<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_1345219</id>
	<title>Newsday Gets 35 Subscriptions To Pay Web Site</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264605240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"In late October, Newsday put its web site behind a pay wall, one of the <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/02/168232/Paywalls-to-Drive-Journalists-Away-in-Addition-to-Consumers?art\_pos=6">first non-business newspapers to take the pay wall plunge</a>, so Newsday has been followed with interest in media circles anxious to learn how the NY Times own plans to put up a pay wall may work out. So how successful has Newsday's paywall been? The NY Observer reports that three months into the experiment <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site">only 35 people have signed up to pay $5 a week</a> to get unfettered access to newsday.com. Newsday's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $4 million and the 35 people who've signed up have earned Newsday about $9,000. Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic. 'That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been,' said Jimenez to his assembled staff, according to five interviews with Newsday employees. The web project has not been a favorite among <a href="http://www.newsday.com/business/newsday-union-overwhelmingly-rejects-proposed-contract-1.1722606">Newsday employees who have recently been asked to take a 10 percent pay cut</a>. 'The view of the newsroom is the web site sucks,' says one staffer. 'It's an abomination,' adds another."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " In late October , Newsday put its web site behind a pay wall , one of the first non-business newspapers to take the pay wall plunge , so Newsday has been followed with interest in media circles anxious to learn how the NY Times own plans to put up a pay wall may work out .
So how successful has Newsday 's paywall been ?
The NY Observer reports that three months into the experiment only 35 people have signed up to pay $ 5 a week to get unfettered access to newsday.com .
Newsday 's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $ 4 million and the 35 people who 've signed up have earned Newsday about $ 9,000 .
Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic .
'That 's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been, ' said Jimenez to his assembled staff , according to five interviews with Newsday employees .
The web project has not been a favorite among Newsday employees who have recently been asked to take a 10 percent pay cut .
'The view of the newsroom is the web site sucks, ' says one staffer .
'It 's an abomination, ' adds another .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "In late October, Newsday put its web site behind a pay wall, one of the first non-business newspapers to take the pay wall plunge, so Newsday has been followed with interest in media circles anxious to learn how the NY Times own plans to put up a pay wall may work out.
So how successful has Newsday's paywall been?
The NY Observer reports that three months into the experiment only 35 people have signed up to pay $5 a week to get unfettered access to newsday.com.
Newsday's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $4 million and the 35 people who've signed up have earned Newsday about $9,000.
Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic.
'That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been,' said Jimenez to his assembled staff, according to five interviews with Newsday employees.
The web project has not been a favorite among Newsday employees who have recently been asked to take a 10 percent pay cut.
'The view of the newsroom is the web site sucks,' says one staffer.
'It's an abomination,' adds another.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917828</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>newspapers are dead....</p><p>People who have their local paper delivered to their door every morning by a real life 'person' tend to pay $5 or less a week so why is the online site so expensive?..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>newspapers are dead....People who have their local paper delivered to their door every morning by a real life 'person ' tend to pay $ 5 or less a week so why is the online site so expensive ? . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>newspapers are dead....People who have their local paper delivered to their door every morning by a real life 'person' tend to pay $5 or less a week so why is the online site so expensive?..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917968</id>
	<title>I wonder how much...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264610340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much did they spend to erect and maintain the paywall I wonder?  I'm guessing it was pricier to keep people "out" than to just leave it as it was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much did they spend to erect and maintain the paywall I wonder ?
I 'm guessing it was pricier to keep people " out " than to just leave it as it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much did they spend to erect and maintain the paywall I wonder?
I'm guessing it was pricier to keep people "out" than to just leave it as it was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917990</id>
	<title>Re:Abomination?</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1264610400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a terribly designed site. At first glance, you can't tell what are links, and what is just plain text. There are just about zero visual clues as to where you should go, what you should do, or what you should be reading. There seems to be no coherent logic to the layout, either, and the dark background with white text does them no favours. If they paid $4 million for this, they got ripped off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a terribly designed site .
At first glance , you ca n't tell what are links , and what is just plain text .
There are just about zero visual clues as to where you should go , what you should do , or what you should be reading .
There seems to be no coherent logic to the layout , either , and the dark background with white text does them no favours .
If they paid $ 4 million for this , they got ripped off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a terribly designed site.
At first glance, you can't tell what are links, and what is just plain text.
There are just about zero visual clues as to where you should go, what you should do, or what you should be reading.
There seems to be no coherent logic to the layout, either, and the dark background with white text does them no favours.
If they paid $4 million for this, they got ripped off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918280</id>
	<title>Re:$5 a week? How much for a dead-wood version?</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1264611360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sucks, we have 9 bags no questions asked.  1st Monday of the month is heavy stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sucks , we have 9 bags no questions asked .
1st Monday of the month is heavy stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sucks, we have 9 bags no questions asked.
1st Monday of the month is heavy stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918720</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody is going to pay for news</title>
	<author>Migraineman</author>
	<datestamp>1264612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nobody is going to pay for a news site for the most part. You can easily get the same news elsewhere for free.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
And to continue this point, it's not just the "free" aspect, it's also the ability to go directly to the source for the information.  <br> <br>
Back in the day, actually not too long ago, the news outlets (papers, radio, TV) served a purpose - they provided a conduit for information transfer.  Folks had information (big game scores, courtroom shenanignas, weather forecasts) and needed a way to convey that information to other folks.  Similarly, the "end users" desired the information, but didn't have a way to get it directly.  The news media connected the two groups, and served a valuable purpose.<br> <br>
Enter the Intarweb.  Suddenly, the end user is directly connected to the information source. The news media middlemen are left holding their hats, scrambling for significance.  <br> <br>
Probably the worst thing that has happened to the media outlets is transparency.  When you have the web at yor fingertips, it's particularly easy to notice that the vast majority of news outlets are simply re-branding the AP or Reuters news feeds.  Their collective credibility is shot to hell.  They've been branded as "middle men" and not as information sources.  The web allows you to go directly to the source.  Why would I tolerate some reporter's re-hash of a story when I can interpret the source for myself?  Case and point - I can get weather information directly from the <a href="http://nws.noaa.gov/" title="noaa.gov">National Weather Service</a> [noaa.gov] rather than getting the dumbed-down version spewed by the local TV station or newspaper.  They don't add value (actually they remove it) so I bypass them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because I can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is going to pay for a news site for the most part .
You can easily get the same news elsewhere for free .
And to continue this point , it 's not just the " free " aspect , it 's also the ability to go directly to the source for the information .
Back in the day , actually not too long ago , the news outlets ( papers , radio , TV ) served a purpose - they provided a conduit for information transfer .
Folks had information ( big game scores , courtroom shenanignas , weather forecasts ) and needed a way to convey that information to other folks .
Similarly , the " end users " desired the information , but did n't have a way to get it directly .
The news media connected the two groups , and served a valuable purpose .
Enter the Intarweb .
Suddenly , the end user is directly connected to the information source .
The news media middlemen are left holding their hats , scrambling for significance .
Probably the worst thing that has happened to the media outlets is transparency .
When you have the web at yor fingertips , it 's particularly easy to notice that the vast majority of news outlets are simply re-branding the AP or Reuters news feeds .
Their collective credibility is shot to hell .
They 've been branded as " middle men " and not as information sources .
The web allows you to go directly to the source .
Why would I tolerate some reporter 's re-hash of a story when I can interpret the source for myself ?
Case and point - I can get weather information directly from the National Weather Service [ noaa.gov ] rather than getting the dumbed-down version spewed by the local TV station or newspaper .
They do n't add value ( actually they remove it ) so I bypass them ... because I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is going to pay for a news site for the most part.
You can easily get the same news elsewhere for free.
And to continue this point, it's not just the "free" aspect, it's also the ability to go directly to the source for the information.
Back in the day, actually not too long ago, the news outlets (papers, radio, TV) served a purpose - they provided a conduit for information transfer.
Folks had information (big game scores, courtroom shenanignas, weather forecasts) and needed a way to convey that information to other folks.
Similarly, the "end users" desired the information, but didn't have a way to get it directly.
The news media connected the two groups, and served a valuable purpose.
Enter the Intarweb.
Suddenly, the end user is directly connected to the information source.
The news media middlemen are left holding their hats, scrambling for significance.
Probably the worst thing that has happened to the media outlets is transparency.
When you have the web at yor fingertips, it's particularly easy to notice that the vast majority of news outlets are simply re-branding the AP or Reuters news feeds.
Their collective credibility is shot to hell.
They've been branded as "middle men" and not as information sources.
The web allows you to go directly to the source.
Why would I tolerate some reporter's re-hash of a story when I can interpret the source for myself?
Case and point - I can get weather information directly from the National Weather Service [noaa.gov] rather than getting the dumbed-down version spewed by the local TV station or newspaper.
They don't add value (actually they remove it) so I bypass them ... because I can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918294</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1264611480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ha! Take that long standing respectable media. Funny, I'd bet they'd be better off without a website at all.</p></div><p>No kidding.  The summary itself tells you that - they spent $4 million and they've earned $9,000 in about three months.  By my reckoning with the current expansion rate they can expect to have 1,000 users some time around the year 2017.  But 1,000 users is only $60,000 in subscriptions per year, at which rate you're looking at making the investment back in the year 2076.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
Take that long standing respectable media .
Funny , I 'd bet they 'd be better off without a website at all.No kidding .
The summary itself tells you that - they spent $ 4 million and they 've earned $ 9,000 in about three months .
By my reckoning with the current expansion rate they can expect to have 1,000 users some time around the year 2017 .
But 1,000 users is only $ 60,000 in subscriptions per year , at which rate you 're looking at making the investment back in the year 2076 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
Take that long standing respectable media.
Funny, I'd bet they'd be better off without a website at all.No kidding.
The summary itself tells you that - they spent $4 million and they've earned $9,000 in about three months.
By my reckoning with the current expansion rate they can expect to have 1,000 users some time around the year 2017.
But 1,000 users is only $60,000 in subscriptions per year, at which rate you're looking at making the investment back in the year 2076.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920020</id>
	<title>Not only is the site ugly, but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... it does not render worth squat with Firefox 3.017 on Linux. In fact, it renders so poorly that it is obvious that they never gave browser neutrality a single thought nor did they test it on any browser other than IE. Ugh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it does not render worth squat with Firefox 3.017 on Linux .
In fact , it renders so poorly that it is obvious that they never gave browser neutrality a single thought nor did they test it on any browser other than IE .
Ugh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it does not render worth squat with Firefox 3.017 on Linux.
In fact, it renders so poorly that it is obvious that they never gave browser neutrality a single thought nor did they test it on any browser other than IE.
Ugh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918332</id>
	<title>Re:$5 a week is crazy.</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1264611600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know <a href="http://www.fark.com/" title="fark.com">a site that charges $5/month</a> [fark.com] for premium access to all of its 2,000+ feeds that it has each day. $5/week for access to the stories on one site seems to be a rip-off by comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a site that charges $ 5/month [ fark.com ] for premium access to all of its 2,000 + feeds that it has each day .
$ 5/week for access to the stories on one site seems to be a rip-off by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a site that charges $5/month [fark.com] for premium access to all of its 2,000+ feeds that it has each day.
$5/week for access to the stories on one site seems to be a rip-off by comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30927106</id>
	<title>it's a hard sell when you charge more than good...</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1264594680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a hard sell when you charge more than good p0rn. Online we are consuming content. This site is selling content. And good adult entertainment can always sell for the highest market prices - be it video, print, live, or whatever. If you are more expensive than your rivals on the dark side, you are overpriced. Nothing - nothing tops good porn price-wise for those of us who buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a hard sell when you charge more than good p0rn .
Online we are consuming content .
This site is selling content .
And good adult entertainment can always sell for the highest market prices - be it video , print , live , or whatever .
If you are more expensive than your rivals on the dark side , you are overpriced .
Nothing - nothing tops good porn price-wise for those of us who buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a hard sell when you charge more than good p0rn.
Online we are consuming content.
This site is selling content.
And good adult entertainment can always sell for the highest market prices - be it video, print, live, or whatever.
If you are more expensive than your rivals on the dark side, you are overpriced.
Nothing - nothing tops good porn price-wise for those of us who buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917878</id>
	<title>Surprising?</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1264609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Newsday is one of the only for-pay newspapers online and higher profile newspapers like NY Times are still giving their news away for free, is it any surprise that there aren't many subscribers to the for-pay paper? From the sound of it, their pricing scheme was also way too expensive. Five bucks a week? Sounds like they're pricing it as if they still have to send it to the printing presses. Drop the price to 10 bucks a month - max, and maybe make a tiered pricing model, giving away some stuff for free. Otherwise, why would I even visit the site and how would I know it's worth the price of admission?</p><p>Maybe a pay-as-you-go system where you pay a micro payment per article will also be viable in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Newsday is one of the only for-pay newspapers online and higher profile newspapers like NY Times are still giving their news away for free , is it any surprise that there are n't many subscribers to the for-pay paper ?
From the sound of it , their pricing scheme was also way too expensive .
Five bucks a week ?
Sounds like they 're pricing it as if they still have to send it to the printing presses .
Drop the price to 10 bucks a month - max , and maybe make a tiered pricing model , giving away some stuff for free .
Otherwise , why would I even visit the site and how would I know it 's worth the price of admission ? Maybe a pay-as-you-go system where you pay a micro payment per article will also be viable in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Newsday is one of the only for-pay newspapers online and higher profile newspapers like NY Times are still giving their news away for free, is it any surprise that there aren't many subscribers to the for-pay paper?
From the sound of it, their pricing scheme was also way too expensive.
Five bucks a week?
Sounds like they're pricing it as if they still have to send it to the printing presses.
Drop the price to 10 bucks a month - max, and maybe make a tiered pricing model, giving away some stuff for free.
Otherwise, why would I even visit the site and how would I know it's worth the price of admission?Maybe a pay-as-you-go system where you pay a micro payment per article will also be viable in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918622</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative way in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Horrible business model aside... it should be noted that anyone with Optimum Online (cablevision's ISP, basically the only cable ISP on Long Island) can access Newsday for free. (Newsday is owned by Cablevision.) So it's not like 35 people are "subscribed"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... 35 people are paying extra for it.</i> <br>
<br>
Which is exactly what the summary says (minus the extra 'have'). That is unless Taco went back and actually edited the summary after you posted this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Horrible business model aside... it should be noted that anyone with Optimum Online ( cablevision 's ISP , basically the only cable ISP on Long Island ) can access Newsday for free .
( Newsday is owned by Cablevision .
) So it 's not like 35 people are " subscribed " .... 35 people are paying extra for it .
Which is exactly what the summary says ( minus the extra 'have ' ) .
That is unless Taco went back and actually edited the summary after you posted this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Horrible business model aside... it should be noted that anyone with Optimum Online (cablevision's ISP, basically the only cable ISP on Long Island) can access Newsday for free.
(Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
) So it's not like 35 people are "subscribed" .... 35 people are paying extra for it.
Which is exactly what the summary says (minus the extra 'have').
That is unless Taco went back and actually edited the summary after you posted this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922308</id>
	<title>Refund</title>
	<author>trancemission</author>
	<datestamp>1264624140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do we get refunds on slow news days?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we get refunds on slow news days ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we get refunds on slow news days?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</id>
	<title>Ha!</title>
	<author>ancientt</author>
	<datestamp>1264608960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha! Take that long standing respectable media. Funny, I'd bet they'd be better off without a website at all. Now there is a way to fix this, though I'm interested in feedback before I try to do anything about it. What we need is a micro-payment aggregation service combined with an advertisement blocking proxy server. Opera is doing the rebuilding on the fly for smaller and faster page loads, and if they combined that with an ad-blocking service for $10/yr and had a "$.02" payment button that sites like Newsday could contract for, then everybody would win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
Take that long standing respectable media .
Funny , I 'd bet they 'd be better off without a website at all .
Now there is a way to fix this , though I 'm interested in feedback before I try to do anything about it .
What we need is a micro-payment aggregation service combined with an advertisement blocking proxy server .
Opera is doing the rebuilding on the fly for smaller and faster page loads , and if they combined that with an ad-blocking service for $ 10/yr and had a " $ .02 " payment button that sites like Newsday could contract for , then everybody would win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
Take that long standing respectable media.
Funny, I'd bet they'd be better off without a website at all.
Now there is a way to fix this, though I'm interested in feedback before I try to do anything about it.
What we need is a micro-payment aggregation service combined with an advertisement blocking proxy server.
Opera is doing the rebuilding on the fly for smaller and faster page loads, and if they combined that with an ad-blocking service for $10/yr and had a "$.02" payment button that sites like Newsday could contract for, then everybody would win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920302</id>
	<title>let go ...</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1264619220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it must be very hard for the news industry owners to let go of all that profit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but make no mistake, it's gone. whatever they charge, there is always going to be some other source that delivers it for free. the technology to deliver voice, images, and full motion hi-res video instantly, from around the world, is cheap. and, lets face it people that can write an intelligible article or speak eloquently are a dime a dozen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it must be very hard for the news industry owners to let go of all that profit ... but make no mistake , it 's gone .
whatever they charge , there is always going to be some other source that delivers it for free .
the technology to deliver voice , images , and full motion hi-res video instantly , from around the world , is cheap .
and , lets face it people that can write an intelligible article or speak eloquently are a dime a dozen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it must be very hard for the news industry owners to let go of all that profit ... but make no mistake, it's gone.
whatever they charge, there is always going to be some other source that delivers it for free.
the technology to deliver voice, images, and full motion hi-res video instantly, from around the world, is cheap.
and, lets face it people that can write an intelligible article or speak eloquently are a dime a dozen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918050</id>
	<title>Whaaaaat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264610580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic.</p></div><p>I submit that publisher Terry Jimenez has less business saavy than a 10-pound bag of fertilizer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic.I submit that publisher Terry Jimenez has less business saavy than a 10-pound bag of fertilizer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic.I submit that publisher Terry Jimenez has less business saavy than a 10-pound bag of fertilizer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917740</id>
	<title>You just don't understand business</title>
	<author>Tridus</author>
	<datestamp>1264609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>35 customers paying $5 a week? Why, that's going to make a profit in 439 years! It's long term investing, people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>35 customers paying $ 5 a week ?
Why , that 's going to make a profit in 439 years !
It 's long term investing , people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>35 customers paying $5 a week?
Why, that's going to make a profit in 439 years!
It's long term investing, people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919612</id>
	<title>But it's not the New York Post either.</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1264616400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read Newsday (paper version) and when you compare it to the other local competition - the NY Post and Daily News - it's a far superior paper. Strong investigative reporting (particularly regarding local government), and celebrity and sports "news" almost never make the front cover.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read Newsday ( paper version ) and when you compare it to the other local competition - the NY Post and Daily News - it 's a far superior paper .
Strong investigative reporting ( particularly regarding local government ) , and celebrity and sports " news " almost never make the front cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read Newsday (paper version) and when you compare it to the other local competition - the NY Post and Daily News - it's a far superior paper.
Strong investigative reporting (particularly regarding local government), and celebrity and sports "news" almost never make the front cover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30937100</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1264705800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me at least, its amazing at how much papers and magazines don't get it.
<p>
They have some advantages over web media, and yet they don't seem to understand their problems. When I had my own business some years ago, Newspaper advertisement was insanely priced, as in thousands of dollars for a small one day ad in one of the less popular days, which means not Wednesday (coupon day!) or Saturday or Sunday.
</p><p>
They did offer a fairly inexpensive "Services" ad which looked like a want ad. small type, three lines or less. Completely worthless. Local Magazine ads were cheaper, so I used them, and it worked well. My ad was out for a month at a time, not thrown away after a day or left for  puppies to crap on. Newspaper ads have a lifetime of seconds.
</p><p>
My take on this is that Instead of pricing ads at a rate that will get them advertisers and make for a big paper, they priced themselves out of the market. Fewer ads, but really expensive ones. That left them vulnerable to web competition, and to loss of just about any large customer. The old all the eggs in one basket approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me at least , its amazing at how much papers and magazines do n't get it .
They have some advantages over web media , and yet they do n't seem to understand their problems .
When I had my own business some years ago , Newspaper advertisement was insanely priced , as in thousands of dollars for a small one day ad in one of the less popular days , which means not Wednesday ( coupon day !
) or Saturday or Sunday .
They did offer a fairly inexpensive " Services " ad which looked like a want ad .
small type , three lines or less .
Completely worthless .
Local Magazine ads were cheaper , so I used them , and it worked well .
My ad was out for a month at a time , not thrown away after a day or left for puppies to crap on .
Newspaper ads have a lifetime of seconds .
My take on this is that Instead of pricing ads at a rate that will get them advertisers and make for a big paper , they priced themselves out of the market .
Fewer ads , but really expensive ones .
That left them vulnerable to web competition , and to loss of just about any large customer .
The old all the eggs in one basket approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me at least, its amazing at how much papers and magazines don't get it.
They have some advantages over web media, and yet they don't seem to understand their problems.
When I had my own business some years ago, Newspaper advertisement was insanely priced, as in thousands of dollars for a small one day ad in one of the less popular days, which means not Wednesday (coupon day!
) or Saturday or Sunday.
They did offer a fairly inexpensive "Services" ad which looked like a want ad.
small type, three lines or less.
Completely worthless.
Local Magazine ads were cheaper, so I used them, and it worked well.
My ad was out for a month at a time, not thrown away after a day or left for  puppies to crap on.
Newspaper ads have a lifetime of seconds.
My take on this is that Instead of pricing ads at a rate that will get them advertisers and make for a big paper, they priced themselves out of the market.
Fewer ads, but really expensive ones.
That left them vulnerable to web competition, and to loss of just about any large customer.
The old all the eggs in one basket approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921052</id>
	<title>You get what you pay for</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1264621440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News stories don't just materialize out of thin air; someone HAS to pay for the reporter's salaries, the news van, etc.  If the stories are paid for by advertisers (big business) and government subsidies, what quality of investigative journalism do you think you're going to get?</p><p>Woodward and Bernstein were able to dig into Watergate and publish the things they did because the Washington Post was supported by reader subscriptions.  Now that our news sources are all funded and owned by big businesses we're getting exactly what THEY pay for.</p><p>Personally I would be happy to pay for a newspaper that actually reports something real like they did back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News stories do n't just materialize out of thin air ; someone HAS to pay for the reporter 's salaries , the news van , etc .
If the stories are paid for by advertisers ( big business ) and government subsidies , what quality of investigative journalism do you think you 're going to get ? Woodward and Bernstein were able to dig into Watergate and publish the things they did because the Washington Post was supported by reader subscriptions .
Now that our news sources are all funded and owned by big businesses we 're getting exactly what THEY pay for.Personally I would be happy to pay for a newspaper that actually reports something real like they did back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News stories don't just materialize out of thin air; someone HAS to pay for the reporter's salaries, the news van, etc.
If the stories are paid for by advertisers (big business) and government subsidies, what quality of investigative journalism do you think you're going to get?Woodward and Bernstein were able to dig into Watergate and publish the things they did because the Washington Post was supported by reader subscriptions.
Now that our news sources are all funded and owned by big businesses we're getting exactly what THEY pay for.Personally I would be happy to pay for a newspaper that actually reports something real like they did back then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918112</id>
	<title>ad revenue is real and genuine</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264610760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for newspapers and will always exist</p><p>it will be a lot smaller, yes. and some superstar reporters will spin off from newspapers and become their own internet reporting gateways (see nikki finke: <a href="http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/" title="deadline.com">http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/</a> [deadline.com] )</p><p>in this way the internet will "atomize" some newspaper reporting where the departments/ individual reporters will report directly to readers, unrelated to any particular newspaper, much like musicians don't need distributors anymore</p><p>but despite all the doom and gloom about newspapers and their fate, nothing on the internet can ever or will ever replace the service, for example, the poughkeepsie journal delivers for the residents of poughkeepsie, new york ( <a href="http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/" title="poughkeepsiejournal.com">http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/</a> [poughkeepsiejournal.com] ). newspapers are reduced in prominence, income, and scope, yes. they are however, still indispensable and will always be important, especially in niche geographic areas, like poughkeepsie new york, where no one else can compete with them</p><p>if i were the new york times, i'd think about spinning off my state, international, and national bureaus into content gateways commensurate with their current importance and prominence, then i would focus on my city room and go head to head with the new york daily news, the current king of local city content (fuck the new york post and murdoch). but new york city is such a huge market, 3 daily local content bureaus will still do ok business</p><p>meanwhile, newsday is long island new york. this is still important and will always be important as a geographic niche. newsday is diminished, but secure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for newspapers and will always existit will be a lot smaller , yes .
and some superstar reporters will spin off from newspapers and become their own internet reporting gateways ( see nikki finke : http : //www.deadline.com/hollywood/ [ deadline.com ] ) in this way the internet will " atomize " some newspaper reporting where the departments/ individual reporters will report directly to readers , unrelated to any particular newspaper , much like musicians do n't need distributors anymorebut despite all the doom and gloom about newspapers and their fate , nothing on the internet can ever or will ever replace the service , for example , the poughkeepsie journal delivers for the residents of poughkeepsie , new york ( http : //www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/ [ poughkeepsiejournal.com ] ) .
newspapers are reduced in prominence , income , and scope , yes .
they are however , still indispensable and will always be important , especially in niche geographic areas , like poughkeepsie new york , where no one else can compete with themif i were the new york times , i 'd think about spinning off my state , international , and national bureaus into content gateways commensurate with their current importance and prominence , then i would focus on my city room and go head to head with the new york daily news , the current king of local city content ( fuck the new york post and murdoch ) .
but new york city is such a huge market , 3 daily local content bureaus will still do ok businessmeanwhile , newsday is long island new york .
this is still important and will always be important as a geographic niche .
newsday is diminished , but secure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for newspapers and will always existit will be a lot smaller, yes.
and some superstar reporters will spin off from newspapers and become their own internet reporting gateways (see nikki finke: http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/ [deadline.com] )in this way the internet will "atomize" some newspaper reporting where the departments/ individual reporters will report directly to readers, unrelated to any particular newspaper, much like musicians don't need distributors anymorebut despite all the doom and gloom about newspapers and their fate, nothing on the internet can ever or will ever replace the service, for example, the poughkeepsie journal delivers for the residents of poughkeepsie, new york ( http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/ [poughkeepsiejournal.com] ).
newspapers are reduced in prominence, income, and scope, yes.
they are however, still indispensable and will always be important, especially in niche geographic areas, like poughkeepsie new york, where no one else can compete with themif i were the new york times, i'd think about spinning off my state, international, and national bureaus into content gateways commensurate with their current importance and prominence, then i would focus on my city room and go head to head with the new york daily news, the current king of local city content (fuck the new york post and murdoch).
but new york city is such a huge market, 3 daily local content bureaus will still do ok businessmeanwhile, newsday is long island new york.
this is still important and will always be important as a geographic niche.
newsday is diminished, but secure</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920008</id>
	<title>Re:Newpapers Have to Deliver Quality</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1264618080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Read a regular newpaper story in an area where you're an expert. Notice how sloppy they are? How careless with the facts?</p></div> </blockquote><p>As a nearly irrelevant sidenote, have you ever noticed that pretty much everyone agrees that the news is horribly bollixed up in regards to their own expertise...
</p><p>But on the other hand, these same people assume that the news is pretty much accurate in <b>every other field</b>....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read a regular newpaper story in an area where you 're an expert .
Notice how sloppy they are ?
How careless with the facts ?
As a nearly irrelevant sidenote , have you ever noticed that pretty much everyone agrees that the news is horribly bollixed up in regards to their own expertise.. . But on the other hand , these same people assume that the news is pretty much accurate in every other field... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read a regular newpaper story in an area where you're an expert.
Notice how sloppy they are?
How careless with the facts?
As a nearly irrelevant sidenote, have you ever noticed that pretty much everyone agrees that the news is horribly bollixed up in regards to their own expertise...
But on the other hand, these same people assume that the news is pretty much accurate in every other field....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920596</id>
	<title>Re:Abomination?</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1264620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071202115315/http://www.newsday.com/" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/20071202115315/http://www.newsday.com/</a> [archive.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //web.archive.org/web/20071202115315/http : //www.newsday.com/ [ archive.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://web.archive.org/web/20071202115315/http://www.newsday.com/ [archive.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918640</id>
	<title>What's the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's obvious that the current situation is fragile and the media is changing, but what's the solution?</p><p>To recap:</p><ul><li>Demand for online is on the rise and for print is declining</li><li>People don't want to pay</li><li>People don't want to see ads</li></ul><p>So how can the newspapers provide content and pay for the bills?</p><p>It's easy to dismiss the media as being obsolete and that you can find the information for free anyway, but let's consider something: almost all bloggers and "new media" hipsters get the info from the old media anyway. There's precious little actual content created by bloggers and enthusiasts and it's very difficult to do so.</p><p>Case in point, I researched for weeks on info about <a href="http://www.twin-pixels.com/software-used-making-of-avatar/" title="twin-pixels.com">the software used in the making of Avatar</a> [twin-pixels.com] and some <a href="http://www.twin-pixels.com/the-making-of-avatar-some-juicy-details/" title="twin-pixels.com">technical details</a> [twin-pixels.com]. I got the info by finding the companies involved via IMDB, talking to people involved and basically scrapping bits and pieces into a coherent article. Then <a href="http://www.cinefex.com/backissues/issue120.html" title="cinefex.com">Cinefex magazine</a> [cinefex.com] came out with so much more information, all my work looks ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obvious that the current situation is fragile and the media is changing , but what 's the solution ? To recap : Demand for online is on the rise and for print is decliningPeople do n't want to payPeople do n't want to see adsSo how can the newspapers provide content and pay for the bills ? It 's easy to dismiss the media as being obsolete and that you can find the information for free anyway , but let 's consider something : almost all bloggers and " new media " hipsters get the info from the old media anyway .
There 's precious little actual content created by bloggers and enthusiasts and it 's very difficult to do so.Case in point , I researched for weeks on info about the software used in the making of Avatar [ twin-pixels.com ] and some technical details [ twin-pixels.com ] .
I got the info by finding the companies involved via IMDB , talking to people involved and basically scrapping bits and pieces into a coherent article .
Then Cinefex magazine [ cinefex.com ] came out with so much more information , all my work looks ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obvious that the current situation is fragile and the media is changing, but what's the solution?To recap:Demand for online is on the rise and for print is decliningPeople don't want to payPeople don't want to see adsSo how can the newspapers provide content and pay for the bills?It's easy to dismiss the media as being obsolete and that you can find the information for free anyway, but let's consider something: almost all bloggers and "new media" hipsters get the info from the old media anyway.
There's precious little actual content created by bloggers and enthusiasts and it's very difficult to do so.Case in point, I researched for weeks on info about the software used in the making of Avatar [twin-pixels.com] and some technical details [twin-pixels.com].
I got the info by finding the companies involved via IMDB, talking to people involved and basically scrapping bits and pieces into a coherent article.
Then Cinefex magazine [cinefex.com] came out with so much more information, all my work looks ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918444</id>
	<title>Re:Newpapers Have to Deliver Quality</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1264612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Economist doesn't anymore - I'm a subscriber, but I haven't bothered to tell the website that because it doesn't seem to matter. Except recently they've been putting little popup "Become a Subscriber" ads, so I might register just to make those go away.</p><p>I don't know anything about Newsday, but I do think there may be a niche for ultra local newspapers; they can give stuff that the big news sources can't - parades, school sports, local government issues, zoning etc. For an example see <a href="http://gazette.net/" title="gazette.net">http://gazette.net/</a> [gazette.net] - they break MD down to the community level, and still seem to be doing ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Economist does n't anymore - I 'm a subscriber , but I have n't bothered to tell the website that because it does n't seem to matter .
Except recently they 've been putting little popup " Become a Subscriber " ads , so I might register just to make those go away.I do n't know anything about Newsday , but I do think there may be a niche for ultra local newspapers ; they can give stuff that the big news sources ca n't - parades , school sports , local government issues , zoning etc .
For an example see http : //gazette.net/ [ gazette.net ] - they break MD down to the community level , and still seem to be doing ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Economist doesn't anymore - I'm a subscriber, but I haven't bothered to tell the website that because it doesn't seem to matter.
Except recently they've been putting little popup "Become a Subscriber" ads, so I might register just to make those go away.I don't know anything about Newsday, but I do think there may be a niche for ultra local newspapers; they can give stuff that the big news sources can't - parades, school sports, local government issues, zoning etc.
For an example see http://gazette.net/ [gazette.net] - they break MD down to the community level, and still seem to be doing ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919068</id>
	<title>I would only pay for the NY Times</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1264614420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its the online paper I read the most due to the wealth of primary material. It sounds like I'll get my opportunity in 2011 when it goes paywall.  They will allow 10 free clicks a month, then start charging.  I'm only willing to pay $5 a month, but I fear they will charge much more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the online paper I read the most due to the wealth of primary material .
It sounds like I 'll get my opportunity in 2011 when it goes paywall .
They will allow 10 free clicks a month , then start charging .
I 'm only willing to pay $ 5 a month , but I fear they will charge much more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the online paper I read the most due to the wealth of primary material.
It sounds like I'll get my opportunity in 2011 when it goes paywall.
They will allow 10 free clicks a month, then start charging.
I'm only willing to pay $5 a month, but I fear they will charge much more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917904</id>
	<title>Not Worth The Effort</title>
	<author>Dr. Noooo</author>
	<datestamp>1264610160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newsday used to be an award winning newspaper. In the 80's there was a very good New York City edition (New York Newsday). They had some truly great writers. The paper actually reported news in the journalistic tradition. Currently, it is owned by Cablevision (following nearly going under thanks in no small part to a circulation/advertising scandal), the size of it's print edition has been shrunk to near comic book size, and while there are still some very talented people writing for the paper, the tone of the paper has really swung to the hard right (as opposed to being somewhat objective). Why anyone would pay for the print edition is beyond me, so I don't know what made them think anyone would pony up for the electronic version. And unless I'm mistaken, current subscribers to "Optimum Online" (Cablevision's Internet offering) can view the Newsday website gratis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsday used to be an award winning newspaper .
In the 80 's there was a very good New York City edition ( New York Newsday ) .
They had some truly great writers .
The paper actually reported news in the journalistic tradition .
Currently , it is owned by Cablevision ( following nearly going under thanks in no small part to a circulation/advertising scandal ) , the size of it 's print edition has been shrunk to near comic book size , and while there are still some very talented people writing for the paper , the tone of the paper has really swung to the hard right ( as opposed to being somewhat objective ) .
Why anyone would pay for the print edition is beyond me , so I do n't know what made them think anyone would pony up for the electronic version .
And unless I 'm mistaken , current subscribers to " Optimum Online " ( Cablevision 's Internet offering ) can view the Newsday website gratis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newsday used to be an award winning newspaper.
In the 80's there was a very good New York City edition (New York Newsday).
They had some truly great writers.
The paper actually reported news in the journalistic tradition.
Currently, it is owned by Cablevision (following nearly going under thanks in no small part to a circulation/advertising scandal), the size of it's print edition has been shrunk to near comic book size, and while there are still some very talented people writing for the paper, the tone of the paper has really swung to the hard right (as opposed to being somewhat objective).
Why anyone would pay for the print edition is beyond me, so I don't know what made them think anyone would pony up for the electronic version.
And unless I'm mistaken, current subscribers to "Optimum Online" (Cablevision's Internet offering) can view the Newsday website gratis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922162</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1264623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they are charging more for their print edition to make up for the online costs and redesign then the print subscribers aren't adding any extra revenue.  In short, they don't count.  The newsite is effectively reducing their revenue stream and more importantly their traffic and interest.  If I'm looking for news sites this is one less site on my list to visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they are charging more for their print edition to make up for the online costs and redesign then the print subscribers are n't adding any extra revenue .
In short , they do n't count .
The newsite is effectively reducing their revenue stream and more importantly their traffic and interest .
If I 'm looking for news sites this is one less site on my list to visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they are charging more for their print edition to make up for the online costs and redesign then the print subscribers aren't adding any extra revenue.
In short, they don't count.
The newsite is effectively reducing their revenue stream and more importantly their traffic and interest.
If I'm looking for news sites this is one less site on my list to visit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868</id>
	<title>Re:$5 a week? How much for a dead-wood version?</title>
	<author>Vanderhoth</author>
	<datestamp>1264609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My subscription was $25/mo before I canceled it. The paper delivery person couldn't get the paper to my house before I left at 7:00 AM to go to work. By the time I'd get home all the paper was good for is to start a fire. My city has regulations on how much garbage and recycling you can put out in a given week. Garbage is one week (3 Clear bags of garbage and 1 non-see through black bag for "feminine" products, and other stuff you don't what your neighbors to see), recycling (4 clear blue bags) and compost (large green bin, only for food products no leaves, cardboard or paper) the next week. If we missed a recycling week we would accumulate a months worth of news papers combined with the other cardboard, non-refundable cans and bottles and other packaging. if we put that much out we'd get a red sticker and the city wouldn't take anything which only compounded the issue.</p><p>Kermit said it best, "It's not easy being green."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My subscription was $ 25/mo before I canceled it .
The paper delivery person could n't get the paper to my house before I left at 7 : 00 AM to go to work .
By the time I 'd get home all the paper was good for is to start a fire .
My city has regulations on how much garbage and recycling you can put out in a given week .
Garbage is one week ( 3 Clear bags of garbage and 1 non-see through black bag for " feminine " products , and other stuff you do n't what your neighbors to see ) , recycling ( 4 clear blue bags ) and compost ( large green bin , only for food products no leaves , cardboard or paper ) the next week .
If we missed a recycling week we would accumulate a months worth of news papers combined with the other cardboard , non-refundable cans and bottles and other packaging .
if we put that much out we 'd get a red sticker and the city would n't take anything which only compounded the issue.Kermit said it best , " It 's not easy being green .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My subscription was $25/mo before I canceled it.
The paper delivery person couldn't get the paper to my house before I left at 7:00 AM to go to work.
By the time I'd get home all the paper was good for is to start a fire.
My city has regulations on how much garbage and recycling you can put out in a given week.
Garbage is one week (3 Clear bags of garbage and 1 non-see through black bag for "feminine" products, and other stuff you don't what your neighbors to see), recycling (4 clear blue bags) and compost (large green bin, only for food products no leaves, cardboard or paper) the next week.
If we missed a recycling week we would accumulate a months worth of news papers combined with the other cardboard, non-refundable cans and bottles and other packaging.
if we put that much out we'd get a red sticker and the city wouldn't take anything which only compounded the issue.Kermit said it best, "It's not easy being green.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30929606</id>
	<title>Re:For the record,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264613520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The website content is awful compared to the actual newspaper content, and this is what is infuriating.  I don't want to subscribe to a newspaper and have all this extra paper trash every week.  I would prefer to get the news from the web site, but the web site doesn't have nearly the same content.  It's really poorly done. That's what's going to kill them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The website content is awful compared to the actual newspaper content , and this is what is infuriating .
I do n't want to subscribe to a newspaper and have all this extra paper trash every week .
I would prefer to get the news from the web site , but the web site does n't have nearly the same content .
It 's really poorly done .
That 's what 's going to kill them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The website content is awful compared to the actual newspaper content, and this is what is infuriating.
I don't want to subscribe to a newspaper and have all this extra paper trash every week.
I would prefer to get the news from the web site, but the web site doesn't have nearly the same content.
It's really poorly done.
That's what's going to kill them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921012</id>
	<title>Re:For the record,</title>
	<author>stubob</author>
	<datestamp>1264621320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this means there are 35 people who can't do math?  If I can buy the paper for $4.50 and burn it, and get online access, or just buy online access for $5.00, which should you choose?</p><p>The problem with their business model is that isn't priced any differently, even though the distribution costs are nearly zero.  Charge $5 a month, or $5 a year and you'd probably get more people to sign up.</p><p>FWIW, I still don't understand why mp3s cost the same per track as an actual CD, except for the convenience of having it right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this means there are 35 people who ca n't do math ?
If I can buy the paper for $ 4.50 and burn it , and get online access , or just buy online access for $ 5.00 , which should you choose ? The problem with their business model is that is n't priced any differently , even though the distribution costs are nearly zero .
Charge $ 5 a month , or $ 5 a year and you 'd probably get more people to sign up.FWIW , I still do n't understand why mp3s cost the same per track as an actual CD , except for the convenience of having it right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this means there are 35 people who can't do math?
If I can buy the paper for $4.50 and burn it, and get online access, or just buy online access for $5.00, which should you choose?The problem with their business model is that isn't priced any differently, even though the distribution costs are nearly zero.
Charge $5 a month, or $5 a year and you'd probably get more people to sign up.FWIW, I still don't understand why mp3s cost the same per track as an actual CD, except for the convenience of having it right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920212</id>
	<title>OK, this is what is happening...</title>
	<author>rjejr</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do so many normally smart people on here miss the so very obvious? The guy at the paper said he didnt think anybody would sign up for this b/c nobody in their right mind would. The paper charges $5 per week for the website so Cablvision - which owns Newsday - is run by f@ck-face Jim Dolan and he only charges $5 so he can tell peop  ehow great it is that if they subscribe to the paper or to Optimum Online they SAVE $5 per week by having free access to the website. It's a gimmick, plain and simple, as CV loses customer after customer to Verizon FIOS this is just another thing they like to promote - like News 12. Simply put, they aren't looking fo r$5 per week online subscrinbers, they want Optimum Online and Newsday paper subsribers to think they are getting something extra.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do so many normally smart people on here miss the so very obvious ?
The guy at the paper said he didnt think anybody would sign up for this b/c nobody in their right mind would .
The paper charges $ 5 per week for the website so Cablvision - which owns Newsday - is run by f @ ck-face Jim Dolan and he only charges $ 5 so he can tell peop ehow great it is that if they subscribe to the paper or to Optimum Online they SAVE $ 5 per week by having free access to the website .
It 's a gimmick , plain and simple , as CV loses customer after customer to Verizon FIOS this is just another thing they like to promote - like News 12 .
Simply put , they are n't looking fo r $ 5 per week online subscrinbers , they want Optimum Online and Newsday paper subsribers to think they are getting something extra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do so many normally smart people on here miss the so very obvious?
The guy at the paper said he didnt think anybody would sign up for this b/c nobody in their right mind would.
The paper charges $5 per week for the website so Cablvision - which owns Newsday - is run by f@ck-face Jim Dolan and he only charges $5 so he can tell peop  ehow great it is that if they subscribe to the paper or to Optimum Online they SAVE $5 per week by having free access to the website.
It's a gimmick, plain and simple, as CV loses customer after customer to Verizon FIOS this is just another thing they like to promote - like News 12.
Simply put, they aren't looking fo r$5 per week online subscrinbers, they want Optimum Online and Newsday paper subsribers to think they are getting something extra.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917786</id>
	<title>Your investors called..</title>
	<author>DiscountBorg(TM)</author>
	<datestamp>1264609560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been."

So you expected the project to fail outright from the start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been .
" So you expected the project to fail outright from the start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been.
"

So you expected the project to fail outright from the start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920226</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative way in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, what the article is pointing out is somewhat important.</p><p>1) The new website is a travesty. (Have you seen it?!)<br>2) Newsday paid a crap-ton of money for this website, and lost around $3,991,000 as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , what the article is pointing out is somewhat important.1 ) The new website is a travesty .
( Have you seen it ? !
) 2 ) Newsday paid a crap-ton of money for this website , and lost around $ 3,991,000 as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, what the article is pointing out is somewhat important.1) The new website is a travesty.
(Have you seen it?!
)2) Newsday paid a crap-ton of money for this website, and lost around $3,991,000 as a result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918272</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody is going to pay for news</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1264611360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would pay the same rate as daily delivery for my local newspaper if they gave me a password to download a single PDF each day. The PDF must have the following features:</p><ul><li>A good TOC</li><li>"continued on page n..." as links to page n</li><li>coupons as links to a printable coupons</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would pay the same rate as daily delivery for my local newspaper if they gave me a password to download a single PDF each day .
The PDF must have the following features : A good TOC " continued on page n... " as links to page ncoupons as links to a printable coupons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would pay the same rate as daily delivery for my local newspaper if they gave me a password to download a single PDF each day.
The PDF must have the following features:A good TOC"continued on page n..." as links to page ncoupons as links to a printable coupons</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919048</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>denton420</author>
	<datestamp>1264614300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read about events that happen on the internet in short headlines to get an idea of what is happening.</p><p>When my Economist comes to my door on Monday I read the articles for the commentary which is usually quite good compared to the drivel I find on the internet.</p><p>If I cant wait I can also log into their pay website and read things on my computer screen.</p><p>The problem is newspapers don't offer insightful analysis.</p><p>The Economist actually offered a very good piece on network effects and how newspapers have been shaped by them.</p><p><a href="http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=15108618" title="economist.com">http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=15108618</a> [economist.com]</p><p>If you study the history of the newspaper you will see that the propagation of news was slow in the 1800s. To make up for this, newspapers were heavily based on analysis, prediction, and opinion to pull in readers. Of course, over time this process has been reversed slightly but the trend has left its mark.</p><p>The internet is simply sorting through the newspapers that offer quality analysis and chucking the rest.</p><p>I no longer need someone to find out facts that the internet finds for me! It is simply a machine doing the job that a person used to do.</p><p>When you improve efficiency in production you often cut jobs. (think robots doing human work)</p><p>When you improve efficiency in news reporting you often cut news sources!</p><p>It is a very simple parallel and I cannot stand the constant claims of entitlement by the industry.</p><p>You are not special, adapt or be destroyed.</p><p>So please, improve the content of your paper or go off into a corner and die quietly. I am certain that the newspapers that deserve to survive this transformation will!</p><p>My personal prediction is that the weekly newspaper will maintain its position while daily newspapers will be all but forgotten in the future. Probably a biased view since I get most of my news from a weekly source but I do believe that it is the perfect balance.</p><p>Instant simple facts from the internet with insightful commentary that I pay for on a weekly basis. Throw in a weekly/monthly science magazine and you are set!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about events that happen on the internet in short headlines to get an idea of what is happening.When my Economist comes to my door on Monday I read the articles for the commentary which is usually quite good compared to the drivel I find on the internet.If I cant wait I can also log into their pay website and read things on my computer screen.The problem is newspapers do n't offer insightful analysis.The Economist actually offered a very good piece on network effects and how newspapers have been shaped by them.http : //www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm ? story \ _id = 15108618 [ economist.com ] If you study the history of the newspaper you will see that the propagation of news was slow in the 1800s .
To make up for this , newspapers were heavily based on analysis , prediction , and opinion to pull in readers .
Of course , over time this process has been reversed slightly but the trend has left its mark.The internet is simply sorting through the newspapers that offer quality analysis and chucking the rest.I no longer need someone to find out facts that the internet finds for me !
It is simply a machine doing the job that a person used to do.When you improve efficiency in production you often cut jobs .
( think robots doing human work ) When you improve efficiency in news reporting you often cut news sources ! It is a very simple parallel and I can not stand the constant claims of entitlement by the industry.You are not special , adapt or be destroyed.So please , improve the content of your paper or go off into a corner and die quietly .
I am certain that the newspapers that deserve to survive this transformation will ! My personal prediction is that the weekly newspaper will maintain its position while daily newspapers will be all but forgotten in the future .
Probably a biased view since I get most of my news from a weekly source but I do believe that it is the perfect balance.Instant simple facts from the internet with insightful commentary that I pay for on a weekly basis .
Throw in a weekly/monthly science magazine and you are set !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about events that happen on the internet in short headlines to get an idea of what is happening.When my Economist comes to my door on Monday I read the articles for the commentary which is usually quite good compared to the drivel I find on the internet.If I cant wait I can also log into their pay website and read things on my computer screen.The problem is newspapers don't offer insightful analysis.The Economist actually offered a very good piece on network effects and how newspapers have been shaped by them.http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=15108618 [economist.com]If you study the history of the newspaper you will see that the propagation of news was slow in the 1800s.
To make up for this, newspapers were heavily based on analysis, prediction, and opinion to pull in readers.
Of course, over time this process has been reversed slightly but the trend has left its mark.The internet is simply sorting through the newspapers that offer quality analysis and chucking the rest.I no longer need someone to find out facts that the internet finds for me!
It is simply a machine doing the job that a person used to do.When you improve efficiency in production you often cut jobs.
(think robots doing human work)When you improve efficiency in news reporting you often cut news sources!It is a very simple parallel and I cannot stand the constant claims of entitlement by the industry.You are not special, adapt or be destroyed.So please, improve the content of your paper or go off into a corner and die quietly.
I am certain that the newspapers that deserve to survive this transformation will!My personal prediction is that the weekly newspaper will maintain its position while daily newspapers will be all but forgotten in the future.
Probably a biased view since I get most of my news from a weekly source but I do believe that it is the perfect balance.Instant simple facts from the internet with insightful commentary that I pay for on a weekly basis.
Throw in a weekly/monthly science magazine and you are set!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918410</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative way in</title>
	<author>cain</author>
	<datestamp>1264611900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their business model is not selling web access to the news though. Their business model is selling eyeballs. And they can tell advertisers that everyone who subscribes to the local cable monopoly (which is 75\% of the local population) also reads the web site - ergo, lots of eyeballs to sell. That's why this article is so disingenuous - it is implying that the only revenue stream (or the only business model) of Newsday is to sell subscriptions to the web site. When that is in fact not true at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their business model is not selling web access to the news though .
Their business model is selling eyeballs .
And they can tell advertisers that everyone who subscribes to the local cable monopoly ( which is 75 \ % of the local population ) also reads the web site - ergo , lots of eyeballs to sell .
That 's why this article is so disingenuous - it is implying that the only revenue stream ( or the only business model ) of Newsday is to sell subscriptions to the web site .
When that is in fact not true at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their business model is not selling web access to the news though.
Their business model is selling eyeballs.
And they can tell advertisers that everyone who subscribes to the local cable monopoly (which is 75\% of the local population) also reads the web site - ergo, lots of eyeballs to sell.
That's why this article is so disingenuous - it is implying that the only revenue stream (or the only business model) of Newsday is to sell subscriptions to the web site.
When that is in fact not true at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920688</id>
	<title>Re:Abomination?</title>
	<author>Kijori</author>
	<datestamp>1264620360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a terribly designed site.</p> </div><p>Compared to what? As the GP said, it's not unattractive and it doesn't consume ridiculous system resources. Plus, it works on Firefox with NoScript on Ubuntu, which is more than a lot of sites can boast.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>At first glance, you can't tell what are links, and what is just plain text.</p> </div><p>I count a total of 4 lines of plain text on the entire page, excluding the timestamps. Basically if you can see it you can click on it - and if you were wondering whether something was a link or not, mousing-over reveals it. Were you actually confused by this site, or is the complain just a relic of outdated Nielsen usability logic?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There are just about zero visual clues as to where you should go, what you should do, or what you should be reading. There seems to be no coherent logic to the layout, either [...]</p></div><p>It's a news site, and it has a list of news articles. The articles they judge most important are at the top with big pictures, the ones they consider less important are at the bottom without pictures. That is, undeniably, a "coherent logic", and it provides as much of a visual clue to where you can go as pretty much any other news site, or, indeed, contents page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a terribly designed site .
Compared to what ?
As the GP said , it 's not unattractive and it does n't consume ridiculous system resources .
Plus , it works on Firefox with NoScript on Ubuntu , which is more than a lot of sites can boast.At first glance , you ca n't tell what are links , and what is just plain text .
I count a total of 4 lines of plain text on the entire page , excluding the timestamps .
Basically if you can see it you can click on it - and if you were wondering whether something was a link or not , mousing-over reveals it .
Were you actually confused by this site , or is the complain just a relic of outdated Nielsen usability logic ? There are just about zero visual clues as to where you should go , what you should do , or what you should be reading .
There seems to be no coherent logic to the layout , either [ ... ] It 's a news site , and it has a list of news articles .
The articles they judge most important are at the top with big pictures , the ones they consider less important are at the bottom without pictures .
That is , undeniably , a " coherent logic " , and it provides as much of a visual clue to where you can go as pretty much any other news site , or , indeed , contents page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a terribly designed site.
Compared to what?
As the GP said, it's not unattractive and it doesn't consume ridiculous system resources.
Plus, it works on Firefox with NoScript on Ubuntu, which is more than a lot of sites can boast.At first glance, you can't tell what are links, and what is just plain text.
I count a total of 4 lines of plain text on the entire page, excluding the timestamps.
Basically if you can see it you can click on it - and if you were wondering whether something was a link or not, mousing-over reveals it.
Were you actually confused by this site, or is the complain just a relic of outdated Nielsen usability logic?There are just about zero visual clues as to where you should go, what you should do, or what you should be reading.
There seems to be no coherent logic to the layout, either [...]It's a news site, and it has a list of news articles.
The articles they judge most important are at the top with big pictures, the ones they consider less important are at the bottom without pictures.
That is, undeniably, a "coherent logic", and it provides as much of a visual clue to where you can go as pretty much any other news site, or, indeed, contents page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919624</id>
	<title>So few really get it...</title>
	<author>bjk002</author>
	<datestamp>1264616460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is simple.  Newspapers get updated ?daily? at most?</p><p>We don't live in that world anymore.  Newspapers are going to die as the aging population who still hold onto them pass on.</p><p>This is true of ANY media source.</p><p>When was the last time you read an encyclopedia?  Wikipedia anyone?  Why is that?  Could it be that WP is actually updated and maintained on a regular basis?  That the relevance of the material is pertinent to its readership... right NOW?  Imagine opening a 6-month old encyclopedia and looking up Haiti.  No links, no pertinent news, nothing.  Just old news.</p><p>Books...  well, we'll have the classics.  But do you really see the book trend continuing?  Take college for an example.  Right now, you buy an accounting book, published in 2008, 2009, or 2010...  You attend class, and everyone in that class has the same book, by the same author.  But there are 400 other books on Accounting out there.  Some might have better content on a given subject than the author of your chosen book does.  What then?  Buy two books?  No.  The answer is in plain sight.  The "Accounting Wiki" or something similar, where all these authors contribute to the depth/breadth of it.  We're not there yet because, well, we're just not there yet.  But it IS coming.</p><p>People really need to get their heads around this and contemplate the sheer magnitude of change this world is facing.</p><p>Now I'm not saying that "stories" are going to die, or that fiction / non-fiction, etc... will die, but I do believe the distribution of these stories is changing and will continue to change until books have become obsolete.  Have you ever read a good book of fiction?  What if the author could offer a multitude of variations of their works? Children's version, adult version, alternate ending...  the opportunities are truly limitless, once you get past the notion of a "forever set in stone" story.</p><p>Bottom Line:<br>==========<br>News happens every second.  Information changes more frequently than the archaic information distribution methods are able to keep up with. We live in a 1-second world now.  If your site/publication/document/application cannot update itself at high interval, or be updated at high interval, that site/publication/document/application is to soon be as extinct as a dinosaur.</p><p>Those that can... they will succeed.  Those that can't... well...</p><p>I really think that the most fundamental problem these industries are facing right now is a lack of imagination on what they can really do/provide/offer.</p><p>Get out of the box people!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is simple .
Newspapers get updated ? daily ?
at most ? We do n't live in that world anymore .
Newspapers are going to die as the aging population who still hold onto them pass on.This is true of ANY media source.When was the last time you read an encyclopedia ?
Wikipedia anyone ?
Why is that ?
Could it be that WP is actually updated and maintained on a regular basis ?
That the relevance of the material is pertinent to its readership... right NOW ?
Imagine opening a 6-month old encyclopedia and looking up Haiti .
No links , no pertinent news , nothing .
Just old news.Books... well , we 'll have the classics .
But do you really see the book trend continuing ?
Take college for an example .
Right now , you buy an accounting book , published in 2008 , 2009 , or 2010... You attend class , and everyone in that class has the same book , by the same author .
But there are 400 other books on Accounting out there .
Some might have better content on a given subject than the author of your chosen book does .
What then ?
Buy two books ?
No. The answer is in plain sight .
The " Accounting Wiki " or something similar , where all these authors contribute to the depth/breadth of it .
We 're not there yet because , well , we 're just not there yet .
But it IS coming.People really need to get their heads around this and contemplate the sheer magnitude of change this world is facing.Now I 'm not saying that " stories " are going to die , or that fiction / non-fiction , etc... will die , but I do believe the distribution of these stories is changing and will continue to change until books have become obsolete .
Have you ever read a good book of fiction ?
What if the author could offer a multitude of variations of their works ?
Children 's version , adult version , alternate ending... the opportunities are truly limitless , once you get past the notion of a " forever set in stone " story.Bottom Line : = = = = = = = = = = News happens every second .
Information changes more frequently than the archaic information distribution methods are able to keep up with .
We live in a 1-second world now .
If your site/publication/document/application can not update itself at high interval , or be updated at high interval , that site/publication/document/application is to soon be as extinct as a dinosaur.Those that can... they will succeed .
Those that ca n't... well...I really think that the most fundamental problem these industries are facing right now is a lack of imagination on what they can really do/provide/offer.Get out of the box people ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is simple.
Newspapers get updated ?daily?
at most?We don't live in that world anymore.
Newspapers are going to die as the aging population who still hold onto them pass on.This is true of ANY media source.When was the last time you read an encyclopedia?
Wikipedia anyone?
Why is that?
Could it be that WP is actually updated and maintained on a regular basis?
That the relevance of the material is pertinent to its readership... right NOW?
Imagine opening a 6-month old encyclopedia and looking up Haiti.
No links, no pertinent news, nothing.
Just old news.Books...  well, we'll have the classics.
But do you really see the book trend continuing?
Take college for an example.
Right now, you buy an accounting book, published in 2008, 2009, or 2010...  You attend class, and everyone in that class has the same book, by the same author.
But there are 400 other books on Accounting out there.
Some might have better content on a given subject than the author of your chosen book does.
What then?
Buy two books?
No.  The answer is in plain sight.
The "Accounting Wiki" or something similar, where all these authors contribute to the depth/breadth of it.
We're not there yet because, well, we're just not there yet.
But it IS coming.People really need to get their heads around this and contemplate the sheer magnitude of change this world is facing.Now I'm not saying that "stories" are going to die, or that fiction / non-fiction, etc... will die, but I do believe the distribution of these stories is changing and will continue to change until books have become obsolete.
Have you ever read a good book of fiction?
What if the author could offer a multitude of variations of their works?
Children's version, adult version, alternate ending...  the opportunities are truly limitless, once you get past the notion of a "forever set in stone" story.Bottom Line:==========News happens every second.
Information changes more frequently than the archaic information distribution methods are able to keep up with.
We live in a 1-second world now.
If your site/publication/document/application cannot update itself at high interval, or be updated at high interval, that site/publication/document/application is to soon be as extinct as a dinosaur.Those that can... they will succeed.
Those that can't... well...I really think that the most fundamental problem these industries are facing right now is a lack of imagination on what they can really do/provide/offer.Get out of the box people!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30924948</id>
	<title>Laugh...</title>
	<author>TDyl</author>
	<datestamp>1264587840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I almost poohed and peed myself.<br> <br>
Oh well, I guess big businessis doing well this hour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost poohed and peed myself .
Oh well , I guess big businessis doing well this hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost poohed and peed myself.
Oh well, I guess big businessis doing well this hour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920128</id>
	<title>Irony and audacity</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1264618620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm being fed information, tailored to an agenda (a.k.a propaganda) and they want me to pay for it?  First of all, for example, the BBC News website, has so many grammatical errors it's infuriating and doesn't lend well to trying to squash the racism towards people from India (as it's probably knee jerk reaction to assume ENGLAND could only make such gross errors in ENGLISH that they must be outsourcing their translations/editorial processes... and India is often hand in hand with 'outsourcing'.)  On BBC News website, it's so bad, no article on that site lacks a grotesque grammatical error, most of the articles have at least three; the larger the article, the more you'll find.  Go take a look, actually read one from start to finish if you can muster it.</p><p>So, BBC... a large news outlet, probably getting most of their content from AP, and how might we respect their efforts when they care so little of it themselves to outsource their editorial process to someone who can't speak, read or write English?  I've since stopped looking at BBC because I can't stomach the errors in their articles, and find it difficult to lend authority to their articles in light of their carelessness.  But BBC News is not the only one at fault, in spite of their inability to write in English, they aren't as bad as say CNN or Fox News when it comes to blatant propaganda and slanted views.  I stopped reading and respecting anything from Fox News over 10 years ago, their reports are so engineered and fabricated that only Jerry Springer could make them any more ridiculous and further from the truth.</p><p>Bottom line, the primary reason I endeavor to learn a foreign language is to gain access to non-English based news outlets.  Something outside of News Corporation or APs reach.  Something a bit more raw, truthful and as a result authoritative.  Some of the Russian news seem to be much more accurate, but most importantly, I prefer a third world language... where their news sources are in now way in the stream of Western engineered crap.</p><p>So not only are the news outlets in America bullshit, fabricated much of the time (aka fibs, stories, lies, totally made up, filler), geared towards make people scared and pampering people from the realities and real horrors overseas (re, Isreal/Palestine)... They want us to pay for this shit?  Might I remind the people that services like CBS/NBC/ABC were made free because Radio and Television was a means to have news freely available and ultimately accessible to EVERYONE.  Television wasn't a goal to put Real World on the air, it was a means to network the entire nation with information.</p><p>I digress, it is today what it is.  But I'm still not going to pay for propaganda, so any news outlet written in English or  will get their money when they suck it from my ass (Thanks Paulie!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm being fed information , tailored to an agenda ( a.k.a propaganda ) and they want me to pay for it ?
First of all , for example , the BBC News website , has so many grammatical errors it 's infuriating and does n't lend well to trying to squash the racism towards people from India ( as it 's probably knee jerk reaction to assume ENGLAND could only make such gross errors in ENGLISH that they must be outsourcing their translations/editorial processes... and India is often hand in hand with 'outsourcing' .
) On BBC News website , it 's so bad , no article on that site lacks a grotesque grammatical error , most of the articles have at least three ; the larger the article , the more you 'll find .
Go take a look , actually read one from start to finish if you can muster it.So , BBC... a large news outlet , probably getting most of their content from AP , and how might we respect their efforts when they care so little of it themselves to outsource their editorial process to someone who ca n't speak , read or write English ?
I 've since stopped looking at BBC because I ca n't stomach the errors in their articles , and find it difficult to lend authority to their articles in light of their carelessness .
But BBC News is not the only one at fault , in spite of their inability to write in English , they are n't as bad as say CNN or Fox News when it comes to blatant propaganda and slanted views .
I stopped reading and respecting anything from Fox News over 10 years ago , their reports are so engineered and fabricated that only Jerry Springer could make them any more ridiculous and further from the truth.Bottom line , the primary reason I endeavor to learn a foreign language is to gain access to non-English based news outlets .
Something outside of News Corporation or APs reach .
Something a bit more raw , truthful and as a result authoritative .
Some of the Russian news seem to be much more accurate , but most importantly , I prefer a third world language... where their news sources are in now way in the stream of Western engineered crap.So not only are the news outlets in America bullshit , fabricated much of the time ( aka fibs , stories , lies , totally made up , filler ) , geared towards make people scared and pampering people from the realities and real horrors overseas ( re , Isreal/Palestine ) ... They want us to pay for this shit ?
Might I remind the people that services like CBS/NBC/ABC were made free because Radio and Television was a means to have news freely available and ultimately accessible to EVERYONE .
Television was n't a goal to put Real World on the air , it was a means to network the entire nation with information.I digress , it is today what it is .
But I 'm still not going to pay for propaganda , so any news outlet written in English or will get their money when they suck it from my ass ( Thanks Paulie !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm being fed information, tailored to an agenda (a.k.a propaganda) and they want me to pay for it?
First of all, for example, the BBC News website, has so many grammatical errors it's infuriating and doesn't lend well to trying to squash the racism towards people from India (as it's probably knee jerk reaction to assume ENGLAND could only make such gross errors in ENGLISH that they must be outsourcing their translations/editorial processes... and India is often hand in hand with 'outsourcing'.
)  On BBC News website, it's so bad, no article on that site lacks a grotesque grammatical error, most of the articles have at least three; the larger the article, the more you'll find.
Go take a look, actually read one from start to finish if you can muster it.So, BBC... a large news outlet, probably getting most of their content from AP, and how might we respect their efforts when they care so little of it themselves to outsource their editorial process to someone who can't speak, read or write English?
I've since stopped looking at BBC because I can't stomach the errors in their articles, and find it difficult to lend authority to their articles in light of their carelessness.
But BBC News is not the only one at fault, in spite of their inability to write in English, they aren't as bad as say CNN or Fox News when it comes to blatant propaganda and slanted views.
I stopped reading and respecting anything from Fox News over 10 years ago, their reports are so engineered and fabricated that only Jerry Springer could make them any more ridiculous and further from the truth.Bottom line, the primary reason I endeavor to learn a foreign language is to gain access to non-English based news outlets.
Something outside of News Corporation or APs reach.
Something a bit more raw, truthful and as a result authoritative.
Some of the Russian news seem to be much more accurate, but most importantly, I prefer a third world language... where their news sources are in now way in the stream of Western engineered crap.So not only are the news outlets in America bullshit, fabricated much of the time (aka fibs, stories, lies, totally made up, filler), geared towards make people scared and pampering people from the realities and real horrors overseas (re, Isreal/Palestine)... They want us to pay for this shit?
Might I remind the people that services like CBS/NBC/ABC were made free because Radio and Television was a means to have news freely available and ultimately accessible to EVERYONE.
Television wasn't a goal to put Real World on the air, it was a means to network the entire nation with information.I digress, it is today what it is.
But I'm still not going to pay for propaganda, so any news outlet written in English or  will get their money when they suck it from my ass (Thanks Paulie!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30925448</id>
	<title>Basic math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264589400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do 35 subscribers paying $5 per week since October (16 weeks) add up to earning $9000.</p><p>My calculator says 35 * $5 * 16 = $2800</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do 35 subscribers paying $ 5 per week since October ( 16 weeks ) add up to earning $ 9000.My calculator says 35 * $ 5 * 16 = $ 2800</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do 35 subscribers paying $5 per week since October (16 weeks) add up to earning $9000.My calculator says 35 * $5 * 16 = $2800</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918718</id>
	<title>$260 a year!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$5 a week is way more than I've ever paid for a real newspaper printed on dead trees. How much do they charge for a year's subscription to the printed edition? $1,000? No wonder they only have 35 subscribers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 5 a week is way more than I 've ever paid for a real newspaper printed on dead trees .
How much do they charge for a year 's subscription to the printed edition ?
$ 1,000 ? No wonder they only have 35 subscribers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$5 a week is way more than I've ever paid for a real newspaper printed on dead trees.
How much do they charge for a year's subscription to the printed edition?
$1,000? No wonder they only have 35 subscribers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917800</id>
	<title>Oh Pay Me Baby One More Time!</title>
	<author>Van Cutter Romney</author>
	<datestamp>1264609680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Face it, with Newsday, NY Times going to the pay to read model and with the rest of News Corp papers doing the same I think this is the direction the rest of the industry is headed. Though I believe a simpler way to pay would be to have an aggregator like Google charge us for the news and distribute the revenues to the individual content providers whenever I click on the feeds. At the same time, if I prefer to go freebie, I would get the same (but lower quality?) news from one of the other sources all grouped under the same subject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Face it , with Newsday , NY Times going to the pay to read model and with the rest of News Corp papers doing the same I think this is the direction the rest of the industry is headed .
Though I believe a simpler way to pay would be to have an aggregator like Google charge us for the news and distribute the revenues to the individual content providers whenever I click on the feeds .
At the same time , if I prefer to go freebie , I would get the same ( but lower quality ?
) news from one of the other sources all grouped under the same subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Face it, with Newsday, NY Times going to the pay to read model and with the rest of News Corp papers doing the same I think this is the direction the rest of the industry is headed.
Though I believe a simpler way to pay would be to have an aggregator like Google charge us for the news and distribute the revenues to the individual content providers whenever I click on the feeds.
At the same time, if I prefer to go freebie, I would get the same (but lower quality?
) news from one of the other sources all grouped under the same subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921934</id>
	<title>News has no value</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264623300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Journalists have no values these days. Most reporting is full of yellow journalism, scaremongering or reads like a company press release.
<br> <br>
I have no time for low grade news stories create by some guy who thinks he'll change the world thanks to his useless degree in journalism which, in my opinion, holds the same value as the free watch I got in Golden Grahams ages ago.
<br> <br>
Perhaps it's time to get a second job stacking shelves if writing press releases is not paying the bills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalists have no values these days .
Most reporting is full of yellow journalism , scaremongering or reads like a company press release .
I have no time for low grade news stories create by some guy who thinks he 'll change the world thanks to his useless degree in journalism which , in my opinion , holds the same value as the free watch I got in Golden Grahams ages ago .
Perhaps it 's time to get a second job stacking shelves if writing press releases is not paying the bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalists have no values these days.
Most reporting is full of yellow journalism, scaremongering or reads like a company press release.
I have no time for low grade news stories create by some guy who thinks he'll change the world thanks to his useless degree in journalism which, in my opinion, holds the same value as the free watch I got in Golden Grahams ages ago.
Perhaps it's time to get a second job stacking shelves if writing press releases is not paying the bills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918140</id>
	<title>They want how much?</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1264610880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$260 a year for access to a B-list newspaper site? Really? The Wall Street Journal online only is $110/year ant they're <b>The Wall Street Journal</b>. </p><p>Good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 260 a year for access to a B-list newspaper site ?
Really ? The Wall Street Journal online only is $ 110/year ant they 're The Wall Street Journal .
Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$260 a year for access to a B-list newspaper site?
Really? The Wall Street Journal online only is $110/year ant they're The Wall Street Journal.
Good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919866</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1264617360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, though, they have been saving a crapload on bandwidth costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , though , they have been saving a crapload on bandwidth costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, though, they have been saving a crapload on bandwidth costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920638</id>
	<title>Re:I'll pay for the news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Give me investigative journalism that is reasonably unbiased and you have a lifetime subscriber.</p></div><p>So, how many media sources do you currently have a lifetime subscription to?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me investigative journalism that is reasonably unbiased and you have a lifetime subscriber.So , how many media sources do you currently have a lifetime subscription to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me investigative journalism that is reasonably unbiased and you have a lifetime subscriber.So, how many media sources do you currently have a lifetime subscription to?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918158</id>
	<title>Re:strange numbers</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1264610940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would guess that advertising dollars were factored in (did you think they would remove advertising just because you are paying them?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would guess that advertising dollars were factored in ( did you think they would remove advertising just because you are paying them ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would guess that advertising dollars were factored in (did you think they would remove advertising just because you are paying them?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917874</id>
	<title>Re:$5 a week? How much for a dead-wood version?</title>
	<author>Jhon</author>
	<datestamp>1264609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Access to the "electronic" version is included with the "dead wood" subscription price.  RTA.  It enlightening.  The "35 subscribers" is kind of misleading.  It's more like 90k subscribers when you include paper subscribers and the local cable company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Access to the " electronic " version is included with the " dead wood " subscription price .
RTA. It enlightening .
The " 35 subscribers " is kind of misleading .
It 's more like 90k subscribers when you include paper subscribers and the local cable company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Access to the "electronic" version is included with the "dead wood" subscription price.
RTA.  It enlightening.
The "35 subscribers" is kind of misleading.
It's more like 90k subscribers when you include paper subscribers and the local cable company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917760</id>
	<title>Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>cain</author>
	<datestamp>1264609500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the article (I know, I know) you'll discover that 75\% of the people in the region already have access to the site via package deals:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Of course, there are a few caveats. Anyone who has a newspaper subscription is allowed free access; anyone who has Optimum Cable, which is owned by the Dolans and Cablevision, also gets it free. Newsday representatives claim that 75 percent of Long Island either has a subscription or Optimum Cable."</p></div></blockquote><p>So it's actually surprising that 35 people did sign up for it. I'm guessing they are people that moved from Long Island to other places and, for whatever reason, miss reading Newsday. I know it's popular to scream that newspapers are dying, but this is not really a story that supports that supposition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the article ( I know , I know ) you 'll discover that 75 \ % of the people in the region already have access to the site via package deals : " Of course , there are a few caveats .
Anyone who has a newspaper subscription is allowed free access ; anyone who has Optimum Cable , which is owned by the Dolans and Cablevision , also gets it free .
Newsday representatives claim that 75 percent of Long Island either has a subscription or Optimum Cable .
" So it 's actually surprising that 35 people did sign up for it .
I 'm guessing they are people that moved from Long Island to other places and , for whatever reason , miss reading Newsday .
I know it 's popular to scream that newspapers are dying , but this is not really a story that supports that supposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the article (I know, I know) you'll discover that 75\% of the people in the region already have access to the site via package deals:"Of course, there are a few caveats.
Anyone who has a newspaper subscription is allowed free access; anyone who has Optimum Cable, which is owned by the Dolans and Cablevision, also gets it free.
Newsday representatives claim that 75 percent of Long Island either has a subscription or Optimum Cable.
"So it's actually surprising that 35 people did sign up for it.
I'm guessing they are people that moved from Long Island to other places and, for whatever reason, miss reading Newsday.
I know it's popular to scream that newspapers are dying, but this is not really a story that supports that supposition.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917996</id>
	<title>Worst businessman ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264610400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we put this Jimenez guy up for worst businessman ever? So they underwent a reform that cost FOUR MILLION DOLLARS, and they got 35 subscribers which was 35 more than they expected. So they spent $4 million in anticipation of 0 customers? Huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we put this Jimenez guy up for worst businessman ever ?
So they underwent a reform that cost FOUR MILLION DOLLARS , and they got 35 subscribers which was 35 more than they expected .
So they spent $ 4 million in anticipation of 0 customers ?
Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we put this Jimenez guy up for worst businessman ever?
So they underwent a reform that cost FOUR MILLION DOLLARS, and they got 35 subscribers which was 35 more than they expected.
So they spent $4 million in anticipation of 0 customers?
Huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921496</id>
	<title>Re:They want how much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they used to be the Wall Street Journal before Murdoch bought them.  Now...now the name doesn't mean the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they used to be the Wall Street Journal before Murdoch bought them .
Now...now the name does n't mean the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they used to be the Wall Street Journal before Murdoch bought them.
Now...now the name doesn't mean the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917822</id>
	<title>Newsday isn't the New York Times</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1264609800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't extrapolate this to the NYT. Newsday doesn't have the same journalistic creds as the New York Times. A comparison with the Wall Street Journal would be more apt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't extrapolate this to the NYT .
Newsday does n't have the same journalistic creds as the New York Times .
A comparison with the Wall Street Journal would be more apt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't extrapolate this to the NYT.
Newsday doesn't have the same journalistic creds as the New York Times.
A comparison with the Wall Street Journal would be more apt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922470</id>
	<title>Re:What's the solution?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264624500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the demand for content in increasing.  15 years ago, not everyone had an AP feed into their homes.  We do today because of the Internet.  Our local Paper, the St. Louis Post-dispatch, used to have a lot of sections and a decent financial section.  I remember reading it every day growing up as a kid.  But over the past 10 years, the paper has been getting thinner and thinner.  The last major investigation story worth a darn was in 2004 or 2005 when they did a 5 part expose on how corrupt the local fire districts were.  That kept me from canceling the paper for another year, but then they followed it up with nothing.  Just more reprinting AP stories I had read online the day before and the paper continued to shrink.</p><p>Helen, the old lady that covers the white house, had a book about this about eight years ago.  Newspaper circulation goes down, so what does the newspaper do?  They cut the newsroom and print more wire articles because the newsroom is expensive and for a while it makes the balance sheet look good again.  But then there is lack of local reporting and then more people stop subscribing and what happens....they cut from the news room again and the cycle continues.</p><p>So I cancelled and bought a subscription to The Economist.  Which gives me a pretty good overview of what is going on in all corners of the global on monday and read the major articles of interest then I continued to read through the magazine throughout the week and reading the less interesting articles (to me anyway) as I have time.  It's great at keeping me informed on what is going on around the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the demand for content in increasing .
15 years ago , not everyone had an AP feed into their homes .
We do today because of the Internet .
Our local Paper , the St. Louis Post-dispatch , used to have a lot of sections and a decent financial section .
I remember reading it every day growing up as a kid .
But over the past 10 years , the paper has been getting thinner and thinner .
The last major investigation story worth a darn was in 2004 or 2005 when they did a 5 part expose on how corrupt the local fire districts were .
That kept me from canceling the paper for another year , but then they followed it up with nothing .
Just more reprinting AP stories I had read online the day before and the paper continued to shrink.Helen , the old lady that covers the white house , had a book about this about eight years ago .
Newspaper circulation goes down , so what does the newspaper do ?
They cut the newsroom and print more wire articles because the newsroom is expensive and for a while it makes the balance sheet look good again .
But then there is lack of local reporting and then more people stop subscribing and what happens....they cut from the news room again and the cycle continues.So I cancelled and bought a subscription to The Economist .
Which gives me a pretty good overview of what is going on in all corners of the global on monday and read the major articles of interest then I continued to read through the magazine throughout the week and reading the less interesting articles ( to me anyway ) as I have time .
It 's great at keeping me informed on what is going on around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the demand for content in increasing.
15 years ago, not everyone had an AP feed into their homes.
We do today because of the Internet.
Our local Paper, the St. Louis Post-dispatch, used to have a lot of sections and a decent financial section.
I remember reading it every day growing up as a kid.
But over the past 10 years, the paper has been getting thinner and thinner.
The last major investigation story worth a darn was in 2004 or 2005 when they did a 5 part expose on how corrupt the local fire districts were.
That kept me from canceling the paper for another year, but then they followed it up with nothing.
Just more reprinting AP stories I had read online the day before and the paper continued to shrink.Helen, the old lady that covers the white house, had a book about this about eight years ago.
Newspaper circulation goes down, so what does the newspaper do?
They cut the newsroom and print more wire articles because the newsroom is expensive and for a while it makes the balance sheet look good again.
But then there is lack of local reporting and then more people stop subscribing and what happens....they cut from the news room again and the cycle continues.So I cancelled and bought a subscription to The Economist.
Which gives me a pretty good overview of what is going on in all corners of the global on monday and read the major articles of interest then I continued to read through the magazine throughout the week and reading the less interesting articles (to me anyway) as I have time.
It's great at keeping me informed on what is going on around the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919184</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>b00le</author>
	<datestamp>1264614780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting to see what happens at New Scientist. They are only letting non-subscribers see 7 articles a month -- essentially nil, since it's a weekly magazine. It's really expensive, especially if you don't live in the UK. There's no web-only subscription (I wrote and asked: they recommended the digital version of the magazine but that doesn't seem to come with a subscription to the site...). Now, this is the second time they've tried this. I don't know how long the first one lasted: I went away and came back one day to find they'd given up on it. This time I'll be able to see when they quit because the protection is reeeeally easy to defeat and I'm using the site as much as I ever did....

I don't know what the answer is. The day pass that Salon used to use was fine with me: I didn't have to watch the ads, that were never for anything I'd want, in fact I never pay any attention at all to advertising, because I have very little disposable income.... But whatever the solution to paying for content is, it's not going to be an accountant or 'manager' who figures it out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting to see what happens at New Scientist .
They are only letting non-subscribers see 7 articles a month -- essentially nil , since it 's a weekly magazine .
It 's really expensive , especially if you do n't live in the UK .
There 's no web-only subscription ( I wrote and asked : they recommended the digital version of the magazine but that does n't seem to come with a subscription to the site... ) .
Now , this is the second time they 've tried this .
I do n't know how long the first one lasted : I went away and came back one day to find they 'd given up on it .
This time I 'll be able to see when they quit because the protection is reeeeally easy to defeat and I 'm using the site as much as I ever did... . I do n't know what the answer is .
The day pass that Salon used to use was fine with me : I did n't have to watch the ads , that were never for anything I 'd want , in fact I never pay any attention at all to advertising , because I have very little disposable income.... But whatever the solution to paying for content is , it 's not going to be an accountant or 'manager ' who figures it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting to see what happens at New Scientist.
They are only letting non-subscribers see 7 articles a month -- essentially nil, since it's a weekly magazine.
It's really expensive, especially if you don't live in the UK.
There's no web-only subscription (I wrote and asked: they recommended the digital version of the magazine but that doesn't seem to come with a subscription to the site...).
Now, this is the second time they've tried this.
I don't know how long the first one lasted: I went away and came back one day to find they'd given up on it.
This time I'll be able to see when they quit because the protection is reeeeally easy to defeat and I'm using the site as much as I ever did....

I don't know what the answer is.
The day pass that Salon used to use was fine with me: I didn't have to watch the ads, that were never for anything I'd want, in fact I never pay any attention at all to advertising, because I have very little disposable income.... But whatever the solution to paying for content is, it's not going to be an accountant or 'manager' who figures it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919798</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So it's actually surprising that 35 people did sign up for it. I'm guessing they are people that moved from Long Island to other places and, for whatever reason, miss reading Newsday. I know it's popular to scream that newspapers are dying, but this is not really a story that supports that supposition.</i> <br>
<br>
Or people on the island who have Verizon FIOS instead of Optimum Online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's actually surprising that 35 people did sign up for it .
I 'm guessing they are people that moved from Long Island to other places and , for whatever reason , miss reading Newsday .
I know it 's popular to scream that newspapers are dying , but this is not really a story that supports that supposition .
Or people on the island who have Verizon FIOS instead of Optimum Online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's actually surprising that 35 people did sign up for it.
I'm guessing they are people that moved from Long Island to other places and, for whatever reason, miss reading Newsday.
I know it's popular to scream that newspapers are dying, but this is not really a story that supports that supposition.
Or people on the island who have Verizon FIOS instead of Optimum Online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918428</id>
	<title>Re:$5 a week? How much for a dead-wood version?</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1264612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is just wrongful.</p><p>The whole point of trash collection is to keep it from accumulating so the next Black Death doesn't happen.</p><p>Sometimes I think politicians should be bludgeoned with history books until some of it starts to seep in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is just wrongful.The whole point of trash collection is to keep it from accumulating so the next Black Death does n't happen.Sometimes I think politicians should be bludgeoned with history books until some of it starts to seep in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is just wrongful.The whole point of trash collection is to keep it from accumulating so the next Black Death doesn't happen.Sometimes I think politicians should be bludgeoned with history books until some of it starts to seep in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919142</id>
	<title>Re:$5 a week? How much for a dead-wood version?</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1264614660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jeez, garbage nazis! It's common here to sneak bricks and rubble into our 70L wheelie-bins. If the rubbish-collectors complain, we just say it's the little old lady next door, and if she can cope with the weight, why can't they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeez , garbage nazis !
It 's common here to sneak bricks and rubble into our 70L wheelie-bins .
If the rubbish-collectors complain , we just say it 's the little old lady next door , and if she can cope with the weight , why ca n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeez, garbage nazis!
It's common here to sneak bricks and rubble into our 70L wheelie-bins.
If the rubbish-collectors complain, we just say it's the little old lady next door, and if she can cope with the weight, why can't they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918306</id>
	<title>Re:strange numbers</title>
	<author>elysiana</author>
	<datestamp>1264611540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *think* they're saying that number is based on one year - they mentioned something about it being "$5 a week, or $260 a year" so they may be assuming these people will go the whole year - or perhaps they have already paid for the full year.</p><p>5$/week * 35 subscribers * 52 weeks DOES equal ~9000$</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * think * they 're saying that number is based on one year - they mentioned something about it being " $ 5 a week , or $ 260 a year " so they may be assuming these people will go the whole year - or perhaps they have already paid for the full year.5 $ /week * 35 subscribers * 52 weeks DOES equal ~ 9000 $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *think* they're saying that number is based on one year - they mentioned something about it being "$5 a week, or $260 a year" so they may be assuming these people will go the whole year - or perhaps they have already paid for the full year.5$/week * 35 subscribers * 52 weeks DOES equal ~9000$</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918016</id>
	<title>I'd pay .... only if there were no free sites</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1264610460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. but since there are (and the "quality" of news reports is equally low on all of them), then there's really no reason.
<p>
Before making a website pay-only, the producer really has to ask: what's the market?, not "what's this service worth? So long as the rest of the market requires no payment, there's not a hope in hell of getting any significant customer base. The only chance you might, possibly, have is to somehow change the market you're in. Going from a news service - of which there are many: all the same, to an analysis or insider site might <b>just</b> do it, but I doubt that many people would recognise the distinction.
</p><p>
As it is, this site has got one very valuable asset that few other websites have: a list of people willing to pay good money for something that everyone else gets for free. That's gotta be worth a fortune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. but since there are ( and the " quality " of news reports is equally low on all of them ) , then there 's really no reason .
Before making a website pay-only , the producer really has to ask : what 's the market ? , not " what 's this service worth ?
So long as the rest of the market requires no payment , there 's not a hope in hell of getting any significant customer base .
The only chance you might , possibly , have is to somehow change the market you 're in .
Going from a news service - of which there are many : all the same , to an analysis or insider site might just do it , but I doubt that many people would recognise the distinction .
As it is , this site has got one very valuable asset that few other websites have : a list of people willing to pay good money for something that everyone else gets for free .
That 's got ta be worth a fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. but since there are (and the "quality" of news reports is equally low on all of them), then there's really no reason.
Before making a website pay-only, the producer really has to ask: what's the market?, not "what's this service worth?
So long as the rest of the market requires no payment, there's not a hope in hell of getting any significant customer base.
The only chance you might, possibly, have is to somehow change the market you're in.
Going from a news service - of which there are many: all the same, to an analysis or insider site might just do it, but I doubt that many people would recognise the distinction.
As it is, this site has got one very valuable asset that few other websites have: a list of people willing to pay good money for something that everyone else gets for free.
That's gotta be worth a fortune.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700</id>
	<title>strange numbers</title>
	<author>jandoedel</author>
	<datestamp>1264609320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>5$/week * 35 subscribers * 15 weeks = 9000$ ??</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 $ /week * 35 subscribers * 15 weeks = 9000 $ ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5$/week * 35 subscribers * 15 weeks = 9000$ ?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919346</id>
	<title>Re:For the record,</title>
	<author>Princeofcups</author>
	<datestamp>1264615440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the record, they sell access to the web site for $5 per week, while they sell the paper for $4.50 including access to the web site. Basically those 35 subscribers are paying 50 cents per day to not get the paper delivered. They also give free access to all people who subscribe to the local cable provider -- which is a lot of people for the local paper.</p><p>Plus it's Newsday.....</p></div><p>Which lends credence to the idea that the subscribers are just rival newspapers, not real customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , they sell access to the web site for $ 5 per week , while they sell the paper for $ 4.50 including access to the web site .
Basically those 35 subscribers are paying 50 cents per day to not get the paper delivered .
They also give free access to all people who subscribe to the local cable provider -- which is a lot of people for the local paper.Plus it 's Newsday.....Which lends credence to the idea that the subscribers are just rival newspapers , not real customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, they sell access to the web site for $5 per week, while they sell the paper for $4.50 including access to the web site.
Basically those 35 subscribers are paying 50 cents per day to not get the paper delivered.
They also give free access to all people who subscribe to the local cable provider -- which is a lot of people for the local paper.Plus it's Newsday.....Which lends credence to the idea that the subscribers are just rival newspapers, not real customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918680</id>
	<title>explain this fuzzy math to me please</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1264612860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how exactly does $5 a week for three months from 35 people equal $9000?</p><p>by my calculations, that's $2100 total.</p><p>why are they charging more than cover price for their crap website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how exactly does $ 5 a week for three months from 35 people equal $ 9000 ? by my calculations , that 's $ 2100 total.why are they charging more than cover price for their crap website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how exactly does $5 a week for three months from 35 people equal $9000?by my calculations, that's $2100 total.why are they charging more than cover price for their crap website?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917994</id>
	<title>Newpapers Have to Deliver Quality</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1264610400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As others have mentioned, the Wall Street Journal makes money even requiring people to pay for online access. So does the Economist. I think the real issue here is the quality of the content.
<p>
Read a regular newpaper story in an area where you're an expert. Notice how sloppy they are? How careless with the facts? People have complained about this for ages, but there wasn't much you could do about it. Most communities only had one or two papers to choose from.
</p><p>
Today, though, there's a huge market in online news, and, for the most part, the market seems to have set the price at "free." (That's free as in beer, of course.) It is difficult for me to believe that the market has got the price wrong. (Again, with a few exceptions.)
</p><p>
--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned , the Wall Street Journal makes money even requiring people to pay for online access .
So does the Economist .
I think the real issue here is the quality of the content .
Read a regular newpaper story in an area where you 're an expert .
Notice how sloppy they are ?
How careless with the facts ?
People have complained about this for ages , but there was n't much you could do about it .
Most communities only had one or two papers to choose from .
Today , though , there 's a huge market in online news , and , for the most part , the market seems to have set the price at " free .
" ( That 's free as in beer , of course .
) It is difficult for me to believe that the market has got the price wrong .
( Again , with a few exceptions .
) --Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned, the Wall Street Journal makes money even requiring people to pay for online access.
So does the Economist.
I think the real issue here is the quality of the content.
Read a regular newpaper story in an area where you're an expert.
Notice how sloppy they are?
How careless with the facts?
People have complained about this for ages, but there wasn't much you could do about it.
Most communities only had one or two papers to choose from.
Today, though, there's a huge market in online news, and, for the most part, the market seems to have set the price at "free.
" (That's free as in beer, of course.
) It is difficult for me to believe that the market has got the price wrong.
(Again, with a few exceptions.
)

--Greg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917948</id>
	<title>Re:Abomination?</title>
	<author>AndyAndyAndyAndy</author>
	<datestamp>1264610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should have seen it before they "settled" on the white background and made the text black-on-white...
Seems the wayback machine found it too horrible to archive, but here's the "before" to the current redesign's "after":
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080513191349/http://www.newsday.com/" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20080513191349/http://www.newsday.com/</a> [archive.org]
(Beware! stop loading after you can see it... some crazy scripts there)

Anyway, I think a lot of people are feeling insulted by the all-lowercase format on a newspaper site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have seen it before they " settled " on the white background and made the text black-on-white.. . Seems the wayback machine found it too horrible to archive , but here 's the " before " to the current redesign 's " after " : http : //web.archive.org/web/20080513191349/http : //www.newsday.com/ [ archive.org ] ( Beware !
stop loading after you can see it... some crazy scripts there ) Anyway , I think a lot of people are feeling insulted by the all-lowercase format on a newspaper site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have seen it before they "settled" on the white background and made the text black-on-white...
Seems the wayback machine found it too horrible to archive, but here's the "before" to the current redesign's "after":
http://web.archive.org/web/20080513191349/http://www.newsday.com/ [archive.org]
(Beware!
stop loading after you can see it... some crazy scripts there)

Anyway, I think a lot of people are feeling insulted by the all-lowercase format on a newspaper site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918198</id>
	<title>35 x $5 x ?weeks = $9000?  No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264611060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't add up.  There have been only ~14 weeks since "late October" (~$2450), but the math implies a year (almost 52 weeks).  Are they already hoping  their 35 subscribers stay for a year, so that it's actually a <i>projected</i> annual revenue of $9000/yr?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't add up .
There have been only ~ 14 weeks since " late October " ( ~ $ 2450 ) , but the math implies a year ( almost 52 weeks ) .
Are they already hoping their 35 subscribers stay for a year , so that it 's actually a projected annual revenue of $ 9000/yr ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't add up.
There have been only ~14 weeks since "late October" (~$2450), but the math implies a year (almost 52 weeks).
Are they already hoping  their 35 subscribers stay for a year, so that it's actually a projected annual revenue of $9000/yr?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920124</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It cost them millions of dollars to put up a paywall that only gets them 35 subscribers.  Without they paywall, they'd have lost the revenue of those 35 subscribers, but would have not had to bear the costs of the paywall, and likely would had a larger distribution which would have generated value in advertising and influence.</p><p>So the paywall has a huge net cost in dollars, and has made them all but invisible outside of the Long Island market.  To the degree this is a story about newspapers dying, it is because it highlights the dinosaur leadership that takes a bad situation and makes it worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It cost them millions of dollars to put up a paywall that only gets them 35 subscribers .
Without they paywall , they 'd have lost the revenue of those 35 subscribers , but would have not had to bear the costs of the paywall , and likely would had a larger distribution which would have generated value in advertising and influence.So the paywall has a huge net cost in dollars , and has made them all but invisible outside of the Long Island market .
To the degree this is a story about newspapers dying , it is because it highlights the dinosaur leadership that takes a bad situation and makes it worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cost them millions of dollars to put up a paywall that only gets them 35 subscribers.
Without they paywall, they'd have lost the revenue of those 35 subscribers, but would have not had to bear the costs of the paywall, and likely would had a larger distribution which would have generated value in advertising and influence.So the paywall has a huge net cost in dollars, and has made them all but invisible outside of the Long Island market.
To the degree this is a story about newspapers dying, it is because it highlights the dinosaur leadership that takes a bad situation and makes it worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922756</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>Limburgher</author>
	<datestamp>1264625160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why I read Newsweek.  It's slower than the tubes, but the writing, both in the big stories and the columnists, is top notch.  I miss Anna Quindlen, though,</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I read Newsweek .
It 's slower than the tubes , but the writing , both in the big stories and the columnists , is top notch .
I miss Anna Quindlen , though,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I read Newsweek.
It's slower than the tubes, but the writing, both in the big stories and the columnists, is top notch.
I miss Anna Quindlen, though,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917924</id>
	<title>Article glosses over an important fact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264610160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's important to note that Newsday.com is provided free of charge to Newsday print customers as well as customers of Cablevision's Optimum Online internet service - which (according to statistics in TFA) accounts for over 75\% of Newsday's demographic: Long Island residents.
Most everyone I know uses Cablevision's internet (it's a local company), it's the cheapest and fastest.  They've been laying fiber all over Long Island for *years*.
The poster did not include this important fact, which pretty much explains the low number of subscriptions as well as the quote: "That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been,'"</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to note that Newsday.com is provided free of charge to Newsday print customers as well as customers of Cablevision 's Optimum Online internet service - which ( according to statistics in TFA ) accounts for over 75 \ % of Newsday 's demographic : Long Island residents .
Most everyone I know uses Cablevision 's internet ( it 's a local company ) , it 's the cheapest and fastest .
They 've been laying fiber all over Long Island for * years * .
The poster did not include this important fact , which pretty much explains the low number of subscriptions as well as the quote : " That 's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been, ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to note that Newsday.com is provided free of charge to Newsday print customers as well as customers of Cablevision's Optimum Online internet service - which (according to statistics in TFA) accounts for over 75\% of Newsday's demographic: Long Island residents.
Most everyone I know uses Cablevision's internet (it's a local company), it's the cheapest and fastest.
They've been laying fiber all over Long Island for *years*.
The poster did not include this important fact, which pretty much explains the low number of subscriptions as well as the quote: "That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been,'"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638</id>
	<title>Alternative way in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Horrible business model aside... it should be noted that anyone with Optimum Online (cablevision's ISP, basically the only cable ISP on Long Island) can access Newsday for free. (Newsday is owned by Cablevision.)

So it's not like 35 people are "subscribed"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... 35 people are paying extra for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Horrible business model aside... it should be noted that anyone with Optimum Online ( cablevision 's ISP , basically the only cable ISP on Long Island ) can access Newsday for free .
( Newsday is owned by Cablevision .
) So it 's not like 35 people are " subscribed " .... 35 people are paying extra for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Horrible business model aside... it should be noted that anyone with Optimum Online (cablevision's ISP, basically the only cable ISP on Long Island) can access Newsday for free.
(Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
)

So it's not like 35 people are "subscribed" .... 35 people are paying extra for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918500</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative way in</title>
	<author>IP\_Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1264612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>mod parent up.<br> <br>This isn't about paid subscriptions as much as it is about maintaining a regional lock on ISP choice.  News12 Long Island and Newsday are both owned by cablevision. If you use cable vision's ISP, optimum online, you have free access to
<a href="http://www.newsday.com/" title="newsday.com">www.newsday.com</a> [newsday.com]
 and
<a href="http://www.news12.com/" title="news12.com">www.news12.com</a> [news12.com].  Optimum customers never hit a pay wall, they are allowed on the site.  If you don't use optimum online, you get hit with a pay wall.<br> <br>A major reason that Newsday has so few subscriptions is that the majority of the people in the region which these new sources cater to don't even know about subscriptions because non-optimum customers are the only ones that hit a pay-wall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent up .
This is n't about paid subscriptions as much as it is about maintaining a regional lock on ISP choice .
News12 Long Island and Newsday are both owned by cablevision .
If you use cable vision 's ISP , optimum online , you have free access to www.newsday.com [ newsday.com ] and www.news12.com [ news12.com ] .
Optimum customers never hit a pay wall , they are allowed on the site .
If you do n't use optimum online , you get hit with a pay wall .
A major reason that Newsday has so few subscriptions is that the majority of the people in the region which these new sources cater to do n't even know about subscriptions because non-optimum customers are the only ones that hit a pay-wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent up.
This isn't about paid subscriptions as much as it is about maintaining a regional lock on ISP choice.
News12 Long Island and Newsday are both owned by cablevision.
If you use cable vision's ISP, optimum online, you have free access to
www.newsday.com [newsday.com]
 and
www.news12.com [news12.com].
Optimum customers never hit a pay wall, they are allowed on the site.
If you don't use optimum online, you get hit with a pay wall.
A major reason that Newsday has so few subscriptions is that the majority of the people in the region which these new sources cater to don't even know about subscriptions because non-optimum customers are the only ones that hit a pay-wall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650</id>
	<title>$5 a week?  How much for a dead-wood version?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anybody know how much a "delivered paper" subscription costs per week?  I would guess the online subscription doesn't cost much less.  Printing it on paper, folding, collating, and driving it to your door step should cost a whole lot more than copying a file from one server to another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody know how much a " delivered paper " subscription costs per week ?
I would guess the online subscription does n't cost much less .
Printing it on paper , folding , collating , and driving it to your door step should cost a whole lot more than copying a file from one server to another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody know how much a "delivered paper" subscription costs per week?
I would guess the online subscription doesn't cost much less.
Printing it on paper, folding, collating, and driving it to your door step should cost a whole lot more than copying a file from one server to another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918402</id>
	<title>Colossal waste of money or charity?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1264611900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Newsday's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $4 million and the 35 people who've signed up have earned Newsday about $9,000. Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic. 'That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been,' said Jimenez to his assembled staff</p></div><p>So you expected to be out $4M, but instead you're out $3.991M?  Was the point of this exercise to keep the "assembled staff" on board and well-paid through these lean years?  If so, incredible charity work.  It might have done more help elsewhere, but we can always say that about any charity, so there's no point quibbling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsday 's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $ 4 million and the 35 people who 've signed up have earned Newsday about $ 9,000 .
Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic .
'That 's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been, ' said Jimenez to his assembled staffSo you expected to be out $ 4M , but instead you 're out $ 3.991M ?
Was the point of this exercise to keep the " assembled staff " on board and well-paid through these lean years ?
If so , incredible charity work .
It might have done more help elsewhere , but we can always say that about any charity , so there 's no point quibbling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newsday's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $4 million and the 35 people who've signed up have earned Newsday about $9,000.
Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic.
'That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been,' said Jimenez to his assembled staffSo you expected to be out $4M, but instead you're out $3.991M?
Was the point of this exercise to keep the "assembled staff" on board and well-paid through these lean years?
If so, incredible charity work.
It might have done more help elsewhere, but we can always say that about any charity, so there's no point quibbling.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722</id>
	<title>For the record,</title>
	<author>aengblom</author>
	<datestamp>1264609380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the record, they sell access to the web site for $5 per week, while they sell the paper for $4.50 including access to the web site. Basically those 35 subscribers are paying 50 cents per day to not get the paper delivered. They also give free access to all people who subscribe to the local cable provider -- which is a lot of people for the local paper.</p><p>Plus it's Newsday.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , they sell access to the web site for $ 5 per week , while they sell the paper for $ 4.50 including access to the web site .
Basically those 35 subscribers are paying 50 cents per day to not get the paper delivered .
They also give free access to all people who subscribe to the local cable provider -- which is a lot of people for the local paper.Plus it 's Newsday.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, they sell access to the web site for $5 per week, while they sell the paper for $4.50 including access to the web site.
Basically those 35 subscribers are paying 50 cents per day to not get the paper delivered.
They also give free access to all people who subscribe to the local cable provider -- which is a lot of people for the local paper.Plus it's Newsday.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920334</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative way in</title>
	<author>un1xl0ser</author>
	<datestamp>1264619340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact that they revamped their website for about 4 million dollars. So to get 35 paid subscribers from that web redesign and have their traffic fall from 2.2m to 1.5m (per month)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well that may not be epic fail yet, but it is getting close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact that they revamped their website for about 4 million dollars .
So to get 35 paid subscribers from that web redesign and have their traffic fall from 2.2m to 1.5m ( per month ) ... well that may not be epic fail yet , but it is getting close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact that they revamped their website for about 4 million dollars.
So to get 35 paid subscribers from that web redesign and have their traffic fall from 2.2m to 1.5m (per month) ... well that may not be epic fail yet, but it is getting close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920244</id>
	<title>Rationalization is funny</title>
	<author>Beerdood</author>
	<datestamp>1264619040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the header : <br>"Newsday's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $4 million"
<br>
"Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic. 'That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been"
<br> <br>
Really?  So you were expecting zero subscribers?  What was the point in redesigning the sight then..?
I guess if you set your expectations really low, you can't get disappointed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the header : " Newsday 's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $ 4 million " " Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic .
'That 's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been " Really ?
So you were expecting zero subscribers ?
What was the point in redesigning the sight then.. ?
I guess if you set your expectations really low , you ca n't get disappointed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the header : "Newsday's web site redesign and relaunch reportedly cost about $4 million"

"Still publisher Terry Jimenez is unapologetic.
'That's 35 more than I would have thought it would have been"
 
Really?
So you were expecting zero subscribers?
What was the point in redesigning the sight then..?
I guess if you set your expectations really low, you can't get disappointed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918350</id>
	<title>Re:For the record,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264611660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because it's understandable because it's stupid, doesn't make it not stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because it 's understandable because it 's stupid , does n't make it not stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because it's understandable because it's stupid, doesn't make it not stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917794</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>Jhon</author>
	<datestamp>1264609620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets be fair.  Subscribers to the "print" edition also have access to the electronic edition as well as subscribers to the local cable company (I'm sure they get some money generated from that one, too).</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets be fair .
Subscribers to the " print " edition also have access to the electronic edition as well as subscribers to the local cable company ( I 'm sure they get some money generated from that one , too ) .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets be fair.
Subscribers to the "print" edition also have access to the electronic edition as well as subscribers to the local cable company (I'm sure they get some money generated from that one, too).
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30929446</id>
	<title>Re:Colossal waste of money or charity?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1264612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like the lean year. Assuming each journalist, manager, and janitor is paid $30,000 + $20,000 for health insurance, 401k, employers SS contribution etc, you can employ 80 people for one year. Or 20 people for four years, which is probably how long this economic slump is going to continue for. At which point you can just pay those 20 people to visit each subscriber's house personally and tell them about the day's news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like the lean year .
Assuming each journalist , manager , and janitor is paid $ 30,000 + $ 20,000 for health insurance , 401k , employers SS contribution etc , you can employ 80 people for one year .
Or 20 people for four years , which is probably how long this economic slump is going to continue for .
At which point you can just pay those 20 people to visit each subscriber 's house personally and tell them about the day 's news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like the lean year.
Assuming each journalist, manager, and janitor is paid $30,000 + $20,000 for health insurance, 401k, employers SS contribution etc, you can employ 80 people for one year.
Or 20 people for four years, which is probably how long this economic slump is going to continue for.
At which point you can just pay those 20 people to visit each subscriber's house personally and tell them about the day's news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918966</id>
	<title>For giggles, mostly</title>
	<author>Stick\_Fig</author>
	<datestamp>1264613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I just subscribed to Newsday.com. I'm Customer36. That's my username. I'm going to be blogging about my adventures with one of the worst ideas for a paywall ever.</p><p>Fun fact: Newsday doesn't ask for your credit card when you subscribe. They call you later. Must not have anticipated much demand.</p><p><a href="http://shortformblog.com/biz/our-adventures-as-newsday-customer-no-36-the-subscription" title="shortformblog.com">http://shortformblog.com/biz/our-adventures-as-newsday-customer-no-36-the-subscription</a> [shortformblog.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just subscribed to Newsday.com .
I 'm Customer36 .
That 's my username .
I 'm going to be blogging about my adventures with one of the worst ideas for a paywall ever.Fun fact : Newsday does n't ask for your credit card when you subscribe .
They call you later .
Must not have anticipated much demand.http : //shortformblog.com/biz/our-adventures-as-newsday-customer-no-36-the-subscription [ shortformblog.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I just subscribed to Newsday.com.
I'm Customer36.
That's my username.
I'm going to be blogging about my adventures with one of the worst ideas for a paywall ever.Fun fact: Newsday doesn't ask for your credit card when you subscribe.
They call you later.
Must not have anticipated much demand.http://shortformblog.com/biz/our-adventures-as-newsday-customer-no-36-the-subscription [shortformblog.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917702</id>
	<title>35. Ice burn.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1264609320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting 35 subscribers is like getting a one penny tip.<br> <br>

Left in the customer's half-empty drink.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting 35 subscribers is like getting a one penny tip .
Left in the customer 's half-empty drink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting 35 subscribers is like getting a one penny tip.
Left in the customer's half-empty drink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918252</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>Publikwerks</author>
	<datestamp>1264611240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think updating every 15 minutes is needed, but I can see that once a day wouldn't be enough I think.
<br>
Funny, it's almost like a full circle. Ebooks and internet delivery systems might bring back the evening edition of newspapers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think updating every 15 minutes is needed , but I can see that once a day would n't be enough I think .
Funny , it 's almost like a full circle .
Ebooks and internet delivery systems might bring back the evening edition of newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think updating every 15 minutes is needed, but I can see that once a day wouldn't be enough I think.
Funny, it's almost like a full circle.
Ebooks and internet delivery systems might bring back the evening edition of newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692</id>
	<title>Nobody is going to pay for news</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1264609260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody is going to pay for a news site for the most part.   You can easily get the same news elsewhere for free.  The only places I've seen people pay for something like this is  cable TV.  The reason for that is because you had too to get all the major content.</p><p>The reason you can't do that with websites is that any old Joe can't create a TV station, but they can create a news website.   If Newssite1.com makes you pay, everyone will go to Newssite2.com to get the same information free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is going to pay for a news site for the most part .
You can easily get the same news elsewhere for free .
The only places I 've seen people pay for something like this is cable TV .
The reason for that is because you had too to get all the major content.The reason you ca n't do that with websites is that any old Joe ca n't create a TV station , but they can create a news website .
If Newssite1.com makes you pay , everyone will go to Newssite2.com to get the same information free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is going to pay for a news site for the most part.
You can easily get the same news elsewhere for free.
The only places I've seen people pay for something like this is  cable TV.
The reason for that is because you had too to get all the major content.The reason you can't do that with websites is that any old Joe can't create a TV station, but they can create a news website.
If Newssite1.com makes you pay, everyone will go to Newssite2.com to get the same information free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919688</id>
	<title>Fios</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264616760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Folks, this all about locking competing ISPs out of local content.  See also News 12.<br>35 paying customers?  I'd say it's working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Folks , this all about locking competing ISPs out of local content .
See also News 12.35 paying customers ?
I 'd say it 's working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folks, this all about locking competing ISPs out of local content.
See also News 12.35 paying customers?
I'd say it's working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30924852</id>
	<title>Re:Abomination?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ripped off"? Maybe not. An outfit like this probably paid a design firm to cheerfully host meeting after endless meeting catering to insane requests without ever telling the client when they are full of shit. Sycophant theater does not come cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ripped off " ?
Maybe not .
An outfit like this probably paid a design firm to cheerfully host meeting after endless meeting catering to insane requests without ever telling the client when they are full of shit .
Sycophant theater does not come cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ripped off"?
Maybe not.
An outfit like this probably paid a design firm to cheerfully host meeting after endless meeting catering to insane requests without ever telling the client when they are full of shit.
Sycophant theater does not come cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918010</id>
	<title>Re:Abomination?</title>
	<author>AndyAndyAndyAndy</author>
	<datestamp>1264610460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a hell of a lot better than 75\% of the news sites I come across (even Reuters has this <i>annoying</i> script that runs endlessly).  I should note that with my bandwidth here it loaded pretty much instantly.  I could see this taking <i>forever</i> on ma and pa's dialup.</p></div><p>I guess the better question: even if it's in the top-25\% of sites, would you pay for it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a hell of a lot better than 75 \ % of the news sites I come across ( even Reuters has this annoying script that runs endlessly ) .
I should note that with my bandwidth here it loaded pretty much instantly .
I could see this taking forever on ma and pa 's dialup.I guess the better question : even if it 's in the top-25 \ % of sites , would you pay for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a hell of a lot better than 75\% of the news sites I come across (even Reuters has this annoying script that runs endlessly).
I should note that with my bandwidth here it loaded pretty much instantly.
I could see this taking forever on ma and pa's dialup.I guess the better question: even if it's in the top-25\% of sites, would you pay for it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919180</id>
	<title>Subscriber Demographics</title>
	<author>drainbramage</author>
	<datestamp>1264614780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez....<br>That was 2.<br>Then Mr. Jimenez speaks at the staff meeting "We need to cut our payroll. By the way, who wants to be a team player and get an online subscription?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez....That was 2.Then Mr. Jimenez speaks at the staff meeting " We need to cut our payroll .
By the way , who wants to be a team player and get an online subscription ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez....That was 2.Then Mr. Jimenez speaks at the staff meeting "We need to cut our payroll.
By the way, who wants to be a team player and get an online subscription?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672</id>
	<title>Abomination?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In October, the web site relaunched and was redesigned. One of the principals behind the redesign is Mr. Mancini's replacement, editor Debby Krenek.</p><p>To say the least, the project has not been a newsroom favorite. "The view of the newsroom is the web site sucks," said one staffer.</p><p>"It's an abomination," said another.</p></div><p>W3C <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.newsday.com\%2F&amp;charset=(detect+automatically)&amp;doctype=Inline&amp;group=0" title="w3.org">agrees</a> [w3.org].  <br> <br>

Does anyone have a before and after screen shot?  Honestly, <a href="http://www.newsday.com/" title="newsday.com">the site</a> [newsday.com] doesn't look half bad.  Reduce/condense the amount of information you're throwing on the frontpage and you've got a good site.  I don't even see an unnecessarily egregious use of Flash that mars so many news sites.  It's a hell of a lot better than 75\% of the news sites I come across (even Reuters has this <i>annoying</i> script that runs endlessly).  I should note that with my bandwidth here it loaded pretty much instantly.  I could see this taking <i>forever</i> on ma and pa's dialup.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In October , the web site relaunched and was redesigned .
One of the principals behind the redesign is Mr. Mancini 's replacement , editor Debby Krenek.To say the least , the project has not been a newsroom favorite .
" The view of the newsroom is the web site sucks , " said one staffer .
" It 's an abomination , " said another.W3C agrees [ w3.org ] .
Does anyone have a before and after screen shot ?
Honestly , the site [ newsday.com ] does n't look half bad .
Reduce/condense the amount of information you 're throwing on the frontpage and you 've got a good site .
I do n't even see an unnecessarily egregious use of Flash that mars so many news sites .
It 's a hell of a lot better than 75 \ % of the news sites I come across ( even Reuters has this annoying script that runs endlessly ) .
I should note that with my bandwidth here it loaded pretty much instantly .
I could see this taking forever on ma and pa 's dialup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In October, the web site relaunched and was redesigned.
One of the principals behind the redesign is Mr. Mancini's replacement, editor Debby Krenek.To say the least, the project has not been a newsroom favorite.
"The view of the newsroom is the web site sucks," said one staffer.
"It's an abomination," said another.W3C agrees [w3.org].
Does anyone have a before and after screen shot?
Honestly, the site [newsday.com] doesn't look half bad.
Reduce/condense the amount of information you're throwing on the frontpage and you've got a good site.
I don't even see an unnecessarily egregious use of Flash that mars so many news sites.
It's a hell of a lot better than 75\% of the news sites I come across (even Reuters has this annoying script that runs endlessly).
I should note that with my bandwidth here it loaded pretty much instantly.
I could see this taking forever on ma and pa's dialup.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917936</id>
	<title>$5 a week is crazy.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1264610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they charged a reasonable price, they would get a lot more customers.  $1 a week.</p><p>$5 a week approaches the cost of a new dish network account with 130 channels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they charged a reasonable price , they would get a lot more customers .
$ 1 a week. $ 5 a week approaches the cost of a new dish network account with 130 channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they charged a reasonable price, they would get a lot more customers.
$1 a week.$5 a week approaches the cost of a new dish network account with 130 channels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918634</id>
	<title>I'll pay for the news</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1264612680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>but not for opinions on an AP story.
<br> <br>
Give me investigative journalism that is reasonably unbiased and you have a lifetime subscriber.
<br> <br>
Give me right or left slanted takes on a WH press release or random blogger's "news story" and you're worse than useless to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but not for opinions on an AP story .
Give me investigative journalism that is reasonably unbiased and you have a lifetime subscriber .
Give me right or left slanted takes on a WH press release or random blogger 's " news story " and you 're worse than useless to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but not for opinions on an AP story.
Give me investigative journalism that is reasonably unbiased and you have a lifetime subscriber.
Give me right or left slanted takes on a WH press release or random blogger's "news story" and you're worse than useless to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918494</id>
	<title>Re:strange numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5$/week * 35 subscribers * 15 weeks = 9000$ ??</p></div><p>
I'm guessing they're quoting 'yearly' figures:  35 * $5/wk * 52weeks = $9100
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 $ /week * 35 subscribers * 15 weeks = 9000 $ ? ?
I 'm guessing they 're quoting 'yearly ' figures : 35 * $ 5/wk * 52weeks = $ 9100</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5$/week * 35 subscribers * 15 weeks = 9000$ ??
I'm guessing they're quoting 'yearly' figures:  35 * $5/wk * 52weeks = $9100

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918424</id>
	<title>Kudos for Eating Their Own Dog Food</title>
	<author>rdmiller3</author>
	<datestamp>1264612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we should congratulate the 35 members of the Newsday staff who ponied up $5/week to subscribe to their own web site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we should congratulate the 35 members of the Newsday staff who ponied up $ 5/week to subscribe to their own web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we should congratulate the 35 members of the Newsday staff who ponied up $5/week to subscribe to their own web site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918780</id>
	<title>God forbid</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1264613220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>God forbid, a newspaper wanting to actually charge for the content it makes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbid , a newspaper wanting to actually charge for the content it makes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbid, a newspaper wanting to actually charge for the content it makes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917892</id>
	<title>"Free Online Newspaper With Your HBO"</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1264610100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's how I have heard this categorized here in the NY area.   See, if you are a Cablevision/Optimum Online sub, you get Newsday Online for free.  "That's a $260 Value -- If You Sign Before Midnight Tonight!"</p><p>Remember, Newsday is owned by The Dolans, the certifiably insane family that also owns and/or operates Madison Square Garden, the Knicks, the Rangers, the Liberty, Clearview Cinemas, the Beacon Theater, Radio Friggin' Music Hall, and prolly my toaster oven as well, haven't checked lately.  This isn't about love or money for the newspaper, this is about things like "synergies" and "paradigms" and "leverage."  These are the kind of robber baron sociopaths who would burn an orphanage they own to the ground if the price of diapers got higher than they had budgeted, or they needed to light a lot of their cigars at once and they only had one match left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how I have heard this categorized here in the NY area .
See , if you are a Cablevision/Optimum Online sub , you get Newsday Online for free .
" That 's a $ 260 Value -- If You Sign Before Midnight Tonight !
" Remember , Newsday is owned by The Dolans , the certifiably insane family that also owns and/or operates Madison Square Garden , the Knicks , the Rangers , the Liberty , Clearview Cinemas , the Beacon Theater , Radio Friggin ' Music Hall , and prolly my toaster oven as well , have n't checked lately .
This is n't about love or money for the newspaper , this is about things like " synergies " and " paradigms " and " leverage .
" These are the kind of robber baron sociopaths who would burn an orphanage they own to the ground if the price of diapers got higher than they had budgeted , or they needed to light a lot of their cigars at once and they only had one match left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how I have heard this categorized here in the NY area.
See, if you are a Cablevision/Optimum Online sub, you get Newsday Online for free.
"That's a $260 Value -- If You Sign Before Midnight Tonight!
"Remember, Newsday is owned by The Dolans, the certifiably insane family that also owns and/or operates Madison Square Garden, the Knicks, the Rangers, the Liberty, Clearview Cinemas, the Beacon Theater, Radio Friggin' Music Hall, and prolly my toaster oven as well, haven't checked lately.
This isn't about love or money for the newspaper, this is about things like "synergies" and "paradigms" and "leverage.
"  These are the kind of robber baron sociopaths who would burn an orphanage they own to the ground if the price of diapers got higher than they had budgeted, or they needed to light a lot of their cigars at once and they only had one match left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1264610580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that newpapers are completely dead, the body simply has not stopped moving.</p><p>I can get my news HOURS after it has happened or get it from my various RSS feeds seconds to minutes afterwards.   Plus I get to filter it to have only what I want.</p><p>Short of puppy training, wrapping dishes, and for poop paper for a bird cage, a newspaper has ZERO value.  Even web based they are slow to react and usually are only repeating what I have already read from the various feeds I have.</p><p>There is no way to save the newspaper business. Ebooks might if the media companies get off their asses and not only publish a daily release but also update it's contents every 15 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that newpapers are completely dead , the body simply has not stopped moving.I can get my news HOURS after it has happened or get it from my various RSS feeds seconds to minutes afterwards .
Plus I get to filter it to have only what I want.Short of puppy training , wrapping dishes , and for poop paper for a bird cage , a newspaper has ZERO value .
Even web based they are slow to react and usually are only repeating what I have already read from the various feeds I have.There is no way to save the newspaper business .
Ebooks might if the media companies get off their asses and not only publish a daily release but also update it 's contents every 15 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that newpapers are completely dead, the body simply has not stopped moving.I can get my news HOURS after it has happened or get it from my various RSS feeds seconds to minutes afterwards.
Plus I get to filter it to have only what I want.Short of puppy training, wrapping dishes, and for poop paper for a bird cage, a newspaper has ZERO value.
Even web based they are slow to react and usually are only repeating what I have already read from the various feeds I have.There is no way to save the newspaper business.
Ebooks might if the media companies get off their asses and not only publish a daily release but also update it's contents every 15 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917734</id>
	<title>e4?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not going home Lead to '3Leaner</htmltext>
<tokenext>not going home Lead to '3Leaner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not going home Lead to '3Leaner</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919538</id>
	<title>Their reporters don't make things up NYT style?</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264616160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't believe it.
</p><p>
The New York Times is completely disreputable; granted.
</p><p>
But so is the whole Journalist profession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe it .
The New York Times is completely disreputable ; granted .
But so is the whole Journalist profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't believe it.
The New York Times is completely disreputable; granted.
But so is the whole Journalist profession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918754</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1264613100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think a newspaper has to be entirely irrelevant. There's little news so vital to me that I can't wait a few hours to hear it, one area traditional media <i>could</i> compete is quality. Well-written, thought-out articles with fact checking (remember that?) would be a value proposition that many of the internet sources, with their rush to be first to publish couldn't afford. If you're not going to print for several hours, use that time to make <i>what</i> you print much better than everyone else and I would happily consume your product because I only have to read it once, not read countless rumours, counter-claims, retractions, etc.</p><p>Unfortunately this type of quality reporting was dead even before the internet came along. There just wasn't a suitable alternative at the time to eat their lunch, the 'net just happened to be the first one that came along and fit the bill. The internet didn't kill traditional newspapers, they committed suicide a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think a newspaper has to be entirely irrelevant .
There 's little news so vital to me that I ca n't wait a few hours to hear it , one area traditional media could compete is quality .
Well-written , thought-out articles with fact checking ( remember that ?
) would be a value proposition that many of the internet sources , with their rush to be first to publish could n't afford .
If you 're not going to print for several hours , use that time to make what you print much better than everyone else and I would happily consume your product because I only have to read it once , not read countless rumours , counter-claims , retractions , etc.Unfortunately this type of quality reporting was dead even before the internet came along .
There just was n't a suitable alternative at the time to eat their lunch , the 'net just happened to be the first one that came along and fit the bill .
The internet did n't kill traditional newspapers , they committed suicide a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think a newspaper has to be entirely irrelevant.
There's little news so vital to me that I can't wait a few hours to hear it, one area traditional media could compete is quality.
Well-written, thought-out articles with fact checking (remember that?
) would be a value proposition that many of the internet sources, with their rush to be first to publish couldn't afford.
If you're not going to print for several hours, use that time to make what you print much better than everyone else and I would happily consume your product because I only have to read it once, not read countless rumours, counter-claims, retractions, etc.Unfortunately this type of quality reporting was dead even before the internet came along.
There just wasn't a suitable alternative at the time to eat their lunch, the 'net just happened to be the first one that came along and fit the bill.
The internet didn't kill traditional newspapers, they committed suicide a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922090</id>
	<title>Re:$5 a week? How much for a dead-wood version?</title>
	<author>h3llfish</author>
	<datestamp>1264623600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is an excellent point.  You don't need an MBA to understand that the digital version costs less to produce than the physical version, whether we're talking about books, newspapers,  audio, or video.  If the digital version isn't less than half the cost of the physical one, most people will see it as a rip-off.<br> <br>
Five dollars a week to read a website seems insane to me.  I'd have gone with a model that still gave away plenty of free content, but charged a modest fee (30 bucks a year or so) to read "premium" content.  The free stuff is what you can get anywhere, and tends to be brief and superficial.  The in depth coverage, the actual reporting, is what costs you most to provide, and is what people should be most willing to pay a bit for.  I seems like that model has worked well enough for espn.com over the years.<br>
The model ought to work even better if you're Rupert Murdoch or a similar bastard, and you run about a million media outlets.  He could have offered premium access to all Murdoch sites for 5.95 a month, while still providing enough free content to keep the (legions of) broke people showing up.  That might actually have found a few takers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is an excellent point .
You do n't need an MBA to understand that the digital version costs less to produce than the physical version , whether we 're talking about books , newspapers , audio , or video .
If the digital version is n't less than half the cost of the physical one , most people will see it as a rip-off .
Five dollars a week to read a website seems insane to me .
I 'd have gone with a model that still gave away plenty of free content , but charged a modest fee ( 30 bucks a year or so ) to read " premium " content .
The free stuff is what you can get anywhere , and tends to be brief and superficial .
The in depth coverage , the actual reporting , is what costs you most to provide , and is what people should be most willing to pay a bit for .
I seems like that model has worked well enough for espn.com over the years .
The model ought to work even better if you 're Rupert Murdoch or a similar bastard , and you run about a million media outlets .
He could have offered premium access to all Murdoch sites for 5.95 a month , while still providing enough free content to keep the ( legions of ) broke people showing up .
That might actually have found a few takers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is an excellent point.
You don't need an MBA to understand that the digital version costs less to produce than the physical version, whether we're talking about books, newspapers,  audio, or video.
If the digital version isn't less than half the cost of the physical one, most people will see it as a rip-off.
Five dollars a week to read a website seems insane to me.
I'd have gone with a model that still gave away plenty of free content, but charged a modest fee (30 bucks a year or so) to read "premium" content.
The free stuff is what you can get anywhere, and tends to be brief and superficial.
The in depth coverage, the actual reporting, is what costs you most to provide, and is what people should be most willing to pay a bit for.
I seems like that model has worked well enough for espn.com over the years.
The model ought to work even better if you're Rupert Murdoch or a similar bastard, and you run about a million media outlets.
He could have offered premium access to all Murdoch sites for 5.95 a month, while still providing enough free content to keep the (legions of) broke people showing up.
That might actually have found a few takers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30937100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30929606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30924852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30929446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1345219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30924852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30921012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30929606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30929446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30920638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1345219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30917892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30937100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30922756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30919624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1345219.30918294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
