<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_08_151252</id>
	<title>Google Applies To Become Energy Marketer</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262968200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>necro81 writes <i>"Google consumes massive amounts of electrical energy to power its data centers across the country and world.  Now it has <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128\_3-10427993-54.html">created a subsidiary</a>, Google Energy LLC, and applied (<a href="http://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12229369">pdf</a>) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/google-applies-to-become-power-marketer/?ref=technology">become a utility-scale energy trader</a>.  Google's stated aim is to be able to <a href="http://earth2tech.com/2010/01/07/google-energy-subsidiary-whats-google-up-to/">purchase renewable energy directly</a> from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/green/footprint.html">becoming carbon neutral</a>.  It is likely that Google Energy would also permit Google's own renewable energy projects to sell their energy at more favorable rates.  Google <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/techchron/archives/190340.asp">reportedly</a> does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, <i>a la</i> Enron."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>necro81 writes " Google consumes massive amounts of electrical energy to power its data centers across the country and world .
Now it has created a subsidiary , Google Energy LLC , and applied ( pdf ) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to become a utility-scale energy trader .
Google 's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates , pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral .
It is likely that Google Energy would also permit Google 's own renewable energy projects to sell their energy at more favorable rates .
Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker , a la Enron .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>necro81 writes "Google consumes massive amounts of electrical energy to power its data centers across the country and world.
Now it has created a subsidiary, Google Energy LLC, and applied (pdf) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to become a utility-scale energy trader.
Google's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral.
It is likely that Google Energy would also permit Google's own renewable energy projects to sell their energy at more favorable rates.
Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698346</id>
	<title>Google, The Country</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1262981460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long before Google declares sovereignty?</p><p>Seriously.  They own an airstrip.  They own what amounts to a public transit system.  They own scads of land.  They have what amounts to a treasury.  Now they want to become an electrical power utility.  What's missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before Google declares sovereignty ? Seriously .
They own an airstrip .
They own what amounts to a public transit system .
They own scads of land .
They have what amounts to a treasury .
Now they want to become an electrical power utility .
What 's missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before Google declares sovereignty?Seriously.
They own an airstrip.
They own what amounts to a public transit system.
They own scads of land.
They have what amounts to a treasury.
Now they want to become an electrical power utility.
What's missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846</id>
	<title>What is up with the scare mongering?</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1262975280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everywhere i read i see posts from astroturfers pretending to be very concerned about their privacy. Lambasting Google for all they are worth and trying to purport them as a very evil and vile company.</p><p>The thing is, Google hasnt got half of the information many other sources has like twitter, facebook etc. The problem isnt that Google has access to vast amount of data. To provide good search technology and ad placement they have to analyze things, just like every other ad network does, like Microsofts for eg.</p><p>The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim. Not just from Google but from your bank, healtcare, utilities, ISP, telephone companies, other sites etc etc. If the information about your searches etc isnt at google its somewhere else. The only way to avoid getting stuff logged is to get off the net.</p><p>This problem is so easy to understand that its blatantly clear that this is all part of a campaign to paint Google as an evil company. Instead you should put pressure on the politicians to stop snooping into your life and write strong privacy laws. A small number of people are so stupid they fall for the Microsoft astroturfing but one would think people on slashdot would understand perfectly whats going on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everywhere i read i see posts from astroturfers pretending to be very concerned about their privacy .
Lambasting Google for all they are worth and trying to purport them as a very evil and vile company.The thing is , Google hasnt got half of the information many other sources has like twitter , facebook etc .
The problem isnt that Google has access to vast amount of data .
To provide good search technology and ad placement they have to analyze things , just like every other ad network does , like Microsofts for eg.The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim .
Not just from Google but from your bank , healtcare , utilities , ISP , telephone companies , other sites etc etc .
If the information about your searches etc isnt at google its somewhere else .
The only way to avoid getting stuff logged is to get off the net.This problem is so easy to understand that its blatantly clear that this is all part of a campaign to paint Google as an evil company .
Instead you should put pressure on the politicians to stop snooping into your life and write strong privacy laws .
A small number of people are so stupid they fall for the Microsoft astroturfing but one would think people on slashdot would understand perfectly whats going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everywhere i read i see posts from astroturfers pretending to be very concerned about their privacy.
Lambasting Google for all they are worth and trying to purport them as a very evil and vile company.The thing is, Google hasnt got half of the information many other sources has like twitter, facebook etc.
The problem isnt that Google has access to vast amount of data.
To provide good search technology and ad placement they have to analyze things, just like every other ad network does, like Microsofts for eg.The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim.
Not just from Google but from your bank, healtcare, utilities, ISP, telephone companies, other sites etc etc.
If the information about your searches etc isnt at google its somewhere else.
The only way to avoid getting stuff logged is to get off the net.This problem is so easy to understand that its blatantly clear that this is all part of a campaign to paint Google as an evil company.
Instead you should put pressure on the politicians to stop snooping into your life and write strong privacy laws.
A small number of people are so stupid they fall for the Microsoft astroturfing but one would think people on slashdot would understand perfectly whats going on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698314</id>
	<title>Re:What is up with the scare mongering?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br>
you should put pressure on the politicians to stop snooping into your life and write strong privacy laws.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The laws you want can't ever happen, and I don't mean this in a cynical way. Legal privacy protections will always have exceptions for court orders.  If the government is legitimately investigating Michael Corleone or Tony Soprano for actual crimes (I'm talking here about an ideal government that people actually want, not Orwell's Big Brother), they need the power to subpoena and bypass privacy protection using due process.  Nobody is going to vote for government giving up this power.  People <em>do</em> want crime deterrence/protection, as well as for That Other Guy to pay his fair share of taxes so that the rest of us don't get unfairly burdened to compensate for his tax evasion.
</p><p>
The problem arises, though, that if government is going to have this (legitimate!) power and be able to use it meaningfully, then records will be kept and there will be mechanisms for accessing them.  But if the access is possible (by the good guys), then it's also going to be abusable by bad guys, as well as governments skipping the inconvenience of due process (which you can probably characterize as just a special-case version of "bad guys").  And <em>that</em> is what you want to to outlaw with stronger privacy laws, but those are <em>the very same situations</em> where laws are ignored and are just words on a page.  You are proposing laws that will not be enforced <em>exactly</em> when they're needed.
</p><p>
That means the only way to win is to not play; <em>you</em> have to deny the system this power.  The government isn't going to do it, because they are ideally thinking in terms of sometimes needing to fight crime.  Even though you may not be a criminal, they can't leave you some legal loophole where your information, when in the hands of others, is truly protected.  If you really want to keep it safe, the data <em>has</em> to remain in your hands alone.
</p><p>
So getting off the net and moving to a shack in Montana, really <em>is</em> the only answer.  That would totally suck, though, so you have to make compromises.  But the government can't help you with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim .
. . you should put pressure on the politicians to stop snooping into your life and write strong privacy laws .
The laws you want ca n't ever happen , and I do n't mean this in a cynical way .
Legal privacy protections will always have exceptions for court orders .
If the government is legitimately investigating Michael Corleone or Tony Soprano for actual crimes ( I 'm talking here about an ideal government that people actually want , not Orwell 's Big Brother ) , they need the power to subpoena and bypass privacy protection using due process .
Nobody is going to vote for government giving up this power .
People do want crime deterrence/protection , as well as for That Other Guy to pay his fair share of taxes so that the rest of us do n't get unfairly burdened to compensate for his tax evasion .
The problem arises , though , that if government is going to have this ( legitimate !
) power and be able to use it meaningfully , then records will be kept and there will be mechanisms for accessing them .
But if the access is possible ( by the good guys ) , then it 's also going to be abusable by bad guys , as well as governments skipping the inconvenience of due process ( which you can probably characterize as just a special-case version of " bad guys " ) .
And that is what you want to to outlaw with stronger privacy laws , but those are the very same situations where laws are ignored and are just words on a page .
You are proposing laws that will not be enforced exactly when they 're needed .
That means the only way to win is to not play ; you have to deny the system this power .
The government is n't going to do it , because they are ideally thinking in terms of sometimes needing to fight crime .
Even though you may not be a criminal , they ca n't leave you some legal loophole where your information , when in the hands of others , is truly protected .
If you really want to keep it safe , the data has to remain in your hands alone .
So getting off the net and moving to a shack in Montana , really is the only answer .
That would totally suck , though , so you have to make compromises .
But the government ca n't help you with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim.
..
you should put pressure on the politicians to stop snooping into your life and write strong privacy laws.
The laws you want can't ever happen, and I don't mean this in a cynical way.
Legal privacy protections will always have exceptions for court orders.
If the government is legitimately investigating Michael Corleone or Tony Soprano for actual crimes (I'm talking here about an ideal government that people actually want, not Orwell's Big Brother), they need the power to subpoena and bypass privacy protection using due process.
Nobody is going to vote for government giving up this power.
People do want crime deterrence/protection, as well as for That Other Guy to pay his fair share of taxes so that the rest of us don't get unfairly burdened to compensate for his tax evasion.
The problem arises, though, that if government is going to have this (legitimate!
) power and be able to use it meaningfully, then records will be kept and there will be mechanisms for accessing them.
But if the access is possible (by the good guys), then it's also going to be abusable by bad guys, as well as governments skipping the inconvenience of due process (which you can probably characterize as just a special-case version of "bad guys").
And that is what you want to to outlaw with stronger privacy laws, but those are the very same situations where laws are ignored and are just words on a page.
You are proposing laws that will not be enforced exactly when they're needed.
That means the only way to win is to not play; you have to deny the system this power.
The government isn't going to do it, because they are ideally thinking in terms of sometimes needing to fight crime.
Even though you may not be a criminal, they can't leave you some legal loophole where your information, when in the hands of others, is truly protected.
If you really want to keep it safe, the data has to remain in your hands alone.
So getting off the net and moving to a shack in Montana, really is the only answer.
That would totally suck, though, so you have to make compromises.
But the government can't help you with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700496</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google knows when you shave your balls! Oh the pubemanaty!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google knows when you shave your balls !
Oh the pubemanaty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google knows when you shave your balls!
Oh the pubemanaty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696346</id>
	<title>Makes sense if they use renewables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262973300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked in the energy market, specifically in electricity (not as a trader).

First, Enron pretty much invented the market for electricity ("power trading"), it was the (mis)management that sunk the company.

The problem with renewables, and wind in particular, is the unpredictability. You can end up with a lot of power delivered to you and you may end up paying somebody to get rid of it, as you cannot consume it all.

So if Google wants to buy wind power for its own consumption, it makes all the sense in the world to enter the market and trade as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked in the energy market , specifically in electricity ( not as a trader ) .
First , Enron pretty much invented the market for electricity ( " power trading " ) , it was the ( mis ) management that sunk the company .
The problem with renewables , and wind in particular , is the unpredictability .
You can end up with a lot of power delivered to you and you may end up paying somebody to get rid of it , as you can not consume it all .
So if Google wants to buy wind power for its own consumption , it makes all the sense in the world to enter the market and trade as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked in the energy market, specifically in electricity (not as a trader).
First, Enron pretty much invented the market for electricity ("power trading"), it was the (mis)management that sunk the company.
The problem with renewables, and wind in particular, is the unpredictability.
You can end up with a lot of power delivered to you and you may end up paying somebody to get rid of it, as you cannot consume it all.
So if Google wants to buy wind power for its own consumption, it makes all the sense in the world to enter the market and trade as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697764</id>
	<title>Clifford Simak "Empire"</title>
	<author>F0RR</author>
	<datestamp>1262979000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuff said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696812</id>
	<title>Welcome to the Google Republic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262975100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way it's going, I am gleefully awaiting announcement of the Google Republic.</p><p>Once large, wave powered data-centers are combined into a large floating terabit-networked landmass it will be a utopia for nerds and techs alike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way it 's going , I am gleefully awaiting announcement of the Google Republic.Once large , wave powered data-centers are combined into a large floating terabit-networked landmass it will be a utopia for nerds and techs alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way it's going, I am gleefully awaiting announcement of the Google Republic.Once large, wave powered data-centers are combined into a large floating terabit-networked landmass it will be a utopia for nerds and techs alike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696514</id>
	<title>Re:I also heard on NPR this morning...</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262974020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a few years now I've been saying Google will ultimately build a real world "planned community." They've been acquiring/building the right stuff for years: Energy, home entertainment (via YouTube's infrastructure), telephony (Google instant messenger and their new cellphone) bikes on their headquarters campus, biodiesel shuttles, etc. etc. Even their VC component (google.org) says, "What is the focus of the fund?
Google Ventures is broadly interested in startups in industries including consumer Internet, software, hardware, clean-tech, bio-tech, health care and others." Get ready for gCommunity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a few years now I 've been saying Google will ultimately build a real world " planned community .
" They 've been acquiring/building the right stuff for years : Energy , home entertainment ( via YouTube 's infrastructure ) , telephony ( Google instant messenger and their new cellphone ) bikes on their headquarters campus , biodiesel shuttles , etc .
etc. Even their VC component ( google.org ) says , " What is the focus of the fund ?
Google Ventures is broadly interested in startups in industries including consumer Internet , software , hardware , clean-tech , bio-tech , health care and others .
" Get ready for gCommunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a few years now I've been saying Google will ultimately build a real world "planned community.
" They've been acquiring/building the right stuff for years: Energy, home entertainment (via YouTube's infrastructure), telephony (Google instant messenger and their new cellphone) bikes on their headquarters campus, biodiesel shuttles, etc.
etc. Even their VC component (google.org) says, "What is the focus of the fund?
Google Ventures is broadly interested in startups in industries including consumer Internet, software, hardware, clean-tech, bio-tech, health care and others.
" Get ready for gCommunity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698372</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1262981520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Shows how much you (or your economist friend) know about the energy market. Utilities <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram5.html" title="doe.gov">do not burn</a> [doe.gov] petroleum (oil) in any significant fashion to generate electricity. There was this little thing called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973\_oil\_crisis" title="wikipedia.org">1973 oil</a> [wikipedia.org] crisis which made it too expensive to use for utility level electricity generation.
</p><p>
When people talk about "gas" power generation they are talking about natural gas. You know, methane. CH4. Not oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shows how much you ( or your economist friend ) know about the energy market .
Utilities do not burn [ doe.gov ] petroleum ( oil ) in any significant fashion to generate electricity .
There was this little thing called the 1973 oil [ wikipedia.org ] crisis which made it too expensive to use for utility level electricity generation .
When people talk about " gas " power generation they are talking about natural gas .
You know , methane .
CH4. Not oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Shows how much you (or your economist friend) know about the energy market.
Utilities do not burn [doe.gov] petroleum (oil) in any significant fashion to generate electricity.
There was this little thing called the 1973 oil [wikipedia.org] crisis which made it too expensive to use for utility level electricity generation.
When people talk about "gas" power generation they are talking about natural gas.
You know, methane.
CH4. Not oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696108</id>
	<title>I rather doubt</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1262972280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron."</i></p><p>I rather doubt <i>anyone</i> has plans to be "a la Enron"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker , a la Enron .
" I rather doubt anyone has plans to be " a la Enron "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron.
"I rather doubt anyone has plans to be "a la Enron"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696826</id>
	<title>Put your data centers in the desert</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262975160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Build an industrial solar thermal plant right next to it,<br>Sell excess energy.</p><p>Hell, take a billion and build a 50 Gw IST array.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Build an industrial solar thermal plant right next to it,Sell excess energy.Hell , take a billion and build a 50 Gw IST array .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build an industrial solar thermal plant right next to it,Sell excess energy.Hell, take a billion and build a 50 Gw IST array.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697208</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard that...</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1262976840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is truly amazing/sad is <a href="http://www.google.com/trends?q=google\%2C+yahoo\%2C+jobs\%2C+michael+jackson&amp;ctab=0&amp;geo=all&amp;date=all&amp;sort=0" title="google.com">how often people do this</a> [google.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is truly amazing/sad is how often people do this [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is truly amazing/sad is how often people do this [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696252</id>
	<title>One-upmanship</title>
	<author>FozE\_Bear</author>
	<datestamp>1262972880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And now microsoft is going to try to buy Hoover Damn.  Gotta keep up with the Joneses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And now microsoft is going to try to buy Hoover Damn .
Got ta keep up with the Joneses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now microsoft is going to try to buy Hoover Damn.
Gotta keep up with the Joneses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696336</id>
	<title>I've seen this before:</title>
	<author>shacky003</author>
	<datestamp>1262973240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to the start of the Matrix..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the start of the Matrix. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the start of the Matrix..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697276</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262977080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Billboards are bad enough. Wind turbines are not pretty to everyone.</p></div><p>The difference between the two is that turbines are actually useful for something.</p><p>On a personal side, I actually do find the look of wind turbines rather aesthetically pleasing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Billboards are bad enough .
Wind turbines are not pretty to everyone.The difference between the two is that turbines are actually useful for something.On a personal side , I actually do find the look of wind turbines rather aesthetically pleasing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billboards are bad enough.
Wind turbines are not pretty to everyone.The difference between the two is that turbines are actually useful for something.On a personal side, I actually do find the look of wind turbines rather aesthetically pleasing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697006</id>
	<title>James Bond</title>
	<author>Kenshin</author>
	<datestamp>1262976000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way things are starting to look, I would be surprised if in a few years all Google employees are to be given guns and told to be on the lookout for a suave, British spy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way things are starting to look , I would be surprised if in a few years all Google employees are to be given guns and told to be on the lookout for a suave , British spy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way things are starting to look, I would be surprised if in a few years all Google employees are to be given guns and told to be on the lookout for a suave, British spy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>buswolley</author>
	<datestamp>1262974920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well on NPR today Google was introducing software to monitor your home electricity usage so, I call BS on their stated non-intentions.<p>BTW, Google knowing energy usage patterns is WAY to INTRUSIVE for my tastes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well on NPR today Google was introducing software to monitor your home electricity usage so , I call BS on their stated non-intentions.BTW , Google knowing energy usage patterns is WAY to INTRUSIVE for my tastes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well on NPR today Google was introducing software to monitor your home electricity usage so, I call BS on their stated non-intentions.BTW, Google knowing energy usage patterns is WAY to INTRUSIVE for my tastes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697810</id>
	<title>Google Energy LLC - Energy Trader</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to Enron 2.0!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Enron 2.0 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Enron 2.0!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697056</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262976180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Global Warming [foxnews.com]</p></div><p>Nice little quip about global warming, that.  Hope you know that it's pure partisan trolling, easily 10x more trite and conspiratorial than anything climate researchers have been talking about.  Had I mod points, you would have been going down for that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Warming [ foxnews.com ] Nice little quip about global warming , that .
Hope you know that it 's pure partisan trolling , easily 10x more trite and conspiratorial than anything climate researchers have been talking about .
Had I mod points , you would have been going down for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Warming [foxnews.com]Nice little quip about global warming, that.
Hope you know that it's pure partisan trolling, easily 10x more trite and conspiratorial than anything climate researchers have been talking about.
Had I mod points, you would have been going down for that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696460</id>
	<title>Energy is out there</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1262973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more I think about it, from a physicist POV, energy is always out there.  It's waiting for us to tap it.</p><p>If Google want's to use it's resources to try and tap some of the energy that is out there, and in a way that is good for our planet/society, I say game on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I think about it , from a physicist POV , energy is always out there .
It 's waiting for us to tap it.If Google want 's to use it 's resources to try and tap some of the energy that is out there , and in a way that is good for our planet/society , I say game on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I think about it, from a physicist POV, energy is always out there.
It's waiting for us to tap it.If Google want's to use it's resources to try and tap some of the energy that is out there, and in a way that is good for our planet/society, I say game on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696218</id>
	<title>m$ could easily generate more energy than Google</title>
	<author>phonewebcam</author>
	<datestamp>1262972760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if at Ballmers next team talk all the employees pulled out their Nexus Ones to photograph him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if at Ballmers next team talk all the employees pulled out their Nexus Ones to photograph him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if at Ballmers next team talk all the employees pulled out their Nexus Ones to photograph him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022</id>
	<title>Uh huh.</title>
	<author>stonecypher</author>
	<datestamp>1262971980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google also didn't have plans to make an operating system, a phone, a phone os, an instant messenger, a usenet application or a social network.</p><p>So yeah, this isn't Genron.  Really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google also did n't have plans to make an operating system , a phone , a phone os , an instant messenger , a usenet application or a social network.So yeah , this is n't Genron .
Really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google also didn't have plans to make an operating system, a phone, a phone os, an instant messenger, a usenet application or a social network.So yeah, this isn't Genron.
Really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30705542</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1263069780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then, presumably you are not their target audience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then , presumably you are not their target audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then, presumably you are not their target audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696984</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262975880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they worked with google, and MS, and anyone else who is putting in something that consumes a lot of electricty. It's patently obvious.</p><p>SO what if Google becomes an energy broker? it eill be one of many, and have to play by the rules.</p><p>"tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle eas"</p><p>hahahaha, except there is a problem, Tornadoes wreck havoc on windmills.</p><p>Wind is a poor general solution to the energy situation.</p><p>IFrs and Industrial Solar Thermal are the best options for base power right now.</p><p>Windmills are great is some areas, and have some great uses. Like generating power near damns and using the power to pump up water from the base of the damn to use again later in response to demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they worked with google , and MS , and anyone else who is putting in something that consumes a lot of electricty .
It 's patently obvious.SO what if Google becomes an energy broker ?
it eill be one of many , and have to play by the rules .
" tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle eas " hahahaha , except there is a problem , Tornadoes wreck havoc on windmills.Wind is a poor general solution to the energy situation.IFrs and Industrial Solar Thermal are the best options for base power right now.Windmills are great is some areas , and have some great uses .
Like generating power near damns and using the power to pump up water from the base of the damn to use again later in response to demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they worked with google, and MS, and anyone else who is putting in something that consumes a lot of electricty.
It's patently obvious.SO what if Google becomes an energy broker?
it eill be one of many, and have to play by the rules.
"tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle eas"hahahaha, except there is a problem, Tornadoes wreck havoc on windmills.Wind is a poor general solution to the energy situation.IFrs and Industrial Solar Thermal are the best options for base power right now.Windmills are great is some areas, and have some great uses.
Like generating power near damns and using the power to pump up water from the base of the damn to use again later in response to demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696372</id>
	<title>Am I the only one getting scared of Google?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1262973360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I know the "Do no evil" thing... and who really believes it's not actually "Do no evil [to our shareholders]"?</p><p>But Google is beginning to sprawl into some extremely creative areas and the amount of data it can collect on people is probably among the most detailed of any single entity out there.  I actually don't know how close Google is to any given government or government agency or what its compliance history is with its decisions to comply with [morally] questionable requests made by government, but I seem to recall a recent story talking about Google and China.</p><p>For what it's worth, I am still using Google as my default search engine... I am not sure I am that scared of them yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I know the " Do no evil " thing... and who really believes it 's not actually " Do no evil [ to our shareholders ] " ? But Google is beginning to sprawl into some extremely creative areas and the amount of data it can collect on people is probably among the most detailed of any single entity out there .
I actually do n't know how close Google is to any given government or government agency or what its compliance history is with its decisions to comply with [ morally ] questionable requests made by government , but I seem to recall a recent story talking about Google and China.For what it 's worth , I am still using Google as my default search engine... I am not sure I am that scared of them yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I know the "Do no evil" thing... and who really believes it's not actually "Do no evil [to our shareholders]"?But Google is beginning to sprawl into some extremely creative areas and the amount of data it can collect on people is probably among the most detailed of any single entity out there.
I actually don't know how close Google is to any given government or government agency or what its compliance history is with its decisions to comply with [morally] questionable requests made by government, but I seem to recall a recent story talking about Google and China.For what it's worth, I am still using Google as my default search engine... I am not sure I am that scared of them yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701458</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1262951760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's okay for Con Edison to have this information?</p><p>Given the choice between Google and my sleazeball utility company, I know which one I'd trust more with my data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's okay for Con Edison to have this information ? Given the choice between Google and my sleazeball utility company , I know which one I 'd trust more with my data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's okay for Con Edison to have this information?Given the choice between Google and my sleazeball utility company, I know which one I'd trust more with my data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696358</id>
	<title>Re:One more step to another antitrust suit</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262973360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you say large, what do you mean? Like Alcoa, or something else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you say large , what do you mean ?
Like Alcoa , or something else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you say large, what do you mean?
Like Alcoa, or something else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696610</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1262974320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google = real life Massive Dynamic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google = real life Massive Dynamic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google = real life Massive Dynamic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696558</id>
	<title>Re:Creating a culture of dependency</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1262974140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree this move is probably to offer more comprehensive hosting services in the future as well as try and cheapen their own costs. But the whole "control over society" bit is out there. For better or for worse they're just a company looking out for that bottom line. I don't think they're trying to be the federal gov't as you seem to be suggesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree this move is probably to offer more comprehensive hosting services in the future as well as try and cheapen their own costs .
But the whole " control over society " bit is out there .
For better or for worse they 're just a company looking out for that bottom line .
I do n't think they 're trying to be the federal gov't as you seem to be suggesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree this move is probably to offer more comprehensive hosting services in the future as well as try and cheapen their own costs.
But the whole "control over society" bit is out there.
For better or for worse they're just a company looking out for that bottom line.
I don't think they're trying to be the federal gov't as you seem to be suggesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30725094</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>A Perkins</author>
	<datestamp>1263234300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just don't see the grand conspiracy happening on this one.

This is just a way for them to be able to purchase (and trade) renewable energy at a large scale so they can offset their carbon footprint. Remember, electricity has to be one of their largest inputs.

They've been working on this for years.

What would be better is for those who are  concerned about Google's omnipotent presence to set up a <a href="http://www.customer-satisfaction-questionnaire.com/" title="customer-s...nnaire.com" rel="nofollow">customer satisfaction questionnaire</a> [customer-s...nnaire.com] that measures how likely people would be to recommend them - whether or not they felt they still need to use them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do n't see the grand conspiracy happening on this one .
This is just a way for them to be able to purchase ( and trade ) renewable energy at a large scale so they can offset their carbon footprint .
Remember , electricity has to be one of their largest inputs .
They 've been working on this for years .
What would be better is for those who are concerned about Google 's omnipotent presence to set up a customer satisfaction questionnaire [ customer-s...nnaire.com ] that measures how likely people would be to recommend them - whether or not they felt they still need to use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just don't see the grand conspiracy happening on this one.
This is just a way for them to be able to purchase (and trade) renewable energy at a large scale so they can offset their carbon footprint.
Remember, electricity has to be one of their largest inputs.
They've been working on this for years.
What would be better is for those who are  concerned about Google's omnipotent presence to set up a customer satisfaction questionnaire [customer-s...nnaire.com] that measures how likely people would be to recommend them - whether or not they felt they still need to use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696456</id>
	<title>Re:I also heard on NPR this morning...</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1262973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems like Google wants to know everything about everybody</p></div><p>Of course.  That's never been a secret.  Right from <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/" title="google.com">Google's Corporate Mission</a> [google.com] page it says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The name [Google] reflects the immense volume of information that exists, and the scope of Google's mission: to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.</p></div><p>It only stands to reason that in order to organize the world's information, you have to know the information in the first place.  Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is up to you to decide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like Google wants to know everything about everybodyOf course .
That 's never been a secret .
Right from Google 's Corporate Mission [ google.com ] page it says : The name [ Google ] reflects the immense volume of information that exists , and the scope of Google 's mission : to organize the world 's information and make it universally accessible and useful.It only stands to reason that in order to organize the world 's information , you have to know the information in the first place .
Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is up to you to decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like Google wants to know everything about everybodyOf course.
That's never been a secret.
Right from Google's Corporate Mission [google.com] page it says:The name [Google] reflects the immense volume of information that exists, and the scope of Google's mission: to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.It only stands to reason that in order to organize the world's information, you have to know the information in the first place.
Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is up to you to decide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697654</id>
	<title>This reminds me of a comedy bit I saw once</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1262978520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, I completely don't remember, now, where I saw this, but I remember seeing a clip at the beginning of a comedy movie from like the 1940 or 1950's or something, where one guy is sent out by his wife to sell pies, and he meets a friend, and they get to talking (while the 'friend' starts eating the pies that are supposed to be sold), and they start up a discussion where they talk about starting a pie company.</p><p>As the discussion goes along, the guy who was gonna start the pie company decides that, in order to keep his costs down, and to generate additional revenue streams, he's gonna buy steel mills (for the metal to make the pie tins from), flour mills, wheat farms and sugar cane plantations, a paper company, a printer (to print labels and advertising), railroads (cheaper shipping around the country), telephone companies, banks - basically, the guy decides he needs to buy the whole economy so that he can get the best price on every product and service which is even peripherally associated with making and selling pies.</p><p>Google Energy, LLC just brought that to mind. Not saying it's a bad idea, but by the time they're done, Google is either going to be broke, or buy everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I completely do n't remember , now , where I saw this , but I remember seeing a clip at the beginning of a comedy movie from like the 1940 or 1950 's or something , where one guy is sent out by his wife to sell pies , and he meets a friend , and they get to talking ( while the 'friend ' starts eating the pies that are supposed to be sold ) , and they start up a discussion where they talk about starting a pie company.As the discussion goes along , the guy who was gon na start the pie company decides that , in order to keep his costs down , and to generate additional revenue streams , he 's gon na buy steel mills ( for the metal to make the pie tins from ) , flour mills , wheat farms and sugar cane plantations , a paper company , a printer ( to print labels and advertising ) , railroads ( cheaper shipping around the country ) , telephone companies , banks - basically , the guy decides he needs to buy the whole economy so that he can get the best price on every product and service which is even peripherally associated with making and selling pies.Google Energy , LLC just brought that to mind .
Not saying it 's a bad idea , but by the time they 're done , Google is either going to be broke , or buy everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I completely don't remember, now, where I saw this, but I remember seeing a clip at the beginning of a comedy movie from like the 1940 or 1950's or something, where one guy is sent out by his wife to sell pies, and he meets a friend, and they get to talking (while the 'friend' starts eating the pies that are supposed to be sold), and they start up a discussion where they talk about starting a pie company.As the discussion goes along, the guy who was gonna start the pie company decides that, in order to keep his costs down, and to generate additional revenue streams, he's gonna buy steel mills (for the metal to make the pie tins from), flour mills, wheat farms and sugar cane plantations, a paper company, a printer (to print labels and advertising), railroads (cheaper shipping around the country), telephone companies, banks - basically, the guy decides he needs to buy the whole economy so that he can get the best price on every product and service which is even peripherally associated with making and selling pies.Google Energy, LLC just brought that to mind.
Not saying it's a bad idea, but by the time they're done, Google is either going to be broke, or buy everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30707202</id>
	<title>Meh, I don't mind sharing information with them...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263052020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google knows my search history, if that was published (or some parts of it, taken out of context), there would be stuff that can be used to humiliate me. But that's not all. They know all the sites I visit (Well, all with Google Analytics, Ads by Google, all sites I've found with Google... And that's before making any assumption about deals with other web analytics companies and the like). They can read my e-mail (not all of it. I have several adresses. Still surely enough to humiliate me with something.). They know why my friends are (based on those e-mails) and have access to all that information about my friends and family members too. In addition, they could ensure that all my acquiantaces have access to that information: Just have it come up as the first result when people (family, friends, new neighbours, potential employers) search with my name.</p><p>At that point... It doesn't really matter if they know something more. Google can completely destroy my life already so I'm not worried about them learning more. Why would I be? That's also why I don't bother with blocking Google Analytics with NoScript: It's too late for me.</p><p>On the other hand, some entity will always know nearly any given thing about me. When it comes to electricity, it is the company supplying me the current, etc... I want Google to be that entity in everything possible: <b>It's better to tell more about me to the company that can already ruin me anyways than to give that power to many more companies.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google knows my search history , if that was published ( or some parts of it , taken out of context ) , there would be stuff that can be used to humiliate me .
But that 's not all .
They know all the sites I visit ( Well , all with Google Analytics , Ads by Google , all sites I 've found with Google... And that 's before making any assumption about deals with other web analytics companies and the like ) .
They can read my e-mail ( not all of it .
I have several adresses .
Still surely enough to humiliate me with something. ) .
They know why my friends are ( based on those e-mails ) and have access to all that information about my friends and family members too .
In addition , they could ensure that all my acquiantaces have access to that information : Just have it come up as the first result when people ( family , friends , new neighbours , potential employers ) search with my name.At that point... It does n't really matter if they know something more .
Google can completely destroy my life already so I 'm not worried about them learning more .
Why would I be ?
That 's also why I do n't bother with blocking Google Analytics with NoScript : It 's too late for me.On the other hand , some entity will always know nearly any given thing about me .
When it comes to electricity , it is the company supplying me the current , etc... I want Google to be that entity in everything possible : It 's better to tell more about me to the company that can already ruin me anyways than to give that power to many more companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google knows my search history, if that was published (or some parts of it, taken out of context), there would be stuff that can be used to humiliate me.
But that's not all.
They know all the sites I visit (Well, all with Google Analytics, Ads by Google, all sites I've found with Google... And that's before making any assumption about deals with other web analytics companies and the like).
They can read my e-mail (not all of it.
I have several adresses.
Still surely enough to humiliate me with something.).
They know why my friends are (based on those e-mails) and have access to all that information about my friends and family members too.
In addition, they could ensure that all my acquiantaces have access to that information: Just have it come up as the first result when people (family, friends, new neighbours, potential employers) search with my name.At that point... It doesn't really matter if they know something more.
Google can completely destroy my life already so I'm not worried about them learning more.
Why would I be?
That's also why I don't bother with blocking Google Analytics with NoScript: It's too late for me.On the other hand, some entity will always know nearly any given thing about me.
When it comes to electricity, it is the company supplying me the current, etc... I want Google to be that entity in everything possible: It's better to tell more about me to the company that can already ruin me anyways than to give that power to many more companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701332</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Kopachris</author>
	<datestamp>1262951040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Free electricity, but your lights display a paid ad in morse code every hour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free electricity , but your lights display a paid ad in morse code every hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free electricity, but your lights display a paid ad in morse code every hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697274</id>
	<title>Re:I also heard on NPR this morning...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262977020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a word for that in German: Datenkrake.<br>Fits pretty well in English too: Data kraken.</p><p>Wants to get its hands on so many things, that it has developed tentacles.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a word for that in German : Datenkrake.Fits pretty well in English too : Data kraken.Wants to get its hands on so many things , that it has developed tentacles .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a word for that in German: Datenkrake.Fits pretty well in English too: Data kraken.Wants to get its hands on so many things, that it has developed tentacles.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696534</id>
	<title>Re:One more step to another antitrust suit</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1262974080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a customer trying to get the best price for the energy it uses or produces, Google is much too small a player to distort the market.  Datacenters use about 1-2\% of the electricity produced in the US.  Google is a large portion of that, but considering <i>all</i> the datacenters out there, I would be surprised if Google was even one half of the market.  So, they are a customer for less than one percent of the total electricity generation in the US, spread out over all utility markets in the country.  That's probably too little to distort the market.<br> <br>

On the other hand, within very small markets, like where they actually have datacenters, they may well be the largest local consumer.  If utilities were still small fiefdoms, this could be a problem.  But electricity flows across states and state lines, so it would be hard for Google to corner a market even in these small locales.<br> <br>

If Google were to become a major energy broker, like Enron was before its self-destruction, then we could have a problem.  But we're not there yet, and that won't happen overnight, so there's no need for panic just yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a customer trying to get the best price for the energy it uses or produces , Google is much too small a player to distort the market .
Datacenters use about 1-2 \ % of the electricity produced in the US .
Google is a large portion of that , but considering all the datacenters out there , I would be surprised if Google was even one half of the market .
So , they are a customer for less than one percent of the total electricity generation in the US , spread out over all utility markets in the country .
That 's probably too little to distort the market .
On the other hand , within very small markets , like where they actually have datacenters , they may well be the largest local consumer .
If utilities were still small fiefdoms , this could be a problem .
But electricity flows across states and state lines , so it would be hard for Google to corner a market even in these small locales .
If Google were to become a major energy broker , like Enron was before its self-destruction , then we could have a problem .
But we 're not there yet , and that wo n't happen overnight , so there 's no need for panic just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a customer trying to get the best price for the energy it uses or produces, Google is much too small a player to distort the market.
Datacenters use about 1-2\% of the electricity produced in the US.
Google is a large portion of that, but considering all the datacenters out there, I would be surprised if Google was even one half of the market.
So, they are a customer for less than one percent of the total electricity generation in the US, spread out over all utility markets in the country.
That's probably too little to distort the market.
On the other hand, within very small markets, like where they actually have datacenters, they may well be the largest local consumer.
If utilities were still small fiefdoms, this could be a problem.
But electricity flows across states and state lines, so it would be hard for Google to corner a market even in these small locales.
If Google were to become a major energy broker, like Enron was before its self-destruction, then we could have a problem.
But we're not there yet, and that won't happen overnight, so there's no need for panic just yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698226</id>
	<title>I hope that they do more than what they say</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262980980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they will push more low to zero carbon energy, they can make it cheaper. As it is, they are backing potter drilling. Find locations Colorado or Wyoming that are away from large buildings and do the geo-thermal energy.<br> <br>
Likewise, it would be good if they bought some old coal plants and convert them to natural gas combined with Solar Thermal.<br> <br>
Basically, Google can help push our society where it fights heading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they will push more low to zero carbon energy , they can make it cheaper .
As it is , they are backing potter drilling .
Find locations Colorado or Wyoming that are away from large buildings and do the geo-thermal energy .
Likewise , it would be good if they bought some old coal plants and convert them to natural gas combined with Solar Thermal .
Basically , Google can help push our society where it fights heading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they will push more low to zero carbon energy, they can make it cheaper.
As it is, they are backing potter drilling.
Find locations Colorado or Wyoming that are away from large buildings and do the geo-thermal energy.
Likewise, it would be good if they bought some old coal plants and convert them to natural gas combined with Solar Thermal.
Basically, Google can help push our society where it fights heading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696940</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Surt</author>
	<datestamp>1262975700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My recent visit there reminded me more of Veridian Dynamics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My recent visit there reminded me more of Veridian Dynamics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My recent visit there reminded me more of Veridian Dynamics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696600</id>
	<title>Re:I also heard on NPR this morning...</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1262974320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Data should be FREE!!! Except for My Data!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Data should be FREE ! ! !
Except for My Data !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Data should be FREE!!!
Except for My Data!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30708308</id>
	<title>Re:What is up with the scare mongering?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim</p></div><p>If the information sources about you are disconnected then you are automatically "anonymized" if you don't use your real name everywhere. There isn't a way for the government to tell that you really are 'bunny17' on network Foo and that your email is xyz@gmail.com and you clicked on a,b,c google ads and bought books x,y,z, etc etc.</p><p>With Google, they need to connect all those sources so they can analyze everything about a single profile and serve you better ads.</p><p>So a *SINGLE* subpoena would screw you over completely, vs just a subpoena to your email provider, or just one to your ISP, etc.</p><p>Its a legitimate concern. Calling it MS astroturfing just means you are an idiot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whimIf the information sources about you are disconnected then you are automatically " anonymized " if you do n't use your real name everywhere .
There is n't a way for the government to tell that you really are 'bunny17 ' on network Foo and that your email is xyz @ gmail.com and you clicked on a,b,c google ads and bought books x,y,z , etc etc.With Google , they need to connect all those sources so they can analyze everything about a single profile and serve you better ads.So a * SINGLE * subpoena would screw you over completely , vs just a subpoena to your email provider , or just one to your ISP , etc.Its a legitimate concern .
Calling it MS astroturfing just means you are an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whimIf the information sources about you are disconnected then you are automatically "anonymized" if you don't use your real name everywhere.
There isn't a way for the government to tell that you really are 'bunny17' on network Foo and that your email is xyz@gmail.com and you clicked on a,b,c google ads and bought books x,y,z, etc etc.With Google, they need to connect all those sources so they can analyze everything about a single profile and serve you better ads.So a *SINGLE* subpoena would screw you over completely, vs just a subpoena to your email provider, or just one to your ISP, etc.Its a legitimate concern.
Calling it MS astroturfing just means you are an idiot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697112</id>
	<title>Re:I also heard on NPR this morning...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262976420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30699206</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one getting scared of Google?</title>
	<author>rajafarian</author>
	<datestamp>1262941920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may have the best intentions in the world but when our government goes in and asks for information, well, I don't think Uncle Sam thinks it even has to ask.  Of course, it's wrong, it does have to ask, but our Fed government has become the biggest, baddest, mutha fucking bully on the entire planet and I think Google will only be able to fight them off so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may have the best intentions in the world but when our government goes in and asks for information , well , I do n't think Uncle Sam thinks it even has to ask .
Of course , it 's wrong , it does have to ask , but our Fed government has become the biggest , baddest , mutha fucking bully on the entire planet and I think Google will only be able to fight them off so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may have the best intentions in the world but when our government goes in and asks for information, well, I don't think Uncle Sam thinks it even has to ask.
Of course, it's wrong, it does have to ask, but our Fed government has become the biggest, baddest, mutha fucking bully on the entire planet and I think Google will only be able to fight them off so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30703896</id>
	<title>10 Pennies Make A Dime, 10 Dimes Make A Dollar...</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1262966340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read all the little bits, people...</p><p>2005:  <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Google-wants-dark-fiber/2100-1034\_3-5537392.html" title="cnet.com">Google starts buying up dark fiber.</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>2007:  <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/01/20/google-planning-two-huge-sc-facilities/" title="datacenterknowledge.com">Google buying land in middle of nowhere, near power stations, building data centers.</a> [datacenterknowledge.com]</p><p>Now throw in GoogleTalk, Wave, Phone, Chrome, Android...and now the Nexus-1?</p><p>My hypothesis for the next 5 years of Google:</p><p>1.  Become an ISP, like ComCast, TimeWarner, etc...<br>2.  Become a telco like Qwest, Verizon, AT&amp;T, etc...<br>3.  Become a broadcaster like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc...<br>4.  Become a wireless provider like T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, etc...</p><p>Pay close attention, folks.  This is going to happen, and it's going to happen <i>fast.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read all the little bits , people...2005 : Google starts buying up dark fiber .
[ cnet.com ] 2007 : Google buying land in middle of nowhere , near power stations , building data centers .
[ datacenterknowledge.com ] Now throw in GoogleTalk , Wave , Phone , Chrome , Android...and now the Nexus-1 ? My hypothesis for the next 5 years of Google : 1 .
Become an ISP , like ComCast , TimeWarner , etc...2 .
Become a telco like Qwest , Verizon , AT&amp;T , etc...3 .
Become a broadcaster like ABC , NBC , FOX , etc...4 .
Become a wireless provider like T-Mobile , Verizon Wireless , etc...Pay close attention , folks .
This is going to happen , and it 's going to happen fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read all the little bits, people...2005:  Google starts buying up dark fiber.
[cnet.com]2007:  Google buying land in middle of nowhere, near power stations, building data centers.
[datacenterknowledge.com]Now throw in GoogleTalk, Wave, Phone, Chrome, Android...and now the Nexus-1?My hypothesis for the next 5 years of Google:1.
Become an ISP, like ComCast, TimeWarner, etc...2.
Become a telco like Qwest, Verizon, AT&amp;T, etc...3.
Become a broadcaster like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc...4.
Become a wireless provider like T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, etc...Pay close attention, folks.
This is going to happen, and it's going to happen fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696370</id>
	<title>I've heard that...</title>
	<author>retech</author>
	<datestamp>1262973360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you type "google" into google it'll break the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you type " google " into google it 'll break the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you type "google" into google it'll break the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701638</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1262952660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using a natural gas plant to power a server farm would also be moronic, considering that the power demand is constant, and highly predictable.  The air conditioners are the only devices that do not have a constant rate of consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using a natural gas plant to power a server farm would also be moronic , considering that the power demand is constant , and highly predictable .
The air conditioners are the only devices that do not have a constant rate of consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using a natural gas plant to power a server farm would also be moronic, considering that the power demand is constant, and highly predictable.
The air conditioners are the only devices that do not have a constant rate of consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114</id>
	<title>Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1262972280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Short disclaimer, I'm not an economist so what follows is largely my own opinion and prediction.<p><div class="quote"><p>Google's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral.</p></div><p>Some quick observations about Iowa.  Back in 2008, we <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/22/149251" title="slashdot.org">covered Microsoft and Google opening up half billion dollar server farms</a> [slashdot.org] in this state because energy was supposedly cheaper there and tax incentives.  Now, if you look at the <a href="http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/installed\_wind\_capacity\_561.gif" title="windpoweringamerica.gov">year end totals</a> [windpoweringamerica.gov] for Iowa's wind power capacity in MW you'll notice that through 2008 it jumped higher than any other year going from 1,273 to 2,791.  It more than doubled.  At the end of 2009 it was at 2,862 -- perhaps a result of the recession -- but also indicative of what's going on in the state.  Put two and two together and I think it's obvious that wind power companies were looking to work with Google and were maybe even encouraged by Google.  <br> <br>

You know, I was really glad to see this sort of thing happen.  It was something that Google could spend money doing that would boost shareholder value while at the same time incentivizing companies to invest billions in wind power in Iowa with a lengthy ten year or more plan to gain that money back before they start to turn serious profits.  If Google gets these wind power plants up and running, ten years from now we the consumers might be enjoying a price war between wind power fields generating electricity on equipment that has been paid for and now just needs maintenance fees.  Think about it, a whole infrastructure springing up on Google's promises and investor's dimes being slowly amortized back up to very profitable and freaking awesome for ma and pa corn grower.  The economy would go nuts if you could alleviate energy costs for everyone.  In addition to the slow and welcomed change, the industries that will be negatively affected (coal, gas, etc) by these price wars will have the time to realize and change or better yet invest in their own wind farms.  If this model is proven successful, tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle east and we'll be fighting wind wars over South Dakota and Kansas.  <br> <br>

Now, back to the story, this vertical integration strategy is awesome for the company but I don't like it for two reasons.  1) In my opinion it is a step down the path to a weak version of a monopoly and competition deterrent 2) If Google influences these companies too much or worse buys them out, we might never see a price war I mentioned above.  These are distant fears and after the Ma Bell and Microsoft monopolies/anti-trusts/Sherman Act prosecutions, I trust the DoJ won't sit idly by if point one or two become uncomfortable truths.  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron.</p></div><p> That <i>kind of</i> reassures me.  <br> <br>

Overly optimistic?  Of course.  A little unrealistic?  Well, a man can dream, can't he?  A man can dream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Short disclaimer , I 'm not an economist so what follows is largely my own opinion and prediction.Google 's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates , pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral.Some quick observations about Iowa .
Back in 2008 , we covered Microsoft and Google opening up half billion dollar server farms [ slashdot.org ] in this state because energy was supposedly cheaper there and tax incentives .
Now , if you look at the year end totals [ windpoweringamerica.gov ] for Iowa 's wind power capacity in MW you 'll notice that through 2008 it jumped higher than any other year going from 1,273 to 2,791 .
It more than doubled .
At the end of 2009 it was at 2,862 -- perhaps a result of the recession -- but also indicative of what 's going on in the state .
Put two and two together and I think it 's obvious that wind power companies were looking to work with Google and were maybe even encouraged by Google .
You know , I was really glad to see this sort of thing happen .
It was something that Google could spend money doing that would boost shareholder value while at the same time incentivizing companies to invest billions in wind power in Iowa with a lengthy ten year or more plan to gain that money back before they start to turn serious profits .
If Google gets these wind power plants up and running , ten years from now we the consumers might be enjoying a price war between wind power fields generating electricity on equipment that has been paid for and now just needs maintenance fees .
Think about it , a whole infrastructure springing up on Google 's promises and investor 's dimes being slowly amortized back up to very profitable and freaking awesome for ma and pa corn grower .
The economy would go nuts if you could alleviate energy costs for everyone .
In addition to the slow and welcomed change , the industries that will be negatively affected ( coal , gas , etc ) by these price wars will have the time to realize and change or better yet invest in their own wind farms .
If this model is proven successful , tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle east and we 'll be fighting wind wars over South Dakota and Kansas .
Now , back to the story , this vertical integration strategy is awesome for the company but I do n't like it for two reasons .
1 ) In my opinion it is a step down the path to a weak version of a monopoly and competition deterrent 2 ) If Google influences these companies too much or worse buys them out , we might never see a price war I mentioned above .
These are distant fears and after the Ma Bell and Microsoft monopolies/anti-trusts/Sherman Act prosecutions , I trust the DoJ wo n't sit idly by if point one or two become uncomfortable truths .
Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker , a la Enron .
That kind of reassures me .
Overly optimistic ?
Of course .
A little unrealistic ?
Well , a man can dream , ca n't he ?
A man can dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short disclaimer, I'm not an economist so what follows is largely my own opinion and prediction.Google's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral.Some quick observations about Iowa.
Back in 2008, we covered Microsoft and Google opening up half billion dollar server farms [slashdot.org] in this state because energy was supposedly cheaper there and tax incentives.
Now, if you look at the year end totals [windpoweringamerica.gov] for Iowa's wind power capacity in MW you'll notice that through 2008 it jumped higher than any other year going from 1,273 to 2,791.
It more than doubled.
At the end of 2009 it was at 2,862 -- perhaps a result of the recession -- but also indicative of what's going on in the state.
Put two and two together and I think it's obvious that wind power companies were looking to work with Google and were maybe even encouraged by Google.
You know, I was really glad to see this sort of thing happen.
It was something that Google could spend money doing that would boost shareholder value while at the same time incentivizing companies to invest billions in wind power in Iowa with a lengthy ten year or more plan to gain that money back before they start to turn serious profits.
If Google gets these wind power plants up and running, ten years from now we the consumers might be enjoying a price war between wind power fields generating electricity on equipment that has been paid for and now just needs maintenance fees.
Think about it, a whole infrastructure springing up on Google's promises and investor's dimes being slowly amortized back up to very profitable and freaking awesome for ma and pa corn grower.
The economy would go nuts if you could alleviate energy costs for everyone.
In addition to the slow and welcomed change, the industries that will be negatively affected (coal, gas, etc) by these price wars will have the time to realize and change or better yet invest in their own wind farms.
If this model is proven successful, tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle east and we'll be fighting wind wars over South Dakota and Kansas.
Now, back to the story, this vertical integration strategy is awesome for the company but I don't like it for two reasons.
1) In my opinion it is a step down the path to a weak version of a monopoly and competition deterrent 2) If Google influences these companies too much or worse buys them out, we might never see a price war I mentioned above.
These are distant fears and after the Ma Bell and Microsoft monopolies/anti-trusts/Sherman Act prosecutions, I trust the DoJ won't sit idly by if point one or two become uncomfortable truths.
Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron.
That kind of reassures me.
Overly optimistic?
Of course.
A little unrealistic?
Well, a man can dream, can't he?
A man can dream.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697690</id>
	<title>Re:I rather doubt</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262978700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not? I thought that was what the media (reproduction and artist extortion) industry was straight headed for...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not ?
I thought that was what the media ( reproduction and artist extortion ) industry was straight headed for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not?
I thought that was what the media (reproduction and artist extortion) industry was straight headed for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698468</id>
	<title>Google PowerMeter -- Demand Response Market</title>
	<author>ocop</author>
	<datestamp>1262982000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really think this has all that much to do with renewables, and everything to do with using their market share and data mining resources to build demand response capacity.  Simplifying a little bit, in a power market (like Texas's ERCOT or the Midatlantic's PJM), you can "bid" a reduction in capacity/energy use into the market the same way a utility running a power plant can bid actual generation.  Utility companies already have programs which lower your thermostat, cut off your water heater etc etc, it wouldn't surprise me if Google was attempting to do this on a larger, commericial scale.
<br>
<br>

Google currently has their "PowerMeter" service as a monitoring tool, but this could be expanded to a remote demand-response application (like Utility DR), allowing them to aggregate residential and small commercial customers.  With their data mining abilities it won't be hard to accurately predict how much reduction in electricity demand they can actually get (how much you <i>actually</i> can handle your AC being turned down, not how much you <i>say</i> you will), and they can bid that demand into the power markets.

<br>
<br>
I recently worked at a utility which was concerned about a Google and/or Wal-Mart entry into the power markets.  Why?  They both have the name recognition and infrastructure to develop/market these programs to huge customer bases and undercut the current efforts.  Interesting that this could be their big first step towards that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really think this has all that much to do with renewables , and everything to do with using their market share and data mining resources to build demand response capacity .
Simplifying a little bit , in a power market ( like Texas 's ERCOT or the Midatlantic 's PJM ) , you can " bid " a reduction in capacity/energy use into the market the same way a utility running a power plant can bid actual generation .
Utility companies already have programs which lower your thermostat , cut off your water heater etc etc , it would n't surprise me if Google was attempting to do this on a larger , commericial scale .
Google currently has their " PowerMeter " service as a monitoring tool , but this could be expanded to a remote demand-response application ( like Utility DR ) , allowing them to aggregate residential and small commercial customers .
With their data mining abilities it wo n't be hard to accurately predict how much reduction in electricity demand they can actually get ( how much you actually can handle your AC being turned down , not how much you say you will ) , and they can bid that demand into the power markets .
I recently worked at a utility which was concerned about a Google and/or Wal-Mart entry into the power markets .
Why ? They both have the name recognition and infrastructure to develop/market these programs to huge customer bases and undercut the current efforts .
Interesting that this could be their big first step towards that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really think this has all that much to do with renewables, and everything to do with using their market share and data mining resources to build demand response capacity.
Simplifying a little bit, in a power market (like Texas's ERCOT or the Midatlantic's PJM), you can "bid" a reduction in capacity/energy use into the market the same way a utility running a power plant can bid actual generation.
Utility companies already have programs which lower your thermostat, cut off your water heater etc etc, it wouldn't surprise me if Google was attempting to do this on a larger, commericial scale.
Google currently has their "PowerMeter" service as a monitoring tool, but this could be expanded to a remote demand-response application (like Utility DR), allowing them to aggregate residential and small commercial customers.
With their data mining abilities it won't be hard to accurately predict how much reduction in electricity demand they can actually get (how much you actually can handle your AC being turned down, not how much you say you will), and they can bid that demand into the power markets.
I recently worked at a utility which was concerned about a Google and/or Wal-Mart entry into the power markets.
Why?  They both have the name recognition and infrastructure to develop/market these programs to huge customer bases and undercut the current efforts.
Interesting that this could be their big first step towards that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696532</id>
	<title>From the computer to energy... what's next??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262974080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The google party? Google state?  When will it end? Who will stop them? Google has, without a doubt, come out with a lot of good products (their search engine, Gmail, Nexus) Almost everybody with a PC has used at least two of their services once!</p><p>Who's watching them? What is their master business plan (other than more money)?</p><p>All this can result into good products and services that other companies cannot compete, however, this leaves them with too much control where with the flip of a switch things can easily go wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The google party ?
Google state ?
When will it end ?
Who will stop them ?
Google has , without a doubt , come out with a lot of good products ( their search engine , Gmail , Nexus ) Almost everybody with a PC has used at least two of their services once ! Who 's watching them ?
What is their master business plan ( other than more money ) ? All this can result into good products and services that other companies can not compete , however , this leaves them with too much control where with the flip of a switch things can easily go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The google party?
Google state?
When will it end?
Who will stop them?
Google has, without a doubt, come out with a lot of good products (their search engine, Gmail, Nexus) Almost everybody with a PC has used at least two of their services once!Who's watching them?
What is their master business plan (other than more money)?All this can result into good products and services that other companies cannot compete, however, this leaves them with too much control where with the flip of a switch things can easily go wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698576</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>ottothecow</author>
	<datestamp>1262982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Price has little to do with cost. It is the market. If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh, nuclear power can sell for the same, no problem. Why would windpower outfits sell for less than, say, 11/kwh? They are leaving money on the table. Not many corporations do that.</i> <p>

Just a quick note on how this works (you are absolutely right).  All electricity is bulk purchased from the generators for the same price.  The price scales based on demand.  The power generators submit minimum bids that they will generate above.  An expensive to operate (but quick to turn on) natural gas plant might say "we can bring up 100MW when price hits 30/kwh".  The coal plant (a bit cheaper to run but takes a while to bring up and down) might say "We will give you 300MW at any price above 15/kw".  What I find to be the clever bit is that nuclear plants bid zero, effectively saying "We will give you 2000MW no matter what" because it takes a LONG time to bring a nuclear plant up after it has been shut down and once it is running, the costs are incredibly low.  The grid operators then look at how much electricity demand they have at any point in time and set the purchase price at the lowest price that will meet that demand.  *All* of the producers then get paid that same amount (so while the nukes bid zero, they never actually get paid zero).  </p><p>

I would guess that wind and solar fall into the nuke category of bidding zero since they have no real control or storage options.  I would imagine that hydro operates like a mix of gas/coal since while they don't have fuel costs, there is some benefit to keeping your reservoir topped off (higher pressure head of water) and they can turn on and off at a moments notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Price has little to do with cost .
It is the market .
If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh , nuclear power can sell for the same , no problem .
Why would windpower outfits sell for less than , say , 11/kwh ?
They are leaving money on the table .
Not many corporations do that .
Just a quick note on how this works ( you are absolutely right ) .
All electricity is bulk purchased from the generators for the same price .
The price scales based on demand .
The power generators submit minimum bids that they will generate above .
An expensive to operate ( but quick to turn on ) natural gas plant might say " we can bring up 100MW when price hits 30/kwh " .
The coal plant ( a bit cheaper to run but takes a while to bring up and down ) might say " We will give you 300MW at any price above 15/kw " .
What I find to be the clever bit is that nuclear plants bid zero , effectively saying " We will give you 2000MW no matter what " because it takes a LONG time to bring a nuclear plant up after it has been shut down and once it is running , the costs are incredibly low .
The grid operators then look at how much electricity demand they have at any point in time and set the purchase price at the lowest price that will meet that demand .
* All * of the producers then get paid that same amount ( so while the nukes bid zero , they never actually get paid zero ) .
I would guess that wind and solar fall into the nuke category of bidding zero since they have no real control or storage options .
I would imagine that hydro operates like a mix of gas/coal since while they do n't have fuel costs , there is some benefit to keeping your reservoir topped off ( higher pressure head of water ) and they can turn on and off at a moments notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price has little to do with cost.
It is the market.
If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh, nuclear power can sell for the same, no problem.
Why would windpower outfits sell for less than, say, 11/kwh?
They are leaving money on the table.
Not many corporations do that.
Just a quick note on how this works (you are absolutely right).
All electricity is bulk purchased from the generators for the same price.
The price scales based on demand.
The power generators submit minimum bids that they will generate above.
An expensive to operate (but quick to turn on) natural gas plant might say "we can bring up 100MW when price hits 30/kwh".
The coal plant (a bit cheaper to run but takes a while to bring up and down) might say "We will give you 300MW at any price above 15/kw".
What I find to be the clever bit is that nuclear plants bid zero, effectively saying "We will give you 2000MW no matter what" because it takes a LONG time to bring a nuclear plant up after it has been shut down and once it is running, the costs are incredibly low.
The grid operators then look at how much electricity demand they have at any point in time and set the purchase price at the lowest price that will meet that demand.
*All* of the producers then get paid that same amount (so while the nukes bid zero, they never actually get paid zero).
I would guess that wind and solar fall into the nuke category of bidding zero since they have no real control or storage options.
I would imagine that hydro operates like a mix of gas/coal since while they don't have fuel costs, there is some benefit to keeping your reservoir topped off (higher pressure head of water) and they can turn on and off at a moments notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697002</id>
	<title>Re:I rather doubt</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262975940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about an "A la, peanut butter sandwich"?</p><p>No, I have no idea why the sesame street memory just popped up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about an " A la , peanut butter sandwich " ? No , I have no idea why the sesame street memory just popped up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about an "A la, peanut butter sandwich"?No, I have no idea why the sesame street memory just popped up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697016</id>
	<title>G.E?</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1262976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now there's General Electric (GE), and looks like Google wants to have Google Energy (GE). I wonder if they two will overlap?
<br> <br>
Looks like Google is more affectionate towards becoming the next General Electric than IBM or Microsoft. Needless to say, General Electric has quite the history - several decades longer than IBM's (1850's vs. 1890's). In Google's short history (1990's to present) they seem to have diversified the company quite fast into numerous markets - more along the lines of how General Electric is diversified. Comparatively, Microsoft has a longer history (1970's to present), which most of its diversification occurring since roughly 1996 - prior, Microsoft was software only and heavily centric on their own products - even today they still tend to be but now they have some hardware and services mixed in; Google probably still puts them to shame in diversity of products though, or at least it is very close.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now there 's General Electric ( GE ) , and looks like Google wants to have Google Energy ( GE ) .
I wonder if they two will overlap ?
Looks like Google is more affectionate towards becoming the next General Electric than IBM or Microsoft .
Needless to say , General Electric has quite the history - several decades longer than IBM 's ( 1850 's vs. 1890 's ) . In Google 's short history ( 1990 's to present ) they seem to have diversified the company quite fast into numerous markets - more along the lines of how General Electric is diversified .
Comparatively , Microsoft has a longer history ( 1970 's to present ) , which most of its diversification occurring since roughly 1996 - prior , Microsoft was software only and heavily centric on their own products - even today they still tend to be but now they have some hardware and services mixed in ; Google probably still puts them to shame in diversity of products though , or at least it is very close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now there's General Electric (GE), and looks like Google wants to have Google Energy (GE).
I wonder if they two will overlap?
Looks like Google is more affectionate towards becoming the next General Electric than IBM or Microsoft.
Needless to say, General Electric has quite the history - several decades longer than IBM's (1850's vs. 1890's). In Google's short history (1990's to present) they seem to have diversified the company quite fast into numerous markets - more along the lines of how General Electric is diversified.
Comparatively, Microsoft has a longer history (1970's to present), which most of its diversification occurring since roughly 1996 - prior, Microsoft was software only and heavily centric on their own products - even today they still tend to be but now they have some hardware and services mixed in; Google probably still puts them to shame in diversity of products though, or at least it is very close.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088</id>
	<title>One more step to another antitrust suit</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1262972220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The DoJ already has one anti-trust suit going on with Google, and several EU counties (hello, France) are also investigating.  Since google is a large consumer of energy, the potential for market distortions is obvious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The DoJ already has one anti-trust suit going on with Google , and several EU counties ( hello , France ) are also investigating .
Since google is a large consumer of energy , the potential for market distortions is obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DoJ already has one anti-trust suit going on with Google, and several EU counties (hello, France) are also investigating.
Since google is a large consumer of energy, the potential for market distortions is obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30699096</id>
	<title>Re:One more step to another antitrust suit</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1262941380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello England, Hello France.<br> <br>
Google sees your underpants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello England , Hello France .
Google sees your underpants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello England, Hello France.
Google sees your underpants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696672</id>
	<title>Google Electricity</title>
	<author>tomcode</author>
	<datestamp>1262974560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean every time I turn on a lamp I'm going to get hit with half a dozen ads for matching coffee tables?</p><p>Or should I just flip the light switch marked "I'm feeling lucky?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean every time I turn on a lamp I 'm going to get hit with half a dozen ads for matching coffee tables ? Or should I just flip the light switch marked " I 'm feeling lucky ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean every time I turn on a lamp I'm going to get hit with half a dozen ads for matching coffee tables?Or should I just flip the light switch marked "I'm feeling lucky?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697094</id>
	<title>Energy brokerages</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1262976360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have yet to read into the history of Enron, then better jump into a wiki or the newsies and dig. Enron's books were cooked to the point they were past charcoal. Power corrupts, but cash corrupts all, both weak and strong. If Google turns into one such brokerage, I hope that they keep a tight reign on their cash flow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have yet to read into the history of Enron , then better jump into a wiki or the newsies and dig .
Enron 's books were cooked to the point they were past charcoal .
Power corrupts , but cash corrupts all , both weak and strong .
If Google turns into one such brokerage , I hope that they keep a tight reign on their cash flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have yet to read into the history of Enron, then better jump into a wiki or the newsies and dig.
Enron's books were cooked to the point they were past charcoal.
Power corrupts, but cash corrupts all, both weak and strong.
If Google turns into one such brokerage, I hope that they keep a tight reign on their cash flow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696820</id>
	<title>Re:One more step to another antitrust suit</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1262975160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Google is gonna leverage their "monopoly" in search to... uh... what, exactly?  Buy energy?</p><p>By that same token, one would expect these governments to go after Walmart for forcing down prices on the supply-side of the chain.  And yet they don't.  Why?  Because using your power to gain better business deals is perfectly legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Google is gon na leverage their " monopoly " in search to... uh... what , exactly ?
Buy energy ? By that same token , one would expect these governments to go after Walmart for forcing down prices on the supply-side of the chain .
And yet they do n't .
Why ? Because using your power to gain better business deals is perfectly legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Google is gonna leverage their "monopoly" in search to... uh... what, exactly?
Buy energy?By that same token, one would expect these governments to go after Walmart for forcing down prices on the supply-side of the chain.
And yet they don't.
Why?  Because using your power to gain better business deals is perfectly legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697024</id>
	<title>Re:One more step to another antitrust suit</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>err, maybe not so obvious. Are you saying people are getting pissy because Google want's to buy power direct?</p><p>How is that a distortion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>err , maybe not so obvious .
Are you saying people are getting pissy because Google want 's to buy power direct ? How is that a distortion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>err, maybe not so obvious.
Are you saying people are getting pissy because Google want's to buy power direct?How is that a distortion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697506</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1262978040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker</p></div><p>Yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy brokerYet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy brokerYet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697270</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>JazzyMusicMan</author>
	<datestamp>1262977020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google does many things that, to many people, would've been considered a major invasion of privacy a handful of years ago. Eventually our level of complacency will change to accomdate even this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does many things that , to many people , would 've been considered a major invasion of privacy a handful of years ago .
Eventually our level of complacency will change to accomdate even this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google does many things that, to many people, would've been considered a major invasion of privacy a handful of years ago.
Eventually our level of complacency will change to accomdate even this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700976</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262949540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other new, Google buys an island and forms its own country. This country is the first to have a negative tax rate for corporations and CEOs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other new , Google buys an island and forms its own country .
This country is the first to have a negative tax rate for corporations and CEOs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other new, Google buys an island and forms its own country.
This country is the first to have a negative tax rate for corporations and CEOs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696666</id>
	<title>Google Randolph Hearst</title>
	<author>m93</author>
	<datestamp>1262974560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This vaguely reminds me of William Randolph Hearst's stake in the paper industry, which was a supported his main business, which was major print media.

From Wikipedia:

Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp, which: 1) like wood pulp, could also be used to manufacture paper[12] and 2) also had an advantage over wood pulp, because it could be regrown yearly as well.[12]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This vaguely reminds me of William Randolph Hearst 's stake in the paper industry , which was a supported his main business , which was major print media .
From Wikipedia : Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst 's paper empire ( he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp ) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp , which : 1 ) like wood pulp , could also be used to manufacture paper [ 12 ] and 2 ) also had an advantage over wood pulp , because it could be regrown yearly as well .
[ 12 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This vaguely reminds me of William Randolph Hearst's stake in the paper industry, which was a supported his main business, which was major print media.
From Wikipedia:

Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp, which: 1) like wood pulp, could also be used to manufacture paper[12] and 2) also had an advantage over wood pulp, because it could be regrown yearly as well.
[12]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700062</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense if they use renewables</title>
	<author>SquirrelCrack</author>
	<datestamp>1262945220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This unpredictability can also disrupt the grid.  In the Texas market, you'll often see prices in the the zones that are wind heavy dip into negative territory because the wind farms are dropping too much power onto the grid, causing congestion.  The negative price is an incentive to back down some of the units because they are basically being charged for putting power into the grid.   In short, wind power is useless if you don't have the grid infrastructure capable of handing its peak output.</p><p> Is the grid in the areas that Google is operating capable of taking on new wind output?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This unpredictability can also disrupt the grid .
In the Texas market , you 'll often see prices in the the zones that are wind heavy dip into negative territory because the wind farms are dropping too much power onto the grid , causing congestion .
The negative price is an incentive to back down some of the units because they are basically being charged for putting power into the grid .
In short , wind power is useless if you do n't have the grid infrastructure capable of handing its peak output .
Is the grid in the areas that Google is operating capable of taking on new wind output ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This unpredictability can also disrupt the grid.
In the Texas market, you'll often see prices in the the zones that are wind heavy dip into negative territory because the wind farms are dropping too much power onto the grid, causing congestion.
The negative price is an incentive to back down some of the units because they are basically being charged for putting power into the grid.
In short, wind power is useless if you don't have the grid infrastructure capable of handing its peak output.
Is the grid in the areas that Google is operating capable of taking on new wind output?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30714386</id>
	<title>Re:What is up with the scare mongering?</title>
	<author>abell</author>
	<datestamp>1263137340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everywhere i read i see posts from astroturfers pretending to be very concerned about their privacy. Lambasting Google for all they are worth and trying to purport them as a very evil and vile company.</p><p>The thing is, Google hasnt got half of the information many other sources has like twitter, facebook etc.</p></div><p>Let's see. I am very concerned about my online privacy and manage my own mail server. I don't have a Facebook account and only used my Twitter account for a couple of days total. I use Google search engine, Google maps and for professional reasons have an Adsense account. Here's what Google can know about me:

</p><ul>
<li>the content of emails I send to my friends using a Gmail account and that they send me (even if I never use Gmail myself)</li><li>my search queries</li><li>the Adsense enabled web sites I visit, even if I browse them directly or through another search engine</li><li>the Google Analytics enabled web sites I visit, see above</li><li>my physical position and where I plan to go (through my itinerary searches in Google maps)</li><li>bonus (because of my Adsense account): my full name, address and bank account</li></ul><p>They can correlate all these data and know and remember more about me than I myself do. All in the hands of a single company which can integrate all these data in a single database (for ease of consultation by themselves, government agencies etc.)</p><p>That's not astroturfing, it's simple understanding of facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everywhere i read i see posts from astroturfers pretending to be very concerned about their privacy .
Lambasting Google for all they are worth and trying to purport them as a very evil and vile company.The thing is , Google hasnt got half of the information many other sources has like twitter , facebook etc.Let 's see .
I am very concerned about my online privacy and manage my own mail server .
I do n't have a Facebook account and only used my Twitter account for a couple of days total .
I use Google search engine , Google maps and for professional reasons have an Adsense account .
Here 's what Google can know about me : the content of emails I send to my friends using a Gmail account and that they send me ( even if I never use Gmail myself ) my search queriesthe Adsense enabled web sites I visit , even if I browse them directly or through another search enginethe Google Analytics enabled web sites I visit , see abovemy physical position and where I plan to go ( through my itinerary searches in Google maps ) bonus ( because of my Adsense account ) : my full name , address and bank accountThey can correlate all these data and know and remember more about me than I myself do .
All in the hands of a single company which can integrate all these data in a single database ( for ease of consultation by themselves , government agencies etc .
) That 's not astroturfing , it 's simple understanding of facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everywhere i read i see posts from astroturfers pretending to be very concerned about their privacy.
Lambasting Google for all they are worth and trying to purport them as a very evil and vile company.The thing is, Google hasnt got half of the information many other sources has like twitter, facebook etc.Let's see.
I am very concerned about my online privacy and manage my own mail server.
I don't have a Facebook account and only used my Twitter account for a couple of days total.
I use Google search engine, Google maps and for professional reasons have an Adsense account.
Here's what Google can know about me:


the content of emails I send to my friends using a Gmail account and that they send me (even if I never use Gmail myself)my search queriesthe Adsense enabled web sites I visit, even if I browse them directly or through another search enginethe Google Analytics enabled web sites I visit, see abovemy physical position and where I plan to go (through my itinerary searches in Google maps)bonus (because of my Adsense account): my full name, address and bank accountThey can correlate all these data and know and remember more about me than I myself do.
All in the hands of a single company which can integrate all these data in a single database (for ease of consultation by themselves, government agencies etc.
)That's not astroturfing, it's simple understanding of facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30702162</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>qopax</author>
	<datestamp>1262955060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Out of all the ways Google tracks their consumers and their online/offline behavior (not criticizing them for it or anything), your energy usage pattern is what you find "WAY to INTRUSIVE"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Out of all the ways Google tracks their consumers and their online/offline behavior ( not criticizing them for it or anything ) , your energy usage pattern is what you find " WAY to INTRUSIVE " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Out of all the ways Google tracks their consumers and their online/offline behavior (not criticizing them for it or anything), your energy usage pattern is what you find "WAY to INTRUSIVE"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697130</id>
	<title>Stay green with Google</title>
	<author>tronkel</author>
	<datestamp>1262976480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I'll need to find a way of hooking up AdBlock to my electricity meter!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'll need to find a way of hooking up AdBlock to my electricity meter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'll need to find a way of hooking up AdBlock to my electricity meter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696158</id>
	<title>Creating a culture of dependency</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1262972520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is a great way of increasing your control over society. <br> <br>

If you want to take over the world you need people who rely on you not only for internet search but more basic things like energy, food, communications (like all the fibre optic cables Google controls)<br> <br>

Right now if google went away I'd just go back to using yahoo for search, my life won't change much but if Google does all your computing for you in De Cloud via HTTP, supplies you with power and internet (Google TiSP), organises your transport via driverless pod then it becomes a bit harder to tell them to go f*** themselves with their privacy-invading ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a great way of increasing your control over society .
If you want to take over the world you need people who rely on you not only for internet search but more basic things like energy , food , communications ( like all the fibre optic cables Google controls ) Right now if google went away I 'd just go back to using yahoo for search , my life wo n't change much but if Google does all your computing for you in De Cloud via HTTP , supplies you with power and internet ( Google TiSP ) , organises your transport via driverless pod then it becomes a bit harder to tell them to go f * * * themselves with their privacy-invading ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a great way of increasing your control over society.
If you want to take over the world you need people who rely on you not only for internet search but more basic things like energy, food, communications (like all the fibre optic cables Google controls) 

Right now if google went away I'd just go back to using yahoo for search, my life won't change much but if Google does all your computing for you in De Cloud via HTTP, supplies you with power and internet (Google TiSP), organises your transport via driverless pod then it becomes a bit harder to tell them to go f*** themselves with their privacy-invading ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697046</id>
	<title>Re: Subsidies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262976120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you're counting the U.S. Military as a subsidy, but IIRC most of our road trips in the last century boiled down to preserving our control over the lands vital to our energy interests. Repatriating our energy supply would make our military mostly redundant, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you 're counting the U.S. Military as a subsidy , but IIRC most of our road trips in the last century boiled down to preserving our control over the lands vital to our energy interests .
Repatriating our energy supply would make our military mostly redundant , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you're counting the U.S. Military as a subsidy, but IIRC most of our road trips in the last century boiled down to preserving our control over the lands vital to our energy interests.
Repatriating our energy supply would make our military mostly redundant, IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696606</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262974320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>i"this vertical integration strategy is awesome for the company but I don't like it for two reasons"</i></p><p>You mean like how a corporation such as General Electric is into</p><p>finance<br>aviation<br>healthcare<br>electric power plants<br>oil<br>media<br>consumer appliances<br>military</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_assets\_owned\_by\_General\_Electric" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_assets\_owned\_by\_General\_Electric</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>While everyone is worried about what google might do in the future, other corporations that are bigger than google are already doing worrisome things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i " this vertical integration strategy is awesome for the company but I do n't like it for two reasons " You mean like how a corporation such as General Electric is intofinanceaviationhealthcareelectric power plantsoilmediaconsumer appliancesmilitaryhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _assets \ _owned \ _by \ _General \ _Electric [ wikipedia.org ] While everyone is worried about what google might do in the future , other corporations that are bigger than google are already doing worrisome things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i"this vertical integration strategy is awesome for the company but I don't like it for two reasons"You mean like how a corporation such as General Electric is intofinanceaviationhealthcareelectric power plantsoilmediaconsumer appliancesmilitaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_assets\_owned\_by\_General\_Electric [wikipedia.org]While everyone is worried about what google might do in the future, other corporations that are bigger than google are already doing worrisome things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1262974440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I lunch with an economist.  You and I are not economists.  But he's teaching me.</p><p>"Google's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral."</p><p>Sure.  price has nothing to do with it.  Uhuh.  Color me cynical.</p><p>"ten years from now we the consumers might be enjoying a price war between wind power fields generating electricity on equipment that has been paid for and now just needs maintenance fees."</p><p>Same argument for nuclear power in the 60s.  'too cheap to meter'.  I predict the same results for windpewer.</p><p>"slowly amortized back up to very profitable and freaking awesome for ma and pa corn grower. The economy would go nuts if you could alleviate energy costs for everyone."</p><p>Price has little to do with cost.  It is the market.  If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh, nuclear power can sell for the same, no problem.  Why would windpower outfits sell for less than, say, 11/kwh?  They are leaving money on the table.  Not many corporations do that.</p><p>"industries that will be negatively affected (coal, gas, etc) by these price wars will have the time to realize and change or better yet invest in their own wind farms"</p><p>Or different petroleum supplies.  Or nuclear.  Or something else.  Don't think they will choose for any other reason than profits.</p><p>"tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle east and we'll be fighting wind wars over South Dakota and Kansas."</p><p>Um, California, Iowa, and a lot of other places have more potential.  The wars in South Dakota and Kansas will be over migratory birds and turbine kills, noise (even in the middle nowhere, trust me on this), and the blight.  Billboards are bad enough.  Wind turbines are not pretty to everyone.</p><p>"Overly optimistic? Of course. A little unrealistic? Well, a man can dream, can't he? A man can dream."</p><p>Cling to your optimism.  If it is all you have left, they can't take it away from you.  Of course, you can give up.  I just howe you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I lunch with an economist .
You and I are not economists .
But he 's teaching me .
" Google 's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates , pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral. " Sure .
price has nothing to do with it .
Uhuh. Color me cynical .
" ten years from now we the consumers might be enjoying a price war between wind power fields generating electricity on equipment that has been paid for and now just needs maintenance fees .
" Same argument for nuclear power in the 60s .
'too cheap to meter' .
I predict the same results for windpewer .
" slowly amortized back up to very profitable and freaking awesome for ma and pa corn grower .
The economy would go nuts if you could alleviate energy costs for everyone .
" Price has little to do with cost .
It is the market .
If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh , nuclear power can sell for the same , no problem .
Why would windpower outfits sell for less than , say , 11/kwh ?
They are leaving money on the table .
Not many corporations do that .
" industries that will be negatively affected ( coal , gas , etc ) by these price wars will have the time to realize and change or better yet invest in their own wind farms " Or different petroleum supplies .
Or nuclear .
Or something else .
Do n't think they will choose for any other reason than profits .
" tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle east and we 'll be fighting wind wars over South Dakota and Kansas .
" Um , California , Iowa , and a lot of other places have more potential .
The wars in South Dakota and Kansas will be over migratory birds and turbine kills , noise ( even in the middle nowhere , trust me on this ) , and the blight .
Billboards are bad enough .
Wind turbines are not pretty to everyone .
" Overly optimistic ?
Of course .
A little unrealistic ?
Well , a man can dream , ca n't he ?
A man can dream .
" Cling to your optimism .
If it is all you have left , they ca n't take it away from you .
Of course , you can give up .
I just howe you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lunch with an economist.
You and I are not economists.
But he's teaching me.
"Google's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral."Sure.
price has nothing to do with it.
Uhuh.  Color me cynical.
"ten years from now we the consumers might be enjoying a price war between wind power fields generating electricity on equipment that has been paid for and now just needs maintenance fees.
"Same argument for nuclear power in the 60s.
'too cheap to meter'.
I predict the same results for windpewer.
"slowly amortized back up to very profitable and freaking awesome for ma and pa corn grower.
The economy would go nuts if you could alleviate energy costs for everyone.
"Price has little to do with cost.
It is the market.
If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh, nuclear power can sell for the same, no problem.
Why would windpower outfits sell for less than, say, 11/kwh?
They are leaving money on the table.
Not many corporations do that.
"industries that will be negatively affected (coal, gas, etc) by these price wars will have the time to realize and change or better yet invest in their own wind farms"Or different petroleum supplies.
Or nuclear.
Or something else.
Don't think they will choose for any other reason than profits.
"tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle east and we'll be fighting wind wars over South Dakota and Kansas.
"Um, California, Iowa, and a lot of other places have more potential.
The wars in South Dakota and Kansas will be over migratory birds and turbine kills, noise (even in the middle nowhere, trust me on this), and the blight.
Billboards are bad enough.
Wind turbines are not pretty to everyone.
"Overly optimistic?
Of course.
A little unrealistic?
Well, a man can dream, can't he?
A man can dream.
"Cling to your optimism.
If it is all you have left, they can't take it away from you.
Of course, you can give up.
I just howe you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696464</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With any luck, it will become economically stupid for people living in northern Minnesota to not put solar panels on their roof.</p><p>(It is already vaguely reasonable for people in sunny areas to do so)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With any luck , it will become economically stupid for people living in northern Minnesota to not put solar panels on their roof .
( It is already vaguely reasonable for people in sunny areas to do so )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With any luck, it will become economically stupid for people living in northern Minnesota to not put solar panels on their roof.
(It is already vaguely reasonable for people in sunny areas to do so)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696386</id>
	<title>2010 Antitrust Revival? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262973420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish, but not only would that add proof to the claim that <i>antitrust laws only apply to the tech industry</i>, it would shift attention away from other industries that badly need to be stratified.</p><p>The Google monolith grows regardless. There could be some positive aspects to this; if Google creates market incentives to build valuable and reliable renewable energy infrastructure throughout the nation, the benefits should be fairly obvious. However, combined with news of their 'smart meter' and Google's obvious desire for a lucrative information monopoly, I'm not sure I feel comfortable having them at the helm of <i>any</i> infrastructure project. We'll just have to see what happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish , but not only would that add proof to the claim that antitrust laws only apply to the tech industry , it would shift attention away from other industries that badly need to be stratified.The Google monolith grows regardless .
There could be some positive aspects to this ; if Google creates market incentives to build valuable and reliable renewable energy infrastructure throughout the nation , the benefits should be fairly obvious .
However , combined with news of their 'smart meter ' and Google 's obvious desire for a lucrative information monopoly , I 'm not sure I feel comfortable having them at the helm of any infrastructure project .
We 'll just have to see what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish, but not only would that add proof to the claim that antitrust laws only apply to the tech industry, it would shift attention away from other industries that badly need to be stratified.The Google monolith grows regardless.
There could be some positive aspects to this; if Google creates market incentives to build valuable and reliable renewable energy infrastructure throughout the nation, the benefits should be fairly obvious.
However, combined with news of their 'smart meter' and Google's obvious desire for a lucrative information monopoly, I'm not sure I feel comfortable having them at the helm of any infrastructure project.
We'll just have to see what happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084</id>
	<title>I also heard on NPR this morning...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262972220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...about <a href="http://www.google.org/powermeter/howitworks.html" title="google.org">Google's "Smart Meter"</a> [google.org] for your home.  It seems like Google wants to know everything about everybody. The only difference between them and other entities that what this much information is that Google's gradually arriving to that goal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...about Google 's " Smart Meter " [ google.org ] for your home .
It seems like Google wants to know everything about everybody .
The only difference between them and other entities that what this much information is that Google 's gradually arriving to that goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...about Google's "Smart Meter" [google.org] for your home.
It seems like Google wants to know everything about everybody.
The only difference between them and other entities that what this much information is that Google's gradually arriving to that goal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696502</id>
	<title>I've been suspicious for a while</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262973960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One day, it hit me how much access that Google has to my life and my data.  I still use gmail, but I uninstalled all of the Google desktop applications from my home and work machines.  I now actively avoid Google applications that in any way can be associated with my person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One day , it hit me how much access that Google has to my life and my data .
I still use gmail , but I uninstalled all of the Google desktop applications from my home and work machines .
I now actively avoid Google applications that in any way can be associated with my person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One day, it hit me how much access that Google has to my life and my data.
I still use gmail, but I uninstalled all of the Google desktop applications from my home and work machines.
I now actively avoid Google applications that in any way can be associated with my person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697624</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1262978400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Price has little to do with cost.  It is the market.  If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh, nuclear power can sell for the same, no problem.  Why would windpower outfits sell for less than, say, 11/kwh?  They are leaving money on the table.  Not many corporations do that.</p></div><p>The point is that a heap of extra generating capacity with a low cost floor will drive prices down in the market. If a given industry or in this case generation method is SO profitable, everybody else piles in and invests in it, increasing capacity until the sale price achieves an 'average' level of profit.</p><p> The question you should be asking is "if wind power costs 4/kWh to generate, who will buy coal power at 14/kWh when wind can sell profitably at 6/kWh?". This situation depends though on a large amount of wind generation and an effecient trading market for the power, which the developments discussed will go towards achieving.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or different petroleum supplies. Or nuclear. Or something else. Don't think they will choose for any other reason than profits.</p></div><p>If there was some magical cheap alternative fuel source available to them they would already use it. This 'evil profit' motive is ALREADY IN OPERATION, and in any case even if things panned out as you suggested, and generators responded to the increased availability of cheap wind power with cheaper 'conventional' supplies, that would STILL result in cheaper power for consumers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Price has little to do with cost .
It is the market .
If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh , nuclear power can sell for the same , no problem .
Why would windpower outfits sell for less than , say , 11/kwh ?
They are leaving money on the table .
Not many corporations do that.The point is that a heap of extra generating capacity with a low cost floor will drive prices down in the market .
If a given industry or in this case generation method is SO profitable , everybody else piles in and invests in it , increasing capacity until the sale price achieves an 'average ' level of profit .
The question you should be asking is " if wind power costs 4/kWh to generate , who will buy coal power at 14/kWh when wind can sell profitably at 6/kWh ? " .
This situation depends though on a large amount of wind generation and an effecient trading market for the power , which the developments discussed will go towards achieving.Or different petroleum supplies .
Or nuclear .
Or something else .
Do n't think they will choose for any other reason than profits.If there was some magical cheap alternative fuel source available to them they would already use it .
This 'evil profit ' motive is ALREADY IN OPERATION , and in any case even if things panned out as you suggested , and generators responded to the increased availability of cheap wind power with cheaper 'conventional ' supplies , that would STILL result in cheaper power for consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price has little to do with cost.
It is the market.
If oil- and coal-generated electicity is sold for 14/kwh, nuclear power can sell for the same, no problem.
Why would windpower outfits sell for less than, say, 11/kwh?
They are leaving money on the table.
Not many corporations do that.The point is that a heap of extra generating capacity with a low cost floor will drive prices down in the market.
If a given industry or in this case generation method is SO profitable, everybody else piles in and invests in it, increasing capacity until the sale price achieves an 'average' level of profit.
The question you should be asking is "if wind power costs 4/kWh to generate, who will buy coal power at 14/kWh when wind can sell profitably at 6/kWh?".
This situation depends though on a large amount of wind generation and an effecient trading market for the power, which the developments discussed will go towards achieving.Or different petroleum supplies.
Or nuclear.
Or something else.
Don't think they will choose for any other reason than profits.If there was some magical cheap alternative fuel source available to them they would already use it.
This 'evil profit' motive is ALREADY IN OPERATION, and in any case even if things panned out as you suggested, and generators responded to the increased availability of cheap wind power with cheaper 'conventional' supplies, that would STILL result in cheaper power for consumers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696566</id>
	<title>Re:Tornado Alley Could Be the New Middle East</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262974140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that wind power increase has anything to do with Google Servers Farms because usually the Wind Power is more expensive. (Yes, unless it's subsidized, it's)<br>Google is probably just afraid of the Cap and Trade taxation of the Carbon (stupid tax, C2O is not related to Warming) and want to prevent the cost increase in the energy. (normal energy is cheaper, but with (stupid) Cap and Trade it can end up being more expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that wind power increase has anything to do with Google Servers Farms because usually the Wind Power is more expensive .
( Yes , unless it 's subsidized , it 's ) Google is probably just afraid of the Cap and Trade taxation of the Carbon ( stupid tax , C2O is not related to Warming ) and want to prevent the cost increase in the energy .
( normal energy is cheaper , but with ( stupid ) Cap and Trade it can end up being more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that wind power increase has anything to do with Google Servers Farms because usually the Wind Power is more expensive.
(Yes, unless it's subsidized, it's)Google is probably just afraid of the Cap and Trade taxation of the Carbon (stupid tax, C2O is not related to Warming) and want to prevent the cost increase in the energy.
(normal energy is cheaper, but with (stupid) Cap and Trade it can end up being more expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30707202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30705542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30699096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30699206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30702162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30708308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30725094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_151252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30714386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30714386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30708308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30699206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698372
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30698346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30725094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30707202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30702162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30705542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30700496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30701332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_151252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30699096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30696358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_151252.30697024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
