate-state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512</id>
	<title>Heh</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1262107140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Given that the 'sex' search term is searched more in India than in any other country</i>... Based on population, I can only assume that India, at number 2 aspires to overtake China.
<br>
<br>
Clearly, if you have to google "sex", you already know what it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the 'sex ' search term is searched more in India than in any other country... Based on population , I can only assume that India , at number 2 aspires to overtake China .
Clearly , if you have to google " sex " , you already know what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the 'sex' search term is searched more in India than in any other country... Based on population, I can only assume that India, at number 2 aspires to overtake China.
Clearly, if you have to google "sex", you already know what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590806</id>
	<title>Not a good decision. Ignorant politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans are Humans any where, whether India or the US. Oppressing the inner feelings of a person isn't called culture. India adopted many major technologies and 70\% Indians in the cities live in nuclear families, but still they talk about "Family values" and "One family". With the technological changes viewing porn is just a transitional state of a society where there would be some uproars for some time. At a later point of time, porn would become just another regular matter in life. When women started wearing jeans and short skirts in India, there was an uproar. When there was Miss World Competition held, there was an uproar... now everyone just feels casual about it. Parents should take care of their children to be on right track. There are adults who are deprived of Sex. What is the alternative for them? Are they recommending prostitution? Internet offers vicarious satisfaction for such men/women. I am not happy with such ignorance. God help Indian people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans are Humans any where , whether India or the US .
Oppressing the inner feelings of a person is n't called culture .
India adopted many major technologies and 70 \ % Indians in the cities live in nuclear families , but still they talk about " Family values " and " One family " .
With the technological changes viewing porn is just a transitional state of a society where there would be some uproars for some time .
At a later point of time , porn would become just another regular matter in life .
When women started wearing jeans and short skirts in India , there was an uproar .
When there was Miss World Competition held , there was an uproar... now everyone just feels casual about it .
Parents should take care of their children to be on right track .
There are adults who are deprived of Sex .
What is the alternative for them ?
Are they recommending prostitution ?
Internet offers vicarious satisfaction for such men/women .
I am not happy with such ignorance .
God help Indian people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans are Humans any where, whether India or the US.
Oppressing the inner feelings of a person isn't called culture.
India adopted many major technologies and 70\% Indians in the cities live in nuclear families, but still they talk about "Family values" and "One family".
With the technological changes viewing porn is just a transitional state of a society where there would be some uproars for some time.
At a later point of time, porn would become just another regular matter in life.
When women started wearing jeans and short skirts in India, there was an uproar.
When there was Miss World Competition held, there was an uproar... now everyone just feels casual about it.
Parents should take care of their children to be on right track.
There are adults who are deprived of Sex.
What is the alternative for them?
Are they recommending prostitution?
Internet offers vicarious satisfaction for such men/women.
I am not happy with such ignorance.
God help Indian people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30594214</id>
	<title>Re:So are you redirected to wholesome Bollywood?</title>
	<author>digTro</author>
	<datestamp>1259858520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There really is no sex in Bollywood. Everything upto the point of getting nude and having sex is allowed, but the line is drawn at sex. Now a days the situation is better. At least they show people kissing each other, but a decade earlier, movies used "rich" symbolisms like bees hovering over a flower, two flowers jostling each other in the wind and shots of lightning to indicate that actors are engaged in passion and sex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There really is no sex in Bollywood .
Everything upto the point of getting nude and having sex is allowed , but the line is drawn at sex .
Now a days the situation is better .
At least they show people kissing each other , but a decade earlier , movies used " rich " symbolisms like bees hovering over a flower , two flowers jostling each other in the wind and shots of lightning to indicate that actors are engaged in passion and sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really is no sex in Bollywood.
Everything upto the point of getting nude and having sex is allowed, but the line is drawn at sex.
Now a days the situation is better.
At least they show people kissing each other, but a decade earlier, movies used "rich" symbolisms like bees hovering over a flower, two flowers jostling each other in the wind and shots of lightning to indicate that actors are engaged in passion and sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590526</id>
	<title>Gone downhill...</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1262107380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember when the Internet was <i>all</i> porn (1994)?  Yeah, it's really gone downhill since then...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when the Internet was all porn ( 1994 ) ?
Yeah , it 's really gone downhill since then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when the Internet was all porn (1994)?
Yeah, it's really gone downhill since then...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590892</id>
	<title>Just like with TV networks...</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1262112360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>isn't it the duty of Yahoo! to provide accurate results to its customers?</p></div><p>You make the mistake of assuming that the users are the <i>customers</i>, rather than the <i>product being sold</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't it the duty of Yahoo !
to provide accurate results to its customers ? You make the mistake of assuming that the users are the customers , rather than the product being sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't it the duty of Yahoo!
to provide accurate results to its customers?You make the mistake of assuming that the users are the customers, rather than the product being sold.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30593966</id>
	<title>Please define "porn"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone please define this "porn" thing which is being banned.  Please provide examples and links to web sites where I may find this "porn" thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please define this " porn " thing which is being banned .
Please provide examples and links to web sites where I may find this " porn " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please define this "porn" thing which is being banned.
Please provide examples and links to web sites where I may find this "porn" thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591192</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259871540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values.</p></div><p>This is a fallacious correlation. Just because laws have been arrived at through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they represent social values. There are much more important driving factors for legislation in a democracy than these social values. There are many ways (for example, lobbyists/bribery) that groups can influence democratic legislation, even in directions contrary to social values. The only possible government in which your ideals of democracy would be upheld would be one that's extremely limited socially so that no one's social values could be trampled upon.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it.</p></div><p>I disagree with this. This is a case where your social values are at odds with personal liberties and just because such regulations would be arrived at through a democratic process doesn't mean that it's okay to take these liberties away. You could make the same case with racial segregation, where only a few really wanted to integrate, but the views of the majority democratically determined that segregation was legal and allowable. Another example could be gay marriage, where a majority is often against it, but since it is (arguably) within a gay couple's right to marry, these social values should not influence the democratic process to take their rights away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values.This is a fallacious correlation .
Just because laws have been arrived at through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they represent social values .
There are much more important driving factors for legislation in a democracy than these social values .
There are many ways ( for example , lobbyists/bribery ) that groups can influence democratic legislation , even in directions contrary to social values .
The only possible government in which your ideals of democracy would be upheld would be one that 's extremely limited socially so that no one 's social values could be trampled upon.If they want porn cencored , they are within their rights to want it.I disagree with this .
This is a case where your social values are at odds with personal liberties and just because such regulations would be arrived at through a democratic process does n't mean that it 's okay to take these liberties away .
You could make the same case with racial segregation , where only a few really wanted to integrate , but the views of the majority democratically determined that segregation was legal and allowable .
Another example could be gay marriage , where a majority is often against it , but since it is ( arguably ) within a gay couple 's right to marry , these social values should not influence the democratic process to take their rights away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values.This is a fallacious correlation.
Just because laws have been arrived at through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they represent social values.
There are much more important driving factors for legislation in a democracy than these social values.
There are many ways (for example, lobbyists/bribery) that groups can influence democratic legislation, even in directions contrary to social values.
The only possible government in which your ideals of democracy would be upheld would be one that's extremely limited socially so that no one's social values could be trampled upon.If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it.I disagree with this.
This is a case where your social values are at odds with personal liberties and just because such regulations would be arrived at through a democratic process doesn't mean that it's okay to take these liberties away.
You could make the same case with racial segregation, where only a few really wanted to integrate, but the views of the majority democratically determined that segregation was legal and allowable.
Another example could be gay marriage, where a majority is often against it, but since it is (arguably) within a gay couple's right to marry, these social values should not influence the democratic process to take their rights away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591660</id>
	<title>Indians will find their way into sex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm from India and I just change bing preferences and say that my country of residence is (insert your favorite English speaking 'developed nation' here) whenever I am interested in browsing pr0n.</p><p>For example, I tell bing I'm from Denmark. Bing shows me stuff. I'm happy.</p><p>Indians on the net will mostly know how to search for what they want within a day or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from India and I just change bing preferences and say that my country of residence is ( insert your favorite English speaking 'developed nation ' here ) whenever I am interested in browsing pr0n.For example , I tell bing I 'm from Denmark .
Bing shows me stuff .
I 'm happy.Indians on the net will mostly know how to search for what they want within a day or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from India and I just change bing preferences and say that my country of residence is (insert your favorite English speaking 'developed nation' here) whenever I am interested in browsing pr0n.For example, I tell bing I'm from Denmark.
Bing shows me stuff.
I'm happy.Indians on the net will mostly know how to search for what they want within a day or two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591860</id>
	<title>Re:So are you redirected to wholesome Bollywood?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever wondered what they do with those mung beans?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever wondered what they do with those mung beans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever wondered what they do with those mung beans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590736</id>
	<title>mod do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do, or indeed what FreeBSD continues paper tOwels, development models BSD culminated in File was opened subscribers. Please Disgust, or been the resources that hand...don't</htmltext>
<tokenext>do , or indeed what FreeBSD continues paper tOwels , development models BSD culminated in File was opened subscribers .
Please Disgust , or been the resources that hand...do n't</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do, or indeed what FreeBSD continues paper tOwels, development models BSD culminated in File was opened subscribers.
Please Disgust, or been the resources that hand...don't</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590554</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't the Kama Sutra come out of India?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the Kama Sutra come out of India ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the Kama Sutra come out of India?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590694</id>
	<title>Uh, no...</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1262109180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible. </i></p><p>Well, clearly since Bing is doing it, yahoo can't claim that they can't. They've just shown that they can make at least a minimally successful attempt. Your "plausible deniability" isn't looking so plausible.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible .
Well , clearly since Bing is doing it , yahoo ca n't claim that they ca n't .
They 've just shown that they can make at least a minimally successful attempt .
Your " plausible deniability " is n't looking so plausible.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible.
Well, clearly since Bing is doing it, yahoo can't claim that they can't.
They've just shown that they can make at least a minimally successful attempt.
Your "plausible deniability" isn't looking so plausible.LK</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590726</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First H1B hating and then sexual desperation all in one day! Slashdot (hearts) India.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First H1B hating and then sexual desperation all in one day !
Slashdot ( hearts ) India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First H1B hating and then sexual desperation all in one day!
Slashdot (hearts) India.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591640</id>
	<title>It will never work</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1259836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one has a cultural framework in which on values males over females (in spite of the fact that India, at least from my reading of PBS programs, has a high respect for females).  If you check the CIA World Factbook, regarding the "People" ratios it becomes fairly obvious.  Sex selection is occurring in India taking place either by implicit or explicit actions (the most explicit actions being the clandestine abortion of female fetuses).  If one has a sex selection process going on (and one could argue the same thing is taking place in China) then there is obviously going to be a demand for online "sex" information, esp. if one has rations involving 10's of millions of males with respect to females.  And if you happen to think that constraining search engine results (presumably what the governments or the puritanical U.S. search engine providers might think) is going to constrain access then you fail to understand what outside of the box thinking of millions of individuals can accomplish.  You cannot correct the problem by constraining internet access, you can can only correct it by changing the culture (a slow and difficult process, but one which the "west" has been through) or by changing the fundamental nature of human beings (clamping down on the natural desires to mate, etc.) which probably requires genetic engineering beyond our current capabilities.</p><p>Thus complaining about this (at least from a "West"ern perspective) is pretty much of a no-op / noise).  Complaining about this from an "East"ern perspective (India/China) (combined population 2+ billion people or 30+\% of the world's population) simply gives the creative individuals information required to do what they do best (i.e. work around the "system").   I could within a few hours easily work up a Perl script which figures out which keywords are blocked and which are not and the best way around such systems.  Until government officials learn that attempting to "censor" the thought paths of their populations is relatively pointless exercise in an internet world, then conversations like this one (at least in the "West"ern world are relatively pointless).  The paths to change (where females and males are valued as equal) have to come from within the individual cultures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one has a cultural framework in which on values males over females ( in spite of the fact that India , at least from my reading of PBS programs , has a high respect for females ) .
If you check the CIA World Factbook , regarding the " People " ratios it becomes fairly obvious .
Sex selection is occurring in India taking place either by implicit or explicit actions ( the most explicit actions being the clandestine abortion of female fetuses ) .
If one has a sex selection process going on ( and one could argue the same thing is taking place in China ) then there is obviously going to be a demand for online " sex " information , esp .
if one has rations involving 10 's of millions of males with respect to females .
And if you happen to think that constraining search engine results ( presumably what the governments or the puritanical U.S. search engine providers might think ) is going to constrain access then you fail to understand what outside of the box thinking of millions of individuals can accomplish .
You can not correct the problem by constraining internet access , you can can only correct it by changing the culture ( a slow and difficult process , but one which the " west " has been through ) or by changing the fundamental nature of human beings ( clamping down on the natural desires to mate , etc .
) which probably requires genetic engineering beyond our current capabilities.Thus complaining about this ( at least from a " West " ern perspective ) is pretty much of a no-op / noise ) .
Complaining about this from an " East " ern perspective ( India/China ) ( combined population 2 + billion people or 30 + \ % of the world 's population ) simply gives the creative individuals information required to do what they do best ( i.e .
work around the " system " ) .
I could within a few hours easily work up a Perl script which figures out which keywords are blocked and which are not and the best way around such systems .
Until government officials learn that attempting to " censor " the thought paths of their populations is relatively pointless exercise in an internet world , then conversations like this one ( at least in the " West " ern world are relatively pointless ) .
The paths to change ( where females and males are valued as equal ) have to come from within the individual cultures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one has a cultural framework in which on values males over females (in spite of the fact that India, at least from my reading of PBS programs, has a high respect for females).
If you check the CIA World Factbook, regarding the "People" ratios it becomes fairly obvious.
Sex selection is occurring in India taking place either by implicit or explicit actions (the most explicit actions being the clandestine abortion of female fetuses).
If one has a sex selection process going on (and one could argue the same thing is taking place in China) then there is obviously going to be a demand for online "sex" information, esp.
if one has rations involving 10's of millions of males with respect to females.
And if you happen to think that constraining search engine results (presumably what the governments or the puritanical U.S. search engine providers might think) is going to constrain access then you fail to understand what outside of the box thinking of millions of individuals can accomplish.
You cannot correct the problem by constraining internet access, you can can only correct it by changing the culture (a slow and difficult process, but one which the "west" has been through) or by changing the fundamental nature of human beings (clamping down on the natural desires to mate, etc.
) which probably requires genetic engineering beyond our current capabilities.Thus complaining about this (at least from a "West"ern perspective) is pretty much of a no-op / noise).
Complaining about this from an "East"ern perspective (India/China) (combined population 2+ billion people or 30+\% of the world's population) simply gives the creative individuals information required to do what they do best (i.e.
work around the "system").
I could within a few hours easily work up a Perl script which figures out which keywords are blocked and which are not and the best way around such systems.
Until government officials learn that attempting to "censor" the thought paths of their populations is relatively pointless exercise in an internet world, then conversations like this one (at least in the "West"ern world are relatively pointless).
The paths to change (where females and males are valued as equal) have to come from within the individual cultures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30593446</id>
	<title>Google Video</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1259855940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, as long as you can still turn safesearch off and do a google video search, I am good.  That's right, it is the best way to get porn for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , as long as you can still turn safesearch off and do a google video search , I am good .
That 's right , it is the best way to get porn for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, as long as you can still turn safesearch off and do a google video search, I am good.
That's right, it is the best way to get porn for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30593114</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>kirill.s</author>
	<datestamp>1259854440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Based on population, I can only assume that India, at number 2 aspires to overtake China</p></div><p>India is only number 2, because China sensors everything already, so there's no statistic for the 'sex' keyword there.<br> <br>

Back in Soviet Russia they used to say "There's no sex in the USSR", now the Chinese have it the same way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on population , I can only assume that India , at number 2 aspires to overtake ChinaIndia is only number 2 , because China sensors everything already , so there 's no statistic for the 'sex ' keyword there .
Back in Soviet Russia they used to say " There 's no sex in the USSR " , now the Chinese have it the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on population, I can only assume that India, at number 2 aspires to overtake ChinaIndia is only number 2, because China sensors everything already, so there's no statistic for the 'sex' keyword there.
Back in Soviet Russia they used to say "There's no sex in the USSR", now the Chinese have it the same way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590580</id>
	<title>So are you redirected to wholesome Bollywood?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that there is no sex in Bollywood. It is a chaste and pure place where the pixies and fairies cavort in peace, love and mung beans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that there is no sex in Bollywood .
It is a chaste and pure place where the pixies and fairies cavort in peace , love and mung beans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that there is no sex in Bollywood.
It is a chaste and pure place where the pixies and fairies cavort in peace, love and mung beans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592302</id>
	<title>Kamasutra</title>
	<author>Dolphinzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1259848260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>didn't India write the book on porn !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did n't India write the book on porn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>didn't India write the book on porn !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590732</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1262109720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly, if you have to google "sex", you already know what it is.</p></div><p>"Sex" you say? Let's just give that a try.....open Google and.....OH MY GOD WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO ANOTHER PERSON???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , if you have to google " sex " , you already know what it is .
" Sex " you say ?
Let 's just give that a try.....open Google and.....OH MY GOD WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO ANOTHER PERSON ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, if you have to google "sex", you already know what it is.
"Sex" you say?
Let's just give that a try.....open Google and.....OH MY GOD WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO ANOTHER PERSON??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591494</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting you chose the number 4, since their are almost exactly 4 times as many people living in India compared to America.</p><p>There are way more people both searching for sex on the internet and having sex IRL in India than in America, based on nothing more than population numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting you chose the number 4 , since their are almost exactly 4 times as many people living in India compared to America.There are way more people both searching for sex on the internet and having sex IRL in India than in America , based on nothing more than population numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting you chose the number 4, since their are almost exactly 4 times as many people living in India compared to America.There are way more people both searching for sex on the internet and having sex IRL in India than in America, based on nothing more than population numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592820</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Democracy without a rule of law imposed by acknowledgment of certain basic principles is not a democracy I want or that I would encourage anywhere else.  Pure democracy would allow, for example, slavery if the majority of people decided they wanted to allow it.  It would allow all sorts of awful things, hence the term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny\_of\_the\_majority" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"the tyranny of the majority"</a> [wikipedia.org].  That is why there are usually legal limits on a democracy: because there are some rights that most people accept are above democratic ideals and should always remain with the individual.</p><p>Now, perhaps it's ridiculous to suggest pornography is one of those rights, but freedom of expression certainly is one of them, and pornography involving consenting adults is often regarded as an example.  The question to ask is: in a free country, should consenting adults be prevented from doing what they want in this regard?  The implication of this law is that they can't, which means people in India have lost some small bit of freedom that they used to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy without a rule of law imposed by acknowledgment of certain basic principles is not a democracy I want or that I would encourage anywhere else .
Pure democracy would allow , for example , slavery if the majority of people decided they wanted to allow it .
It would allow all sorts of awful things , hence the term " the tyranny of the majority " [ wikipedia.org ] .
That is why there are usually legal limits on a democracy : because there are some rights that most people accept are above democratic ideals and should always remain with the individual.Now , perhaps it 's ridiculous to suggest pornography is one of those rights , but freedom of expression certainly is one of them , and pornography involving consenting adults is often regarded as an example .
The question to ask is : in a free country , should consenting adults be prevented from doing what they want in this regard ?
The implication of this law is that they ca n't , which means people in India have lost some small bit of freedom that they used to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy without a rule of law imposed by acknowledgment of certain basic principles is not a democracy I want or that I would encourage anywhere else.
Pure democracy would allow, for example, slavery if the majority of people decided they wanted to allow it.
It would allow all sorts of awful things, hence the term "the tyranny of the majority" [wikipedia.org].
That is why there are usually legal limits on a democracy: because there are some rights that most people accept are above democratic ideals and should always remain with the individual.Now, perhaps it's ridiculous to suggest pornography is one of those rights, but freedom of expression certainly is one of them, and pornography involving consenting adults is often regarded as an example.
The question to ask is: in a free country, should consenting adults be prevented from doing what they want in this regard?
The implication of this law is that they can't, which means people in India have lost some small bit of freedom that they used to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30602562</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is not Indian. Stop with your stupid, ridiculous search for country bashing in and of itself and look for fucking reasons.<br>The INDIAN GOVERNMENT passed laws preventing the dissemination of pornography, of course if fucking fits into censorship in India you fucking moron. As an Indian yourself you should know that violence is more acceptable than romance here as in many other countries.<br>Goddamn, some movies get a G rating despite decapitations (some ghost movie) and the fucking Matrix Revolutions got an R for one sexual scene at the beginning. You're unbelievably deluded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not Indian .
Stop with your stupid , ridiculous search for country bashing in and of itself and look for fucking reasons.The INDIAN GOVERNMENT passed laws preventing the dissemination of pornography , of course if fucking fits into censorship in India you fucking moron .
As an Indian yourself you should know that violence is more acceptable than romance here as in many other countries.Goddamn , some movies get a G rating despite decapitations ( some ghost movie ) and the fucking Matrix Revolutions got an R for one sexual scene at the beginning .
You 're unbelievably deluded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not Indian.
Stop with your stupid, ridiculous search for country bashing in and of itself and look for fucking reasons.The INDIAN GOVERNMENT passed laws preventing the dissemination of pornography, of course if fucking fits into censorship in India you fucking moron.
As an Indian yourself you should know that violence is more acceptable than romance here as in many other countries.Goddamn, some movies get a G rating despite decapitations (some ghost movie) and the fucking Matrix Revolutions got an R for one sexual scene at the beginning.
You're unbelievably deluded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30593794</id>
	<title>WIth one of the highest HIV rates in the world....</title>
	<author>Tomsk70</author>
	<datestamp>1259857140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...what does India do? Become even more Hypocritical - yup, that's it, banning porn will solve the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...what does India do ?
Become even more Hypocritical - yup , that 's it , banning porn will solve the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what does India do?
Become even more Hypocritical - yup, that's it, banning porn will solve the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436</id>
	<title>Here it comes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262106480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591216</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259872020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is difficult to understand India, unless you have visited and lived for some time. There is a great level of hypocrisy in India about everything including sex.</p><p>

Sex is not new to India, and also it is not kept as hidden as we think. Kama Sutra is one example, Khajuraho temples in India showing different positions of intercourse is another example...and  according to many experts, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Shivalinga</a> [wikipedia.org] worshipped almost everywhere in India is a symbol of sex. Of course, the worshipping represents respectful recognition of its importance and its discussion or public demonstration is not highly appreciated.</p><p>

A kiss by Aishwarya Rai in film could invite huge protest. Where as many other actors and actresses have kissed on screen and many actresses have exposed their breasts.</p><p>

In spite of being touchy about this issue, people like Rathod, who was a cop, can get away molesting a minor girl and evade law for 19 years and get away with very simple punishment. It is difficult for a normal Indian to understand that sexually frustrated cops like Rathod and loopholes in their system is more dangerous than a search engine submitting web pages what they are looking for.</p><p>

I have tough time to understand a normal Indian but probably it seems, they live in some kind of imaginary world and do not want to believe in practicality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is difficult to understand India , unless you have visited and lived for some time .
There is a great level of hypocrisy in India about everything including sex .
Sex is not new to India , and also it is not kept as hidden as we think .
Kama Sutra is one example , Khajuraho temples in India showing different positions of intercourse is another example...and according to many experts , Shivalinga [ wikipedia.org ] worshipped almost everywhere in India is a symbol of sex .
Of course , the worshipping represents respectful recognition of its importance and its discussion or public demonstration is not highly appreciated .
A kiss by Aishwarya Rai in film could invite huge protest .
Where as many other actors and actresses have kissed on screen and many actresses have exposed their breasts .
In spite of being touchy about this issue , people like Rathod , who was a cop , can get away molesting a minor girl and evade law for 19 years and get away with very simple punishment .
It is difficult for a normal Indian to understand that sexually frustrated cops like Rathod and loopholes in their system is more dangerous than a search engine submitting web pages what they are looking for .
I have tough time to understand a normal Indian but probably it seems , they live in some kind of imaginary world and do not want to believe in practicality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is difficult to understand India, unless you have visited and lived for some time.
There is a great level of hypocrisy in India about everything including sex.
Sex is not new to India, and also it is not kept as hidden as we think.
Kama Sutra is one example, Khajuraho temples in India showing different positions of intercourse is another example...and  according to many experts, Shivalinga [wikipedia.org] worshipped almost everywhere in India is a symbol of sex.
Of course, the worshipping represents respectful recognition of its importance and its discussion or public demonstration is not highly appreciated.
A kiss by Aishwarya Rai in film could invite huge protest.
Where as many other actors and actresses have kissed on screen and many actresses have exposed their breasts.
In spite of being touchy about this issue, people like Rathod, who was a cop, can get away molesting a minor girl and evade law for 19 years and get away with very simple punishment.
It is difficult for a normal Indian to understand that sexually frustrated cops like Rathod and loopholes in their system is more dangerous than a search engine submitting web pages what they are looking for.
I have tough time to understand a normal Indian but probably it seems, they live in some kind of imaginary world and do not want to believe in practicality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30594880</id>
	<title>Huge in India</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259860620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        India has what are probably the largest red light districts in the entire world. One district in Calcutta has an estimated 500,000 working whores all the way from three years old up into their nineties.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; That being a given just what the heck is porn supposed to do in that nation? It would be far better to get the men to wear condoms as the prostitutes often don't even know what a condom is and AIDS is a huge problem in that nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>India has what are probably the largest red light districts in the entire world .
One district in Calcutta has an estimated 500,000 working whores all the way from three years old up into their nineties .
                That being a given just what the heck is porn supposed to do in that nation ?
It would be far better to get the men to wear condoms as the prostitutes often do n't even know what a condom is and AIDS is a huge problem in that nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        India has what are probably the largest red light districts in the entire world.
One district in Calcutta has an estimated 500,000 working whores all the way from three years old up into their nineties.
                That being a given just what the heck is porn supposed to do in that nation?
It would be far better to get the men to wear condoms as the prostitutes often don't even know what a condom is and AIDS is a huge problem in that nation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590596</id>
	<title>Says who?</title>
	<author>do\_kev</author>
	<datestamp>1262108100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since Yahoo! already has a low search market share in India, this will drive it even lower.</p></div><p>I suspect the executives at Yahoo! don't share your opinion.  It's not like they did this because of their personal moral codes; this is probably a calculated risk, based upon the societies public values, intended to increase market share by appearing to be more family-oriented and appropriate.  The goal is to spawn conversations such as: "Oh, you're using <i>Google</i>?  Haven't you heard about the immoral content it tries to force upon users?"<br>
<br>
I don't know if it will work, but it's not like it's downright stupid.  Some people will consider this feature desirable.  Others will consider the fact that people think they like this feature to be desirable.  It's all a psychology game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Yahoo !
already has a low search market share in India , this will drive it even lower.I suspect the executives at Yahoo !
do n't share your opinion .
It 's not like they did this because of their personal moral codes ; this is probably a calculated risk , based upon the societies public values , intended to increase market share by appearing to be more family-oriented and appropriate .
The goal is to spawn conversations such as : " Oh , you 're using Google ?
Have n't you heard about the immoral content it tries to force upon users ?
" I do n't know if it will work , but it 's not like it 's downright stupid .
Some people will consider this feature desirable .
Others will consider the fact that people think they like this feature to be desirable .
It 's all a psychology game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Yahoo!
already has a low search market share in India, this will drive it even lower.I suspect the executives at Yahoo!
don't share your opinion.
It's not like they did this because of their personal moral codes; this is probably a calculated risk, based upon the societies public values, intended to increase market share by appearing to be more family-oriented and appropriate.
The goal is to spawn conversations such as: "Oh, you're using Google?
Haven't you heard about the immoral content it tries to force upon users?
"

I don't know if it will work, but it's not like it's downright stupid.
Some people will consider this feature desirable.
Others will consider the fact that people think they like this feature to be desirable.
It's all a psychology game.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590646</id>
	<title>The Geek As Psychic</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262108640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>no complaint was ever launched (and never will be), and glorious Google still continues to return accurate and unbiased results</i> </p><p>Never say never.</p><p>Money, politics, law and religion make a volitile mix in any culture. You cannot predict the outcome.</p><p><a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/185604/apple\_censors\_dalai\_lama\_iphone\_apps\_in\_china.html" title="pcworld.com">Apple Censors Dalai Lama IPhone Apps in China</a> [pcworld.com] [Dec 29]</p><p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/google-baidu-internet-intelligent-technology-fannin.html" title="forbes.com">Google's China Blues</a> [forbes.com] [Dec 21]</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no complaint was ever launched ( and never will be ) , and glorious Google still continues to return accurate and unbiased results Never say never.Money , politics , law and religion make a volitile mix in any culture .
You can not predict the outcome.Apple Censors Dalai Lama IPhone Apps in China [ pcworld.com ] [ Dec 29 ] Google 's China Blues [ forbes.com ] [ Dec 21 ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>no complaint was ever launched (and never will be), and glorious Google still continues to return accurate and unbiased results Never say never.Money, politics, law and religion make a volitile mix in any culture.
You cannot predict the outcome.Apple Censors Dalai Lama IPhone Apps in China [pcworld.com] [Dec 29]Google's China Blues [forbes.com] [Dec 21]
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590750</id>
	<title>Re:Here it comes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Bing!</i>
<p>
Not loud enough.
</p><p>
You're sacked!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing !
Not loud enough .
You 're sacked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing!
Not loud enough.
You're sacked!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592166</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1259846460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values."</p></div></blockquote><p>Right.  Because laws always reflect the social values of society as a whole in a democratic society.  That is why marijuana is now perfectly legal in the United States, and we stopped having one of the largest rates of incarceration in the "free" world when we stopped locking up people for committing victimless "crimes" long ago.<br> <br>Thank <i>Shiva</i> and <i>Shakti</i> that democracies are flawless, and the all might dollar never sways a single vote!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values. " Right .
Because laws always reflect the social values of society as a whole in a democratic society .
That is why marijuana is now perfectly legal in the United States , and we stopped having one of the largest rates of incarceration in the " free " world when we stopped locking up people for committing victimless " crimes " long ago .
Thank Shiva and Shakti that democracies are flawless , and the all might dollar never sways a single vote !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values."Right.
Because laws always reflect the social values of society as a whole in a democratic society.
That is why marijuana is now perfectly legal in the United States, and we stopped having one of the largest rates of incarceration in the "free" world when we stopped locking up people for committing victimless "crimes" long ago.
Thank Shiva and Shakti that democracies are flawless, and the all might dollar never sways a single vote!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590636</id>
	<title>citation needed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you define "accurate results" please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you define " accurate results " please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you define "accurate results" please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590608</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1262108160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh. I doubt it's entirely true that Indians search for sex more than everybody else, just that others are just more specific. <br> <br>

Hypothetical example: for every Indian who looks up "sex", there are four Americans who each look up "fisting", "creampies", "MILFs", and "jailbait"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
I doubt it 's entirely true that Indians search for sex more than everybody else , just that others are just more specific .
Hypothetical example : for every Indian who looks up " sex " , there are four Americans who each look up " fisting " , " creampies " , " MILFs " , and " jailbait " : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
I doubt it's entirely true that Indians search for sex more than everybody else, just that others are just more specific.
Hypothetical example: for every Indian who looks up "sex", there are four Americans who each look up "fisting", "creampies", "MILFs", and "jailbait" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592642</id>
	<title>Re:Tired of this crap</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259851860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, US vegetable pickers with delusions of grandeur complained about their replacement by Mexicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , US vegetable pickers with delusions of grandeur complained about their replacement by Mexicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, US vegetable pickers with delusions of grandeur complained about their replacement by Mexicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590766</id>
	<title>Who is bhagwad?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1262110200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is bhagwad someone famous, or someone with particular insight into the Indian ISP situation, or someone who has some other qualification that would make it worth having most of the submission be his blithering speculation on the subject?</p><p>It would be really nice of Slashdot were to hire some editors to actually edit the submissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is bhagwad someone famous , or someone with particular insight into the Indian ISP situation , or someone who has some other qualification that would make it worth having most of the submission be his blithering speculation on the subject ? It would be really nice of Slashdot were to hire some editors to actually edit the submissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is bhagwad someone famous, or someone with particular insight into the Indian ISP situation, or someone who has some other qualification that would make it worth having most of the submission be his blithering speculation on the subject?It would be really nice of Slashdot were to hire some editors to actually edit the submissions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592356</id>
	<title>Re:Tired of this crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true.. When I was there (Dec 08 - Sep 09), Valentines day was a battlefield in the northwest.  Conservative groups are not down with the growing Western-influenced concepts of 'love'. (I don't think they're morons, just scared shitless about the degradation of their value system)  I will say that loads more people were on facebook than I expected, in all the urban areas... and those urban areas can be very very large, but yeah, way more farmers/villagers than googlers.</p><p>Also, not super open about sex there.  The Kama Sutra is a relic of a different time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true.. When I was there ( Dec 08 - Sep 09 ) , Valentines day was a battlefield in the northwest .
Conservative groups are not down with the growing Western-influenced concepts of 'love' .
( I do n't think they 're morons , just scared shitless about the degradation of their value system ) I will say that loads more people were on facebook than I expected , in all the urban areas... and those urban areas can be very very large , but yeah , way more farmers/villagers than googlers.Also , not super open about sex there .
The Kama Sutra is a relic of a different time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true.. When I was there (Dec 08 - Sep 09), Valentines day was a battlefield in the northwest.
Conservative groups are not down with the growing Western-influenced concepts of 'love'.
(I don't think they're morons, just scared shitless about the degradation of their value system)  I will say that loads more people were on facebook than I expected, in all the urban areas... and those urban areas can be very very large, but yeah, way more farmers/villagers than googlers.Also, not super open about sex there.
The Kama Sutra is a relic of a different time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591400</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Indian so I can say this - Indians want porn, all classes and all backgrounds. Actually, it's only some of the uppermost class (class = money &amp; background) that don't want or like it and it's social-suicide to 'rally' for porn or anti-censorship.</p><p>Notice how many 'Indian girl' porn vids have started coming up over the past 2-3 yrs? Yeah. And the summary already pointed out that Indian ppl (pun intended) search for sex more than any other country.</p><p>It's all very two-faced and about what you show rather than what you are. Pomp and Show are very big in India, so it's self-righteous to say you're against porn. Porn is not the only issue and India is not the only country.</p><p>On another note - seems Indian police don't know the difference between 'illegal to publish' and 'illegal to have'. If they raid you for say, pirated software, and find porn as well, that's gonna make it worse for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Indian so I can say this - Indians want porn , all classes and all backgrounds .
Actually , it 's only some of the uppermost class ( class = money &amp; background ) that do n't want or like it and it 's social-suicide to 'rally ' for porn or anti-censorship.Notice how many 'Indian girl ' porn vids have started coming up over the past 2-3 yrs ?
Yeah. And the summary already pointed out that Indian ppl ( pun intended ) search for sex more than any other country.It 's all very two-faced and about what you show rather than what you are .
Pomp and Show are very big in India , so it 's self-righteous to say you 're against porn .
Porn is not the only issue and India is not the only country.On another note - seems Indian police do n't know the difference between 'illegal to publish ' and 'illegal to have' .
If they raid you for say , pirated software , and find porn as well , that 's gon na make it worse for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Indian so I can say this - Indians want porn, all classes and all backgrounds.
Actually, it's only some of the uppermost class (class = money &amp; background) that don't want or like it and it's social-suicide to 'rally' for porn or anti-censorship.Notice how many 'Indian girl' porn vids have started coming up over the past 2-3 yrs?
Yeah. And the summary already pointed out that Indian ppl (pun intended) search for sex more than any other country.It's all very two-faced and about what you show rather than what you are.
Pomp and Show are very big in India, so it's self-righteous to say you're against porn.
Porn is not the only issue and India is not the only country.On another note - seems Indian police don't know the difference between 'illegal to publish' and 'illegal to have'.
If they raid you for say, pirated software, and find porn as well, that's gonna make it worse for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590928</id>
	<title>The obvious reason</title>
	<author>Corbets</author>
	<datestamp>1262112960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, after reading this article, I can see why porn films might be a sensitive issue in India...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , after reading this article , I can see why porn films might be a sensitive issue in India... ; - ) http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, after reading this article, I can see why porn films might be a sensitive issue in India... ;-)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590640</id>
	<title>Siding with the ISPs</title>
	<author>bguiz</author>
	<datestamp>1262108580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were in the Indian govt, I'd take the advice of the ISP, censoring the internet is an infeasible task, at least for the technologically savvy:

</p><p>
0) People are getting their pr0n via search engines<br>
1) Censor yahoo, or any other search engine<br>
2) People unable to get their pr0n via search engines, they turn to torrents or any other p2p<br>
3) Censor p2p traffic<br>
4) People unable to get their pr0n via p2p, they route their traffic through proxies or any other virtual tunnels<br>
5)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Lather, rinse, repeat

</p><p>A similar sequence of events is (about to) play out here in Australia, <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/145249/Aussie-Govt-To-Introduce-Bill-That-Would-Require-ISP-Level-Censorship" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">should the govt pass</a> [slashdot.org] its <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/10/24/0224239/Australian-Government-Censorship-Worse-Than-Iran" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">internet censorship bill.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were in the Indian govt , I 'd take the advice of the ISP , censoring the internet is an infeasible task , at least for the technologically savvy : 0 ) People are getting their pr0n via search engines 1 ) Censor yahoo , or any other search engine 2 ) People unable to get their pr0n via search engines , they turn to torrents or any other p2p 3 ) Censor p2p traffic 4 ) People unable to get their pr0n via p2p , they route their traffic through proxies or any other virtual tunnels 5 ) ...Lather , rinse , repeat A similar sequence of events is ( about to ) play out here in Australia , should the govt pass [ slashdot.org ] its internet censorship bill .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were in the Indian govt, I'd take the advice of the ISP, censoring the internet is an infeasible task, at least for the technologically savvy:


0) People are getting their pr0n via search engines
1) Censor yahoo, or any other search engine
2) People unable to get their pr0n via search engines, they turn to torrents or any other p2p
3) Censor p2p traffic
4) People unable to get their pr0n via p2p, they route their traffic through proxies or any other virtual tunnels
5) ...Lather, rinse, repeat

A similar sequence of events is (about to) play out here in Australia, should the govt pass [slashdot.org] its internet censorship bill.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590996</id>
	<title>Re:Here it comes...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1262114220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah. Good for you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah .
Good for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah.
Good for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30612546</id>
	<title>Re:Here it comes...</title>
	<author>vtstarin</author>
	<datestamp>1262284380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that's a good move</htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's a good move</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's a good move</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591078</id>
	<title>Porn is not neutral</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262115540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the unleashing of Porn on all of the Internet is taken for granted by many - but in a critical analysis, its not neutral and does have repercussions. There is nothing to say that the West in general has things right in any long term..  We may become unstable in some unforeseen ways, claiming rights all the way...  As a corollary I don't think its to be taken for granted that India is making a mistake..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the unleashing of Porn on all of the Internet is taken for granted by many - but in a critical analysis , its not neutral and does have repercussions .
There is nothing to say that the West in general has things right in any long term.. We may become unstable in some unforeseen ways , claiming rights all the way... As a corollary I do n't think its to be taken for granted that India is making a mistake. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the unleashing of Porn on all of the Internet is taken for granted by many - but in a critical analysis, its not neutral and does have repercussions.
There is nothing to say that the West in general has things right in any long term..  We may become unstable in some unforeseen ways, claiming rights all the way...  As a corollary I don't think its to be taken for granted that India is making a mistake..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590690</id>
	<title>hold the phone</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1262109060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, wait... there's porn on flickr?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , wait... there 's porn on flickr ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, wait... there's porn on flickr?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591964</id>
	<title>Re:Who is bhagwad?</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1259843100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is bhagwad someone famous, or someone with particular insight into the Indian ISP situation, or someone who has some other qualification that would make it worth having most of the submission be his blithering speculation on the subject?</p><p>It would be really nice of Slashdot were to hire some editors to actually edit the submissions.</p></div><p>So being famous is qualification to pontificate on search engine censorship?  Celebrity culture is truly wonderful.  Next, Paris Hilton on advances in fusion research...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is bhagwad someone famous , or someone with particular insight into the Indian ISP situation , or someone who has some other qualification that would make it worth having most of the submission be his blithering speculation on the subject ? It would be really nice of Slashdot were to hire some editors to actually edit the submissions.So being famous is qualification to pontificate on search engine censorship ?
Celebrity culture is truly wonderful .
Next , Paris Hilton on advances in fusion research.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is bhagwad someone famous, or someone with particular insight into the Indian ISP situation, or someone who has some other qualification that would make it worth having most of the submission be his blithering speculation on the subject?It would be really nice of Slashdot were to hire some editors to actually edit the submissions.So being famous is qualification to pontificate on search engine censorship?
Celebrity culture is truly wonderful.
Next, Paris Hilton on advances in fusion research...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590644</id>
	<title>Re:Tired of this crap</title>
	<author>mattventura</author>
	<datestamp>1262108640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention outsourcing support to India. Had a phone call from hell once. Person in India had *no way at all* of telling me if a particular office was opened or closed, and could not connect me to anyone within the company that would know.

Off topic as this may be, the US does need to stop relying so heavily on other countries, and stop basing decisions based on other countries' actions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention outsourcing support to India .
Had a phone call from hell once .
Person in India had * no way at all * of telling me if a particular office was opened or closed , and could not connect me to anyone within the company that would know .
Off topic as this may be , the US does need to stop relying so heavily on other countries , and stop basing decisions based on other countries ' actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention outsourcing support to India.
Had a phone call from hell once.
Person in India had *no way at all* of telling me if a particular office was opened or closed, and could not connect me to anyone within the company that would know.
Off topic as this may be, the US does need to stop relying so heavily on other countries, and stop basing decisions based on other countries' actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30597428</id>
	<title>Duty?</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1259869080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>isn't it the <b>duty</b> of Yahoo! to provide accurate results to its customers?</p></div><p>No.  It's just a search engine, for pity's sake.  It's not like they took an oath to serve up truth, justice, and Western decay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't it the duty of Yahoo !
to provide accurate results to its customers ? No .
It 's just a search engine , for pity 's sake .
It 's not like they took an oath to serve up truth , justice , and Western decay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't it the duty of Yahoo!
to provide accurate results to its customers?No.
It's just a search engine, for pity's sake.
It's not like they took an oath to serve up truth, justice, and Western decay.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30599584</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1259834820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies, whether they're democratically elected or not. As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration; were they wrong to do so?</p></div><p>
As I recall a large portion of the United States said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration.<br> <br>

GP:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>their laws are by definition reflective of their social values</p></div><p> Where do you live GP?  I've lived in a democratice country my entire life, I know it's a rare experience, but it leads me to completely disagree with you. If I don't want to do something, I don't do it. If I don't want my neighbor doing something I expect a debate on whether that is reasonable wherever this occurs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies , whether they 're democratically elected or not .
As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration ; were they wrong to do so ?
As I recall a large portion of the United States said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration .
GP : their laws are by definition reflective of their social values Where do you live GP ?
I 've lived in a democratice country my entire life , I know it 's a rare experience , but it leads me to completely disagree with you .
If I do n't want to do something , I do n't do it .
If I do n't want my neighbor doing something I expect a debate on whether that is reasonable wherever this occurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies, whether they're democratically elected or not.
As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration; were they wrong to do so?
As I recall a large portion of the United States said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration.
GP:their laws are by definition reflective of their social values Where do you live GP?
I've lived in a democratice country my entire life, I know it's a rare experience, but it leads me to completely disagree with you.
If I don't want to do something, I don't do it.
If I don't want my neighbor doing something I expect a debate on whether that is reasonable wherever this occurs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30600320</id>
	<title>SBC/Pac Bell/AmeritechATT/Cingular ....</title>
	<author>rickst29</author>
	<datestamp>1259839560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.... has a long history of cooperation with MS in attempting to hurt Google, and that's why they have always partnered up with <i>Yahoo!</i> I can't say whether the few remaining Telco monopolies cooperated with India independently of MS/Bing and asked <i>Yahoo</i> to do this, or whether <i>Yahoo</i> caved on its own. But I feel that India probably contacted <i>Yahoo</i> directly, and it was Yahoo's choice (reaching the same conclusion as Bing, under the same circumstances, but without any "collusion").<p>As for <i>Yahoo</i> being absorbed into Bing, or visa-versa-- <i>Yahoo</i> certainly IS sorry that they held out for too much money in rejecting the previous buy-out offers. IMO, though, it's now unlikely that Steve Ballmer will be an efficient "businessman" about buying them now: Yahoo's rebuff of the previous offers has made them an enemy of the "I WANT TO KILL XYZ!" variety, he's into another chair-throwing temper tantrum and wants to grind them up into a pile of raw sausage filing as revenge. It might be smarter business to buy Yahoo and it's customer base before destroying it, but Ballmer will spend energy and money to choke off their air supply first. He's got vast amounts of cash to pour into Bing and subsidize it's paid advertisers, or subsidize a cheaper "store" system for online small business. Yahoo tries to do whatever MS wants, and they were partners before the takeover battle.... but he can kill them, and I think that he really wants to.</p><p>The problem for MS killing <i>Yahoo!</i> by competition isn't the web search, and it isn't the support of online stores. It's the email client base. Even among clueless casual computer users, the nightmares of "HotMail" (together with it's "Microsoft Passport" security fiascoes) have taught them to never, ever become a client of a Microsoft-hosted email service again. If ATT/Yahoo mail gets killed, GMail wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... has a long history of cooperation with MS in attempting to hurt Google , and that 's why they have always partnered up with Yahoo !
I ca n't say whether the few remaining Telco monopolies cooperated with India independently of MS/Bing and asked Yahoo to do this , or whether Yahoo caved on its own .
But I feel that India probably contacted Yahoo directly , and it was Yahoo 's choice ( reaching the same conclusion as Bing , under the same circumstances , but without any " collusion " ) .As for Yahoo being absorbed into Bing , or visa-versa-- Yahoo certainly IS sorry that they held out for too much money in rejecting the previous buy-out offers .
IMO , though , it 's now unlikely that Steve Ballmer will be an efficient " businessman " about buying them now : Yahoo 's rebuff of the previous offers has made them an enemy of the " I WANT TO KILL XYZ !
" variety , he 's into another chair-throwing temper tantrum and wants to grind them up into a pile of raw sausage filing as revenge .
It might be smarter business to buy Yahoo and it 's customer base before destroying it , but Ballmer will spend energy and money to choke off their air supply first .
He 's got vast amounts of cash to pour into Bing and subsidize it 's paid advertisers , or subsidize a cheaper " store " system for online small business .
Yahoo tries to do whatever MS wants , and they were partners before the takeover battle.... but he can kill them , and I think that he really wants to.The problem for MS killing Yahoo !
by competition is n't the web search , and it is n't the support of online stores .
It 's the email client base .
Even among clueless casual computer users , the nightmares of " HotMail " ( together with it 's " Microsoft Passport " security fiascoes ) have taught them to never , ever become a client of a Microsoft-hosted email service again .
If ATT/Yahoo mail gets killed , GMail wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... has a long history of cooperation with MS in attempting to hurt Google, and that's why they have always partnered up with Yahoo!
I can't say whether the few remaining Telco monopolies cooperated with India independently of MS/Bing and asked Yahoo to do this, or whether Yahoo caved on its own.
But I feel that India probably contacted Yahoo directly, and it was Yahoo's choice (reaching the same conclusion as Bing, under the same circumstances, but without any "collusion").As for Yahoo being absorbed into Bing, or visa-versa-- Yahoo certainly IS sorry that they held out for too much money in rejecting the previous buy-out offers.
IMO, though, it's now unlikely that Steve Ballmer will be an efficient "businessman" about buying them now: Yahoo's rebuff of the previous offers has made them an enemy of the "I WANT TO KILL XYZ!
" variety, he's into another chair-throwing temper tantrum and wants to grind them up into a pile of raw sausage filing as revenge.
It might be smarter business to buy Yahoo and it's customer base before destroying it, but Ballmer will spend energy and money to choke off their air supply first.
He's got vast amounts of cash to pour into Bing and subsidize it's paid advertisers, or subsidize a cheaper "store" system for online small business.
Yahoo tries to do whatever MS wants, and they were partners before the takeover battle.... but he can kill them, and I think that he really wants to.The problem for MS killing Yahoo!
by competition isn't the web search, and it isn't the support of online stores.
It's the email client base.
Even among clueless casual computer users, the nightmares of "HotMail" (together with it's "Microsoft Passport" security fiascoes) have taught them to never, ever become a client of a Microsoft-hosted email service again.
If ATT/Yahoo mail gets killed, GMail wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590784</id>
	<title>Re:Here it comes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing wrong with porn</p><p>Sometimes I can't understand some people</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing wrong with pornSometimes I ca n't understand some people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing wrong with pornSometimes I can't understand some people</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590910</id>
	<title>Re:maybe makes bussiness sense</title>
	<author>dhavleak</author>
	<datestamp>1262112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really. People will search for porn whether you server up the right results or not. The search engine that serves up the best porn results will win the search wars (in India, in the world, anywhere). It's bad for business (for Bing's business) as long as competitors (Google) don't do the same. It is respectful of local laws however. India is a democratic country -- if social attitudes are such that they choose to censor themselves, they are within their rights to do that. They can change the relevant laws in the future if social attitudes change. Until then, as pointless as it is to try to prevent people from viewing porn, search engines <i>should</i> do their best to comply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
People will search for porn whether you server up the right results or not .
The search engine that serves up the best porn results will win the search wars ( in India , in the world , anywhere ) .
It 's bad for business ( for Bing 's business ) as long as competitors ( Google ) do n't do the same .
It is respectful of local laws however .
India is a democratic country -- if social attitudes are such that they choose to censor themselves , they are within their rights to do that .
They can change the relevant laws in the future if social attitudes change .
Until then , as pointless as it is to try to prevent people from viewing porn , search engines should do their best to comply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
People will search for porn whether you server up the right results or not.
The search engine that serves up the best porn results will win the search wars (in India, in the world, anywhere).
It's bad for business (for Bing's business) as long as competitors (Google) don't do the same.
It is respectful of local laws however.
India is a democratic country -- if social attitudes are such that they choose to censor themselves, they are within their rights to do that.
They can change the relevant laws in the future if social attitudes change.
Until then, as pointless as it is to try to prevent people from viewing porn, search engines should do their best to comply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592392</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1259849460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
you already know what it is.
</i>
<p>
Clearly if you are on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., you don't know what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you already know what it is .
Clearly if you are on /. , you do n't know what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
you already know what it is.
Clearly if you are on /., you don't know what it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590990</id>
	<title>Re:maybe makes bussiness sense</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1262114160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly; businesses make business decisions. This may be a poor business decision (although I agree with you that it also may be a very shrewd one) but nobody should be heaping blame on Bing and Yahoo for censorship. That blame should be directed squarely at the Indian government. Bing and Yahoo (and yes, Google too) are concerned only with revenue streams. You will disappointed if you feel otherwise.</p><p>Governments should be accountable for upholding human rights, like free speech, by creating sensible, correct laws. Corporations should be accountable for protecting profits while still acting within the laws. If the two goals become confused there will be conflicts of interest which will undermine human rights. Free speech is the government's responsibility, not that of Bing or Yahoo or Google. People need to be disappointed in the right people (elected officials) in order for change to occur.</p><p>P.S. Props for the sig. Le Petit Prince is excellent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly ; businesses make business decisions .
This may be a poor business decision ( although I agree with you that it also may be a very shrewd one ) but nobody should be heaping blame on Bing and Yahoo for censorship .
That blame should be directed squarely at the Indian government .
Bing and Yahoo ( and yes , Google too ) are concerned only with revenue streams .
You will disappointed if you feel otherwise.Governments should be accountable for upholding human rights , like free speech , by creating sensible , correct laws .
Corporations should be accountable for protecting profits while still acting within the laws .
If the two goals become confused there will be conflicts of interest which will undermine human rights .
Free speech is the government 's responsibility , not that of Bing or Yahoo or Google .
People need to be disappointed in the right people ( elected officials ) in order for change to occur.P.S .
Props for the sig .
Le Petit Prince is excellent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly; businesses make business decisions.
This may be a poor business decision (although I agree with you that it also may be a very shrewd one) but nobody should be heaping blame on Bing and Yahoo for censorship.
That blame should be directed squarely at the Indian government.
Bing and Yahoo (and yes, Google too) are concerned only with revenue streams.
You will disappointed if you feel otherwise.Governments should be accountable for upholding human rights, like free speech, by creating sensible, correct laws.
Corporations should be accountable for protecting profits while still acting within the laws.
If the two goals become confused there will be conflicts of interest which will undermine human rights.
Free speech is the government's responsibility, not that of Bing or Yahoo or Google.
People need to be disappointed in the right people (elected officials) in order for change to occur.P.S.
Props for the sig.
Le Petit Prince is excellent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30596148</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>StillNeedMoreCoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1259864460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an interesting issue here. "it's their call" may be true. There may be a line though that you can speak out against or a precedence that may be dangerous to democracy in India.  Here we are talking about prior constraint which is a very dangerous precedent. Now for images and ideas surrounding human procreation. Which I contend is necessary for our continued existance.</p><p>A democratic system that controls information is probably not a real democratic system. Democratic systems require a free flow and competition of ideas, when you start to restrict one idea or one point of view you divert the core ideals.</p><p>It is interesting to note that there is so much internet traffic related to sex from India. That might suggest that this legistlation is not the will of the people really.  Just like in the US which has a multi-billion dollar Adult Entertainment industry, if the matter were brought up for a vote (secret ballot of course) I would imagine that much of the prudery would be exposed for what it really is, Hypocracy.</p><p>But the issue here is control of information by those who think they know whats best for us. I say, No! They don't know and they should stay out of it.</p><p>That is if you want to continue to have real democracies in the world.  Can you feel the tightning of the screws already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an interesting issue here .
" it 's their call " may be true .
There may be a line though that you can speak out against or a precedence that may be dangerous to democracy in India .
Here we are talking about prior constraint which is a very dangerous precedent .
Now for images and ideas surrounding human procreation .
Which I contend is necessary for our continued existance.A democratic system that controls information is probably not a real democratic system .
Democratic systems require a free flow and competition of ideas , when you start to restrict one idea or one point of view you divert the core ideals.It is interesting to note that there is so much internet traffic related to sex from India .
That might suggest that this legistlation is not the will of the people really .
Just like in the US which has a multi-billion dollar Adult Entertainment industry , if the matter were brought up for a vote ( secret ballot of course ) I would imagine that much of the prudery would be exposed for what it really is , Hypocracy.But the issue here is control of information by those who think they know whats best for us .
I say , No !
They do n't know and they should stay out of it.That is if you want to continue to have real democracies in the world .
Can you feel the tightning of the screws already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an interesting issue here.
"it's their call" may be true.
There may be a line though that you can speak out against or a precedence that may be dangerous to democracy in India.
Here we are talking about prior constraint which is a very dangerous precedent.
Now for images and ideas surrounding human procreation.
Which I contend is necessary for our continued existance.A democratic system that controls information is probably not a real democratic system.
Democratic systems require a free flow and competition of ideas, when you start to restrict one idea or one point of view you divert the core ideals.It is interesting to note that there is so much internet traffic related to sex from India.
That might suggest that this legistlation is not the will of the people really.
Just like in the US which has a multi-billion dollar Adult Entertainment industry, if the matter were brought up for a vote (secret ballot of course) I would imagine that much of the prudery would be exposed for what it really is, Hypocracy.But the issue here is control of information by those who think they know whats best for us.
I say, No!
They don't know and they should stay out of it.That is if you want to continue to have real democracies in the world.
Can you feel the tightning of the screws already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590708</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1262109360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly, if you have to google "sex", you already know what it is.</p></div><p>Or, more succinctly, sex != porn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , if you have to google " sex " , you already know what it is.Or , more succinctly , sex ! = porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, if you have to google "sex", you already know what it is.Or, more succinctly, sex != porn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591478</id>
	<title>removing suggestions google india</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259833740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just for laughs, type "removing" in <a href="http://google.co.in/" title="google.co.in" rel="nofollow">google inda</a> [google.co.in] and <a href="http://google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">, and compare the google typing suggestions.</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for laughs , type " removing " in google inda [ google.co.in ] and , and compare the google typing suggestions .
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for laughs, type "removing" in google inda [google.co.in] and , and compare the google typing suggestions.
[google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591038</id>
	<title>Google filters porn</title>
	<author>ggpauly</author>
	<datestamp>1262114820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean this in the poetic sense, with dual meaning.</p><p>a) I've been using Google and Ixquick lately.  Ixquick gives a fair number of porn site results to my searches, while Google rarely does.  The difference?  I'm not searching for porn and Google is giving better targeted results.  (OTOH sometimes Ixquick comes up with a somewhat deep-web reference that Google misses, and it has other benefits as well).</p><p>b) Google has optional "SafeSearch Filtering" which I think works quite well, although I generally leave it off.  It is not "infeasible" to filter porn, contrary to the OP statement.  If you can provide search results for something it is trivial to suppress those same results.  In other words, it's Google's core business to be able to filter porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean this in the poetic sense , with dual meaning.a ) I 've been using Google and Ixquick lately .
Ixquick gives a fair number of porn site results to my searches , while Google rarely does .
The difference ?
I 'm not searching for porn and Google is giving better targeted results .
( OTOH sometimes Ixquick comes up with a somewhat deep-web reference that Google misses , and it has other benefits as well ) .b ) Google has optional " SafeSearch Filtering " which I think works quite well , although I generally leave it off .
It is not " infeasible " to filter porn , contrary to the OP statement .
If you can provide search results for something it is trivial to suppress those same results .
In other words , it 's Google 's core business to be able to filter porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean this in the poetic sense, with dual meaning.a) I've been using Google and Ixquick lately.
Ixquick gives a fair number of porn site results to my searches, while Google rarely does.
The difference?
I'm not searching for porn and Google is giving better targeted results.
(OTOH sometimes Ixquick comes up with a somewhat deep-web reference that Google misses, and it has other benefits as well).b) Google has optional "SafeSearch Filtering" which I think works quite well, although I generally leave it off.
It is not "infeasible" to filter porn, contrary to the OP statement.
If you can provide search results for something it is trivial to suppress those same results.
In other words, it's Google's core business to be able to filter porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618</id>
	<title>Tired of this crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When is America going to stop selling out to India?? This is absolutely freakin ridiculous. As an American IT person I've completely had it with India and Indians dictating how to implement technology. F@#k'em!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When is America going to stop selling out to India ? ?
This is absolutely freakin ridiculous .
As an American IT person I 've completely had it with India and Indians dictating how to implement technology .
F @ # k'em ! ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is America going to stop selling out to India??
This is absolutely freakin ridiculous.
As an American IT person I've completely had it with India and Indians dictating how to implement technology.
F@#k'em!!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590558</id>
	<title>maybe makes bussiness sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I were a search engine desperately trying to gain market share in an environment dominated by a competitor, I might look for the largest growing open market, in this case India.  I might accommodate some vagaries in hopes that a positive official recommendation might help my market share.  If no school allows access to google, not even colleges, if no major corporate office allows access to google, if no government office allows access to google, then one can imagine that in a generation Google will be gone as a viable entity in India.  And then there is the issue of Google having offices in India(I think they do), which means that Google will not be in compliance with the law.
<p>
In this case, I don't see this as a 'Bing and Yahoo are bad' issue.  If Google does not comply, that is business decision, just like Bing and Yahoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were a search engine desperately trying to gain market share in an environment dominated by a competitor , I might look for the largest growing open market , in this case India .
I might accommodate some vagaries in hopes that a positive official recommendation might help my market share .
If no school allows access to google , not even colleges , if no major corporate office allows access to google , if no government office allows access to google , then one can imagine that in a generation Google will be gone as a viable entity in India .
And then there is the issue of Google having offices in India ( I think they do ) , which means that Google will not be in compliance with the law .
In this case , I do n't see this as a 'Bing and Yahoo are bad ' issue .
If Google does not comply , that is business decision , just like Bing and Yahoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were a search engine desperately trying to gain market share in an environment dominated by a competitor, I might look for the largest growing open market, in this case India.
I might accommodate some vagaries in hopes that a positive official recommendation might help my market share.
If no school allows access to google, not even colleges, if no major corporate office allows access to google, if no government office allows access to google, then one can imagine that in a generation Google will be gone as a viable entity in India.
And then there is the issue of Google having offices in India(I think they do), which means that Google will not be in compliance with the law.
In this case, I don't see this as a 'Bing and Yahoo are bad' issue.
If Google does not comply, that is business decision, just like Bing and Yahoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591120</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1262116200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies, whether they're democratically elected or not. As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration; were they wrong to do so?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies , whether they 're democratically elected or not .
As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration ; were they wrong to do so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's entirely reasonable to criticize governments when they enact stupid policies, whether they're democratically elected or not.
As I recall one or two foreign entities on occasion said less than complimentary things about the Bush administration; were they wrong to do so?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590698</id>
	<title>Re:Tired of this crap</title>
	<author>0ld\_d0g</author>
	<datestamp>1262109240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>person I've completely had it with India and Indians dictating how to implement technology. F@#k'em!!!!</p></div><p>A large percentage of the Indian population are poor illiterate farmers/village-folk. A very tiny percentage of their population (my guess is single digits) is online and most Indians I know would never support such policies. Most likely this is just their internal politics (similar to the abortion and LGBT posturing we have here) to appeal to the conservative populace. Heck they tell me some morons even tried to ban Valentines day as it imposes liberal "western" values ! (It didn't work)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>person I 've completely had it with India and Indians dictating how to implement technology .
F @ # k'em ! ! ! ! A large percentage of the Indian population are poor illiterate farmers/village-folk .
A very tiny percentage of their population ( my guess is single digits ) is online and most Indians I know would never support such policies .
Most likely this is just their internal politics ( similar to the abortion and LGBT posturing we have here ) to appeal to the conservative populace .
Heck they tell me some morons even tried to ban Valentines day as it imposes liberal " western " values !
( It did n't work )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>person I've completely had it with India and Indians dictating how to implement technology.
F@#k'em!!!!A large percentage of the Indian population are poor illiterate farmers/village-folk.
A very tiny percentage of their population (my guess is single digits) is online and most Indians I know would never support such policies.
Most likely this is just their internal politics (similar to the abortion and LGBT posturing we have here) to appeal to the conservative populace.
Heck they tell me some morons even tried to ban Valentines day as it imposes liberal "western" values !
(It didn't work)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590898</id>
	<title>Yahoo stopped porn searches over a year ago</title>
	<author>zaivala</author>
	<datestamp>1262112480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is really not a story -- Yahoo has been censoring porn in India for well over a year.  I have a Yahoo! India email account, and occasionally do searches on Yahoo! India... while most of my searches have been finding pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses, I have looked at human goddesses as well... and always have to go to another Yahoo or other Search engine, despite my having my preferences set to no filtering.  In fact, for a long time, I could click the button to stop filtering -- but there was no button to save that preference, so it never 'took'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really not a story -- Yahoo has been censoring porn in India for well over a year .
I have a Yahoo !
India email account , and occasionally do searches on Yahoo !
India... while most of my searches have been finding pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses , I have looked at human goddesses as well... and always have to go to another Yahoo or other Search engine , despite my having my preferences set to no filtering .
In fact , for a long time , I could click the button to stop filtering -- but there was no button to save that preference , so it never 'took' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really not a story -- Yahoo has been censoring porn in India for well over a year.
I have a Yahoo!
India email account, and occasionally do searches on Yahoo!
India... while most of my searches have been finding pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses, I have looked at human goddesses as well... and always have to go to another Yahoo or other Search engine, despite my having my preferences set to no filtering.
In fact, for a long time, I could click the button to stop filtering -- but there was no button to save that preference, so it never 'took'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590650</id>
	<title>go west young man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You thought there are a lot of Indians in this country now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You thought there are a lot of Indians in this country now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You thought there are a lot of Indians in this country now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30597610</id>
	<title>Douglas Adams was first</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1259869980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sex: none</p><p>Well, in fact there is an awful lot of this, largely because of the total lack of money, trade, banks, art, rainfall, or anything else that might keep all the non-existent people of the Universe occupied. However, it's not worth embarking on a long discussion of it now, because it really is terribly complicated. For further information see Chapters Seven, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Fourteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Nineteen, Twenty-One to Eighty-Four inclusive, and... most of the rest of the book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sex : noneWell , in fact there is an awful lot of this , largely because of the total lack of money , trade , banks , art , rainfall , or anything else that might keep all the non-existent people of the Universe occupied .
However , it 's not worth embarking on a long discussion of it now , because it really is terribly complicated .
For further information see Chapters Seven , Nine , Ten , Eleven , Fourteen , Sixteen , Seventeen , Nineteen , Twenty-One to Eighty-Four inclusive , and... most of the rest of the book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sex: noneWell, in fact there is an awful lot of this, largely because of the total lack of money, trade, banks, art, rainfall, or anything else that might keep all the non-existent people of the Universe occupied.
However, it's not worth embarking on a long discussion of it now, because it really is terribly complicated.
For further information see Chapters Seven, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Fourteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Nineteen, Twenty-One to Eighty-Four inclusive, and... most of the rest of the book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>dhavleak</author>
	<datestamp>1262112360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There shouldn't be any bashing at all in this article.

</p><p>.<br>India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values. If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it. I don't agree with it -- but it's their call. If at some point in the future there is a change in social attitudes towards porn in India, they can vote for a government that will change their laws accordingly.

</p><p>.<br>If you want to bash anyone, bash Google for not respecting local laws -- but even that would be stretching it a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should n't be any bashing at all in this article .
.India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values .
If they want porn cencored , they are within their rights to want it .
I do n't agree with it -- but it 's their call .
If at some point in the future there is a change in social attitudes towards porn in India , they can vote for a government that will change their laws accordingly .
.If you want to bash anyone , bash Google for not respecting local laws -- but even that would be stretching it a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There shouldn't be any bashing at all in this article.
.India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values.
If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it.
I don't agree with it -- but it's their call.
If at some point in the future there is a change in social attitudes towards porn in India, they can vote for a government that will change their laws accordingly.
.If you want to bash anyone, bash Google for not respecting local laws -- but even that would be stretching it a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590728</id>
	<title>Re:hold the phone</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1262109720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, there's some.  It's more "artsy nakedness" than simply "porn" though there was that octopus on women gallery....</p><p>I think it was Flickr anyway.</p><p>(It was on BoingBoing.net and only Tubgirl and the like are the bounds of my curiosity.  The Daily Cervix was pushing it though.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there 's some .
It 's more " artsy nakedness " than simply " porn " though there was that octopus on women gallery....I think it was Flickr anyway .
( It was on BoingBoing.net and only Tubgirl and the like are the bounds of my curiosity .
The Daily Cervix was pushing it though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there's some.
It's more "artsy nakedness" than simply "porn" though there was that octopus on women gallery....I think it was Flickr anyway.
(It was on BoingBoing.net and only Tubgirl and the like are the bounds of my curiosity.
The Daily Cervix was pushing it though.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591814</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259840160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So 51\% of the population has the right to deny 49\% the right to engage in perfectly legitimate activities? I wouldn't approve of this even if 90\% of the population voted for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So 51 \ % of the population has the right to deny 49 \ % the right to engage in perfectly legitimate activities ?
I would n't approve of this even if 90 \ % of the population voted for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So 51\% of the population has the right to deny 49\% the right to engage in perfectly legitimate activities?
I wouldn't approve of this even if 90\% of the population voted for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590672</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468</id>
	<title>Wait a minute before the India-bashing begins</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1262106840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the meantime, please read the summary again. It says Google continues to return accurate results. Check whether this fits consistently into your opinion about supposed censorship in India.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the meantime , please read the summary again .
It says Google continues to return accurate results .
Check whether this fits consistently into your opinion about supposed censorship in India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the meantime, please read the summary again.
It says Google continues to return accurate results.
Check whether this fits consistently into your opinion about supposed censorship in India.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592268</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259847840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sex is not new to India</p></div><p>You don't say. I was wondering how all those people ended up getting born there. Next thing you're going to point out that sex isn't new to Iran either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sex is not new to IndiaYou do n't say .
I was wondering how all those people ended up getting born there .
Next thing you 're going to point out that sex is n't new to Iran either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sex is not new to IndiaYou don't say.
I was wondering how all those people ended up getting born there.
Next thing you're going to point out that sex isn't new to Iran either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590582</id>
	<title>Wait a minute</title>
	<author>francisstp</author>
	<datestamp>1262107920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible.</p></div><p> Well it's obviously feasible if they're actually doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible .
Well it 's obviously feasible if they 're actually doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can always plausibly deny control of its results and claim that filtering porn is infeasible.
Well it's obviously feasible if they're actually doing it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592340</id>
	<title>Re:India is a democratic country</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1259848800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it is not base-democratic like Switzerland.</p><p>You only get to vote once, so you have a choice between like effectively 4 or so parties.</p><p>Claiming that with that vote you supported all n&gt;100 decisions and laws that the govenment makes (giving more than 2^n possibilities) is clearly nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it is not base-democratic like Switzerland.You only get to vote once , so you have a choice between like effectively 4 or so parties.Claiming that with that vote you supported all n &gt; 100 decisions and laws that the govenment makes ( giving more than 2 ^ n possibilities ) is clearly nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it is not base-democratic like Switzerland.You only get to vote once, so you have a choice between like effectively 4 or so parties.Claiming that with that vote you supported all n&gt;100 decisions and laws that the govenment makes (giving more than 2^n possibilities) is clearly nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30602562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30594214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30599584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30593114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30596148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30612546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0027217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30596148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30599584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30602562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30594214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30612546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0027217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30591494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30592392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30593114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0027217.30590732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
