<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_31_2227235</id>
	<title>Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264933800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"BusinessWeek reports that the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-31/china-bosses-davos-as-nobody-discusses-what-happened-to-google.html">cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room</a> at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos. 'China didn't want to discuss Google,' Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of <a href="http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Sun31/index.htm">this year's World Economic Forum</a>, said in an interview. China's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear, he added. Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt didn't bring up China, and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview. The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country, while the US government doesn't want to upset Chinese investors, said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC. 'People have their commercial interests,' explained Deutsche Bank's Ackermann."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " BusinessWeek reports that the cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos .
'China did n't want to discuss Google, ' Josef Ackermann , CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of this year 's World Economic Forum , said in an interview .
China 's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear , he added .
Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt did n't bring up China , and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview .
The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country , while the US government does n't want to upset Chinese investors , said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC .
'People have their commercial interests, ' explained Deutsche Bank 's Ackermann .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "BusinessWeek reports that the cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos.
'China didn't want to discuss Google,' Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of this year's World Economic Forum, said in an interview.
China's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear, he added.
Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt didn't bring up China, and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview.
The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country, while the US government doesn't want to upset Chinese investors, said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC.
'People have their commercial interests,' explained Deutsche Bank's Ackermann.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975062</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264940700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I would have hoped that humanity would get better. We seem to be staying the same at best, with even that being questionable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I would have hoped that humanity would get better .
We seem to be staying the same at best , with even that being questionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I would have hoped that humanity would get better.
We seem to be staying the same at best, with even that being questionable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974736</id>
	<title>Get used to it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The extent of this attack was unclear, but figure every major US corporate/government net was at risk.  Figure any intranet relying exclusively on firewall rules was penetrated (1 man on the inside with a USB rootkit and you are compromised.)  Compare the cost of one M1A1 tank to an intern at a US company.</p><p>If this was a government sponsored attack, figure half the major US intranets are now compromised to some degree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The extent of this attack was unclear , but figure every major US corporate/government net was at risk .
Figure any intranet relying exclusively on firewall rules was penetrated ( 1 man on the inside with a USB rootkit and you are compromised .
) Compare the cost of one M1A1 tank to an intern at a US company.If this was a government sponsored attack , figure half the major US intranets are now compromised to some degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The extent of this attack was unclear, but figure every major US corporate/government net was at risk.
Figure any intranet relying exclusively on firewall rules was penetrated (1 man on the inside with a USB rootkit and you are compromised.
)  Compare the cost of one M1A1 tank to an intern at a US company.If this was a government sponsored attack, figure half the major US intranets are now compromised to some degree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974712</id>
	<title>The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People have their commercial interests</i></p><p>Well, yes, I guess that's what was missing in the Cold War. If Russia was making cheap plastic toys for Wal Mart, perhaps the US would have permitted the placement of missiles in Cuba, in order not to make people nervous. Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism. Chinese are seemingly smarter, and have understood that they can do anything as long as they provide with cheap labor to the West's consumers. I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have their commercial interestsWell , yes , I guess that 's what was missing in the Cold War .
If Russia was making cheap plastic toys for Wal Mart , perhaps the US would have permitted the placement of missiles in Cuba , in order not to make people nervous .
Dumb Russians , they really lost the Cold War because of Communism .
Chinese are seemingly smarter , and have understood that they can do anything as long as they provide with cheap labor to the West 's consumers .
I guess in a couple of years they 'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have their commercial interestsWell, yes, I guess that's what was missing in the Cold War.
If Russia was making cheap plastic toys for Wal Mart, perhaps the US would have permitted the placement of missiles in Cuba, in order not to make people nervous.
Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism.
Chinese are seemingly smarter, and have understood that they can do anything as long as they provide with cheap labor to the West's consumers.
I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976710</id>
	<title>Keep personal, private arguments to PMs</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1264952460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's just a personal, private argument, and does not need to be brought up here? Granted a major argument, but still, no one likes their thread to be derailed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's just a personal , private argument , and does not need to be brought up here ?
Granted a major argument , but still , no one likes their thread to be derailed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's just a personal, private argument, and does not need to be brought up here?
Granted a major argument, but still, no one likes their thread to be derailed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975750</id>
	<title>Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism.</p></div></blockquote><p>Neither Russia nor China were ever actually socialist/communist. They just used those ideals to gain the support of the people. Kind of like the US is not actually a constitutional democratic republic, but the average brain-dead American believes it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb Russians , they really lost the Cold War because of Communism.Neither Russia nor China were ever actually socialist/communist .
They just used those ideals to gain the support of the people .
Kind of like the US is not actually a constitutional democratic republic , but the average brain-dead American believes it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism.Neither Russia nor China were ever actually socialist/communist.
They just used those ideals to gain the support of the people.
Kind of like the US is not actually a constitutional democratic republic, but the average brain-dead American believes it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978532</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with globalization, per se, except it's the ultimate result of globalization's culmination. Globalization has run its course and there are no more horses in that barn.</p><p>It has happened before and it will happen again, both on the scale of the individual and the nation: as things get difficult, people change the rules as to what is 'acceptable'. It's perfectly fine to be standing on your high moral horse, but it's also terribly easy to do when things are peachy keen.</p><p>When you're hungry, your family is hungry, and you don't know how you're going to feed and shelter your family for the winter, "acceptable" is viewed in terms of losses, not morality: can you pull it off and come out ahead, or at least maintain your status quo. Taking the moral high ground and not killing your neighbor in his sleep might be difficult if you know he's got a wood stove and a store of cured foods.</p><p>When it's easy to come out ahead, those choices don't need to be made. You can go to your 9 to 5 job, come home, crack open a beer. You're not struggling just for food, and that rent check isn't 2 days late because you had to hawk off some valuables to make it.</p><p>As a group, humans are very good at taking care of ourselves in the short term. We'll do what we think will allow us to get by, survive, and thrive. If we don't we either survive and get stronger/learn from our mistakes, or we fall by the wayside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with globalization , per se , except it 's the ultimate result of globalization 's culmination .
Globalization has run its course and there are no more horses in that barn.It has happened before and it will happen again , both on the scale of the individual and the nation : as things get difficult , people change the rules as to what is 'acceptable' .
It 's perfectly fine to be standing on your high moral horse , but it 's also terribly easy to do when things are peachy keen.When you 're hungry , your family is hungry , and you do n't know how you 're going to feed and shelter your family for the winter , " acceptable " is viewed in terms of losses , not morality : can you pull it off and come out ahead , or at least maintain your status quo .
Taking the moral high ground and not killing your neighbor in his sleep might be difficult if you know he 's got a wood stove and a store of cured foods.When it 's easy to come out ahead , those choices do n't need to be made .
You can go to your 9 to 5 job , come home , crack open a beer .
You 're not struggling just for food , and that rent check is n't 2 days late because you had to hawk off some valuables to make it.As a group , humans are very good at taking care of ourselves in the short term .
We 'll do what we think will allow us to get by , survive , and thrive .
If we do n't we either survive and get stronger/learn from our mistakes , or we fall by the wayside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with globalization, per se, except it's the ultimate result of globalization's culmination.
Globalization has run its course and there are no more horses in that barn.It has happened before and it will happen again, both on the scale of the individual and the nation: as things get difficult, people change the rules as to what is 'acceptable'.
It's perfectly fine to be standing on your high moral horse, but it's also terribly easy to do when things are peachy keen.When you're hungry, your family is hungry, and you don't know how you're going to feed and shelter your family for the winter, "acceptable" is viewed in terms of losses, not morality: can you pull it off and come out ahead, or at least maintain your status quo.
Taking the moral high ground and not killing your neighbor in his sleep might be difficult if you know he's got a wood stove and a store of cured foods.When it's easy to come out ahead, those choices don't need to be made.
You can go to your 9 to 5 job, come home, crack open a beer.
You're not struggling just for food, and that rent check isn't 2 days late because you had to hawk off some valuables to make it.As a group, humans are very good at taking care of ourselves in the short term.
We'll do what we think will allow us to get by, survive, and thrive.
If we don't we either survive and get stronger/learn from our mistakes, or we fall by the wayside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978508</id>
	<title>they destroy our climate, now they destroy ...</title>
	<author>Gunstick</author>
	<datestamp>1265017140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YES<br>it was china who made fail Kopenhagen conference! They simply said no to everything. Really everything. Even to proposals like that Europe does even more CO2 reduction than planned. No, no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,nonono, no and no.<br>Bloody hell. Just skrew them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YESit was china who made fail Kopenhagen conference !
They simply said no to everything .
Really everything .
Even to proposals like that Europe does even more CO2 reduction than planned .
No , no ,nonono , no and no.Bloody hell .
Just skrew them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YESit was china who made fail Kopenhagen conference!
They simply said no to everything.
Really everything.
Even to proposals like that Europe does even more CO2 reduction than planned.
No, no ,nonono, no and no.Bloody hell.
Just skrew them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975056</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>furbyhater</author>
	<datestamp>1264940580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem are people acting solely out of self-interest while disregarding the impact of their actions to the rest of society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem are people acting solely out of self-interest while disregarding the impact of their actions to the rest of society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem are people acting solely out of self-interest while disregarding the impact of their actions to the rest of society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974954</id>
	<title>Re:Get used to it.</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264939860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying " China wo n't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors , that 's why we pulled up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976476</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....</title>
	<author>Unoriginal\_Nickname</author>
	<datestamp>1264949940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.</p></div><p>IT powerhouses are publicly traded: it will never happen. Eric Schmidt wants to keep doing business with China even though they were hacked. Walmart will keep buying Chinese baby formula. Toys R Us will keep stocking Chinese toys. Purina will keep buying Chinese dog food.</p><p>American investment and corporate ownership is a maze. Ideally a corporation is directly liable to its shareholders - meaning that, if the shareholders didn't want to do business with China, they would be able to influence the company in that direction. However, in reality, the 'shareholders' of a major corporation are large holding companies and mutual funds, which are also publicly-traded and owned by other large holding companies and mutual funds. If an executive takes actions that do not maximize profits, they will be removed or possibly sued by the soulless corporate automaton that owns them.<br>The fact that Google got the consent of its shareholders to take any action about China is *incredible*, but Google's a huge exception in the IT world for the share of the company that's self-owned or owned by its employees. The rest - Cisco, Microsoft, Apple - are all in for the long run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.IT powerhouses are publicly traded : it will never happen .
Eric Schmidt wants to keep doing business with China even though they were hacked .
Walmart will keep buying Chinese baby formula .
Toys R Us will keep stocking Chinese toys .
Purina will keep buying Chinese dog food.American investment and corporate ownership is a maze .
Ideally a corporation is directly liable to its shareholders - meaning that , if the shareholders did n't want to do business with China , they would be able to influence the company in that direction .
However , in reality , the 'shareholders ' of a major corporation are large holding companies and mutual funds , which are also publicly-traded and owned by other large holding companies and mutual funds .
If an executive takes actions that do not maximize profits , they will be removed or possibly sued by the soulless corporate automaton that owns them.The fact that Google got the consent of its shareholders to take any action about China is * incredible * , but Google 's a huge exception in the IT world for the share of the company that 's self-owned or owned by its employees .
The rest - Cisco , Microsoft , Apple - are all in for the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.IT powerhouses are publicly traded: it will never happen.
Eric Schmidt wants to keep doing business with China even though they were hacked.
Walmart will keep buying Chinese baby formula.
Toys R Us will keep stocking Chinese toys.
Purina will keep buying Chinese dog food.American investment and corporate ownership is a maze.
Ideally a corporation is directly liable to its shareholders - meaning that, if the shareholders didn't want to do business with China, they would be able to influence the company in that direction.
However, in reality, the 'shareholders' of a major corporation are large holding companies and mutual funds, which are also publicly-traded and owned by other large holding companies and mutual funds.
If an executive takes actions that do not maximize profits, they will be removed or possibly sued by the soulless corporate automaton that owns them.The fact that Google got the consent of its shareholders to take any action about China is *incredible*, but Google's a huge exception in the IT world for the share of the company that's self-owned or owned by its employees.
The rest - Cisco, Microsoft, Apple - are all in for the long run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</id>
	<title>might *does* make right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is already manufacturer to the world, and within a few decades they will lead *everything* - scientific research, they'll be the biggest economy, the biggest market, and the most powerful military.</p><p>It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market.  Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.</p><p>The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business.  "Might makes right" *does* matter.  It's nice to have warm fuzzy morals, but when those morals come up against reality, that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee.  It's not the "right" side that wins, it's the most powerful side.  China knows this - they're nothing if not smart and forward thinking.</p><p>The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is already manufacturer to the world , and within a few decades they will lead * everything * - scientific research , they 'll be the biggest economy , the biggest market , and the most powerful military.It 's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market .
Smart players will play by China 's rules and not try to upset them.The thing a lot of people do n't get is that morals do n't matter in international politics and business .
" Might makes right " * does * matter .
It 's nice to have warm fuzzy morals , but when those morals come up against reality , that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee .
It 's not the " right " side that wins , it 's the most powerful side .
China knows this - they 're nothing if not smart and forward thinking.The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world 's superpower with any kind of grace , or whether it 'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is already manufacturer to the world, and within a few decades they will lead *everything* - scientific research, they'll be the biggest economy, the biggest market, and the most powerful military.It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market.
Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business.
"Might makes right" *does* matter.
It's nice to have warm fuzzy morals, but when those morals come up against reality, that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee.
It's not the "right" side that wins, it's the most powerful side.
China knows this - they're nothing if not smart and forward thinking.The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30985374</id>
	<title>The other elephant</title>
	<author>anarcat</author>
	<datestamp>1265056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me saying "no one talked about google" is really overlooking a key issue in current geopolitics, namely the 6.4b$ arms sales that the US is preparing with Taiwan. Now, that's the kind of things that can get China annoyed... who cares about google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me saying " no one talked about google " is really overlooking a key issue in current geopolitics , namely the 6.4b $ arms sales that the US is preparing with Taiwan .
Now , that 's the kind of things that can get China annoyed... who cares about google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me saying "no one talked about google" is really overlooking a key issue in current geopolitics, namely the 6.4b$ arms sales that the US is preparing with Taiwan.
Now, that's the kind of things that can get China annoyed... who cares about google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976498</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264950180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money.</b></p><p>You've obviously skipped political science and political philosophy courses. There are a few things that have not changed since man started scraping symbols on stone tablets:</p><p>* Justice rarely triumphs over power.<br>* The victor writes the history books.<br>* Self interest is the only value that matters to nation-states.</p><p>Don't plan on it changing because we are using electrons instead of chisels.</p><p>One might argue that the 20th century was the <i>least</i> repressive in history with the democratization of the west, the end of most slavery, and the establishment of the UN, GATT and World Court.  Of course, this does not mean that the world is not a very brutal, oppressive place.</p><p>Oh, and transparency does not mean what all you transparency idiots think it does.  It has opposite meanings: invisible and "not hiding anything".  Unfortunately, when a political leader says "we are being transparent" you have no clue which meaning they intend. "Transparency" is the most perfect "double-speak" word in history.  Of course, my ranting won't stop the Starbuckistan delegation to the UN from demanding more transparency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations , a degradation of honesty , transparency , and openness all in the name of making more money.You 've obviously skipped political science and political philosophy courses .
There are a few things that have not changed since man started scraping symbols on stone tablets : * Justice rarely triumphs over power .
* The victor writes the history books .
* Self interest is the only value that matters to nation-states.Do n't plan on it changing because we are using electrons instead of chisels.One might argue that the 20th century was the least repressive in history with the democratization of the west , the end of most slavery , and the establishment of the UN , GATT and World Court .
Of course , this does not mean that the world is not a very brutal , oppressive place.Oh , and transparency does not mean what all you transparency idiots think it does .
It has opposite meanings : invisible and " not hiding anything " .
Unfortunately , when a political leader says " we are being transparent " you have no clue which meaning they intend .
" Transparency " is the most perfect " double-speak " word in history .
Of course , my ranting wo n't stop the Starbuckistan delegation to the UN from demanding more transparency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money.You've obviously skipped political science and political philosophy courses.
There are a few things that have not changed since man started scraping symbols on stone tablets:* Justice rarely triumphs over power.
* The victor writes the history books.
* Self interest is the only value that matters to nation-states.Don't plan on it changing because we are using electrons instead of chisels.One might argue that the 20th century was the least repressive in history with the democratization of the west, the end of most slavery, and the establishment of the UN, GATT and World Court.
Of course, this does not mean that the world is not a very brutal, oppressive place.Oh, and transparency does not mean what all you transparency idiots think it does.
It has opposite meanings: invisible and "not hiding anything".
Unfortunately, when a political leader says "we are being transparent" you have no clue which meaning they intend.
"Transparency" is the most perfect "double-speak" word in history.
Of course, my ranting won't stop the Starbuckistan delegation to the UN from demanding more transparency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977282</id>
	<title>Article is now an unperson.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absofuckinglutely amazing!  The article has become an unperson.</p><p>http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-31/china-bosses-davos-as-nobody-discusses-what-happened-to-google.html doesn't even <i>load</i>.</p><p><i>The web is forever</i> I keep reading and hearing over the years.</p><p>Bullshit.  The web is just more of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and has just as many flaws as printed articles.  The power of the press goes to those who can afford the press; and likewise, it's a web article for as long as it's published.  In this case, the article has seemingly become an <i>unperson</i>.  At the time I'm posting this, note how the page <i>tries</i> to load, but there is no content.  By tomorrow, I fully expect the half-loading page to literally disappear.</p><p>Land of the free, my ass.  I got one for 'ya.  How about you free your mind first?  Drop the left/right liberal/conservative dogma crap going on in the United States.  Because the only real purpose it serves is to <i>keep you in line.</i> </p><p>Think for yourself.  Then ask yourself why you think what you did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absofuckinglutely amazing !
The article has become an unperson.http : //www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-31/china-bosses-davos-as-nobody-discusses-what-happened-to-google.html does n't even load.The web is forever I keep reading and hearing over the years.Bullshit .
The web is just more of Orwell 's Ministry of Truth , and has just as many flaws as printed articles .
The power of the press goes to those who can afford the press ; and likewise , it 's a web article for as long as it 's published .
In this case , the article has seemingly become an unperson .
At the time I 'm posting this , note how the page tries to load , but there is no content .
By tomorrow , I fully expect the half-loading page to literally disappear.Land of the free , my ass .
I got one for 'ya .
How about you free your mind first ?
Drop the left/right liberal/conservative dogma crap going on in the United States .
Because the only real purpose it serves is to keep you in line .
Think for yourself .
Then ask yourself why you think what you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absofuckinglutely amazing!
The article has become an unperson.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-31/china-bosses-davos-as-nobody-discusses-what-happened-to-google.html doesn't even load.The web is forever I keep reading and hearing over the years.Bullshit.
The web is just more of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and has just as many flaws as printed articles.
The power of the press goes to those who can afford the press; and likewise, it's a web article for as long as it's published.
In this case, the article has seemingly become an unperson.
At the time I'm posting this, note how the page tries to load, but there is no content.
By tomorrow, I fully expect the half-loading page to literally disappear.Land of the free, my ass.
I got one for 'ya.
How about you free your mind first?
Drop the left/right liberal/conservative dogma crap going on in the United States.
Because the only real purpose it serves is to keep you in line.
Think for yourself.
Then ask yourself why you think what you did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975664</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1264944240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.</p><p>Why would business be any different?</p></div><p>Ah... so your claim, here, is that someone stayed silent? Didn't Google hold a press conference and threaten to pull out of China? Isn't that the ONLY reason we know this happened?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.Why would business be any different ? Ah... so your claim , here , is that someone stayed silent ?
Did n't Google hold a press conference and threaten to pull out of China ?
Is n't that the ONLY reason we know this happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.Why would business be any different?Ah... so your claim, here, is that someone stayed silent?
Didn't Google hold a press conference and threaten to pull out of China?
Isn't that the ONLY reason we know this happened?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974974</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....</title>
	<author>furbyhater</author>
	<datestamp>1264939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're talking like American "IT-powerhouses" are superheroes or something. It's all about power and self-interest with these guys. You have been lied to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking like American " IT-powerhouses " are superheroes or something .
It 's all about power and self-interest with these guys .
You have been lied to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking like American "IT-powerhouses" are superheroes or something.
It's all about power and self-interest with these guys.
You have been lied to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974638</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1264937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course no one wants to bring up politics in an interview. When companies do, or even have speculation about certain political affiliations usually they are boycotted by one group or another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course no one wants to bring up politics in an interview .
When companies do , or even have speculation about certain political affiliations usually they are boycotted by one group or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course no one wants to bring up politics in an interview.
When companies do, or even have speculation about certain political affiliations usually they are boycotted by one group or another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.31006646</id>
	<title>Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So? USA spent on pricey weaponry while Chinese can just kill you with consumer's milk powders and toys? Pfft. Go brag elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
USA spent on pricey weaponry while Chinese can just kill you with consumer 's milk powders and toys ?
Pfft. Go brag elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
USA spent on pricey weaponry while Chinese can just kill you with consumer's milk powders and toys?
Pfft. Go brag elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977510</id>
	<title>I have no doubt it's being discussed</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you can bet it's being discussed. Just not publicly. That's why people go to Davos in the first place, to have the ability to discuss things privately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you can bet it 's being discussed .
Just not publicly .
That 's why people go to Davos in the first place , to have the ability to discuss things privately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you can bet it's being discussed.
Just not publicly.
That's why people go to Davos in the first place, to have the ability to discuss things privately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976548</id>
	<title>Exports</title>
	<author>deanston</author>
	<datestamp>1264950780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For decades USSR exported communism, and US try to export democracy, but we really export capitalism. The offspring is China, a single party empire that knows how to take advantage of capitalism and is more ruthless than anything witnessed in the West. China will run into problems, but mostly it will not be from external pressures, but as a result of trying to bring Western consumer standards to their entire populace. So I supposed we'll still have the last laugh, but I wonder if Google will still be significant by then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For decades USSR exported communism , and US try to export democracy , but we really export capitalism .
The offspring is China , a single party empire that knows how to take advantage of capitalism and is more ruthless than anything witnessed in the West .
China will run into problems , but mostly it will not be from external pressures , but as a result of trying to bring Western consumer standards to their entire populace .
So I supposed we 'll still have the last laugh , but I wonder if Google will still be significant by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For decades USSR exported communism, and US try to export democracy, but we really export capitalism.
The offspring is China, a single party empire that knows how to take advantage of capitalism and is more ruthless than anything witnessed in the West.
China will run into problems, but mostly it will not be from external pressures, but as a result of trying to bring Western consumer standards to their entire populace.
So I supposed we'll still have the last laugh, but I wonder if Google will still be significant by then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975190</id>
	<title>Indeed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it is certainly true that might makes right, as you also said, in the not too distant future they'll also have the most powerful military.</p><p>Fact of the mater is, there are quite a few of their rules that I don't really care to be subjected to and the more complacent we are here and now, the more dismal the future may well become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is certainly true that might makes right , as you also said , in the not too distant future they 'll also have the most powerful military.Fact of the mater is , there are quite a few of their rules that I do n't really care to be subjected to and the more complacent we are here and now , the more dismal the future may well become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is certainly true that might makes right, as you also said, in the not too distant future they'll also have the most powerful military.Fact of the mater is, there are quite a few of their rules that I don't really care to be subjected to and the more complacent we are here and now, the more dismal the future may well become.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975898</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....THE USA = COMIE BASTARDS EH?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264945860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yup we know who now wheres the pants<br>now when i speak of american ceos ill have to always mention Panties they wear at least once</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yup we know who now wheres the pantsnow when i speak of american ceos ill have to always mention Panties they wear at least once</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yup we know who now wheres the pantsnow when i speak of american ceos ill have to always mention Panties they wear at least once</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975428</id>
	<title>Re:Get used to it.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264942920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sending interns to US companies? Are you nuts, why the expense? Those saps let you produce their hardware and increasingly their software too. They'll even pay you to infect them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sending interns to US companies ?
Are you nuts , why the expense ?
Those saps let you produce their hardware and increasingly their software too .
They 'll even pay you to infect them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sending interns to US companies?
Are you nuts, why the expense?
Those saps let you produce their hardware and increasingly their software too.
They'll even pay you to infect them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30986290</id>
	<title>Article pulled</title>
	<author>sacolcor</author>
	<datestamp>1265016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and now the BusinessWeek article appears to have itself been pulled; I'm currently getting a 404.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and now the BusinessWeek article appears to have itself been pulled ; I 'm currently getting a 404 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and now the BusinessWeek article appears to have itself been pulled; I'm currently getting a 404.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974996</id>
	<title>even more interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not to discuss this story after today's story about <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7009749.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">evidence the chinese government has been hacking britian government and companies</a> [timesonline.co.uk] for some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not to discuss this story after today 's story about evidence the chinese government has been hacking britian government and companies [ timesonline.co.uk ] for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to discuss this story after today's story about evidence the chinese government has been hacking britian government and companies [timesonline.co.uk] for some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974756</id>
	<title>Google already made their point...</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264938480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it.  China had to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" even to avoid talking about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it .
China had to acknowledge the " elephant in the room " even to avoid talking about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it.
China had to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" even to avoid talking about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975490</id>
	<title>Re:Ackermann? World leaders?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264943220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you get the memo? The new definition of a world leader is "a criminal with corporate backing". They struck the "politician" between criminal and with, because they ain't really important anymore, you can move and replace them as you see fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you get the memo ?
The new definition of a world leader is " a criminal with corporate backing " .
They struck the " politician " between criminal and with , because they ai n't really important anymore , you can move and replace them as you see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you get the memo?
The new definition of a world leader is "a criminal with corporate backing".
They struck the "politician" between criminal and with, because they ain't really important anymore, you can move and replace them as you see fit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975378</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264942620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, then let's maybe say they're regressing in honesty. At least the emperors and kings didn't claim they gave half a shit about their people's opinion, and exploiting colonies was fair game, after all, we gave them civilisation (we call it freedom today, but it's still the same BS).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , then let 's maybe say they 're regressing in honesty .
At least the emperors and kings did n't claim they gave half a shit about their people 's opinion , and exploiting colonies was fair game , after all , we gave them civilisation ( we call it freedom today , but it 's still the same BS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, then let's maybe say they're regressing in honesty.
At least the emperors and kings didn't claim they gave half a shit about their people's opinion, and exploiting colonies was fair game, after all, we gave them civilisation (we call it freedom today, but it's still the same BS).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974836</id>
	<title>Well, duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.</p><p>Why would business be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.Why would business be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.Why would business be any different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977000</id>
	<title>Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined</p></div><p>Now that the US is broke, where is the money coming from? Here's a hint:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ch\_na<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combinedNow that the US is broke , where is the money coming from ?
Here 's a hint :           Ch \ _na .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combinedNow that the US is broke, where is the money coming from?
Here's a hint:
          Ch\_na ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976752</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>BearRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1264952940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because he who pays the piper calls the tune.  I'm sure you didn't miss the part of the article that states that China holds $789.6 billion in US Treasuries.  Whatever moral authority the US had has been traded for cold hard cash.  Debt truly is equivalent to slavery in some ways.   Governments have to ignore some of their transgressions in order to have access to their cash, and corporations ignore them because they want to market to their large populace.  Since you can't trust either to take a stand for morality and ethics that just leaves the rest of us.  If you don't like how China conducts itself in these matters stop rewarding them.  Don't buy products made there.  It won't be easy to do, but it's about the only concrete thing individuals can do about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because he who pays the piper calls the tune .
I 'm sure you did n't miss the part of the article that states that China holds $ 789.6 billion in US Treasuries .
Whatever moral authority the US had has been traded for cold hard cash .
Debt truly is equivalent to slavery in some ways .
Governments have to ignore some of their transgressions in order to have access to their cash , and corporations ignore them because they want to market to their large populace .
Since you ca n't trust either to take a stand for morality and ethics that just leaves the rest of us .
If you do n't like how China conducts itself in these matters stop rewarding them .
Do n't buy products made there .
It wo n't be easy to do , but it 's about the only concrete thing individuals can do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I'm sure you didn't miss the part of the article that states that China holds $789.6 billion in US Treasuries.
Whatever moral authority the US had has been traded for cold hard cash.
Debt truly is equivalent to slavery in some ways.
Governments have to ignore some of their transgressions in order to have access to their cash, and corporations ignore them because they want to market to their large populace.
Since you can't trust either to take a stand for morality and ethics that just leaves the rest of us.
If you don't like how China conducts itself in these matters stop rewarding them.
Don't buy products made there.
It won't be easy to do, but it's about the only concrete thing individuals can do about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977014</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So they can just get away with it, right? Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting. I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure."</p><p>Do they bring up our regular murdering of civilians? Our house is by no means clean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So they can just get away with it , right ?
Somehow I think what 's -not- being said is far more interesting .
I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure .
" Do they bring up our regular murdering of civilians ?
Our house is by no means clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So they can just get away with it, right?
Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting.
I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.
"Do they bring up our regular murdering of civilians?
Our house is by no means clean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976950</id>
	<title>The new Yellow Peril</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apologies if anyone finds this term offensive - I'm using it for historical significance.</p><p>So, after all the decades of US posturing on the evil communists, including using Roland Reagan to warn the US public that "socialized medicine"<br>would cause the downfall of the great capitalist nation, THIS is what it has become? The Western World, essentially the defendants of personal<br>freedom are now so craven that they kowtow to China - a country that has largely become a dominant force through enslavement of its people,<br>unfair valuation of its currency and extensive industrial espionage?</p><p>We are well and truly living in the Decline of the American Empire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apologies if anyone finds this term offensive - I 'm using it for historical significance.So , after all the decades of US posturing on the evil communists , including using Roland Reagan to warn the US public that " socialized medicine " would cause the downfall of the great capitalist nation , THIS is what it has become ?
The Western World , essentially the defendants of personalfreedom are now so craven that they kowtow to China - a country that has largely become a dominant force through enslavement of its people,unfair valuation of its currency and extensive industrial espionage ? We are well and truly living in the Decline of the American Empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apologies if anyone finds this term offensive - I'm using it for historical significance.So, after all the decades of US posturing on the evil communists, including using Roland Reagan to warn the US public that "socialized medicine"would cause the downfall of the great capitalist nation, THIS is what it has become?
The Western World, essentially the defendants of personalfreedom are now so craven that they kowtow to China - a country that has largely become a dominant force through enslavement of its people,unfair valuation of its currency and extensive industrial espionage?We are well and truly living in the Decline of the American Empire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974616</id>
	<title>Wow! The leadership is amazing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama finally figured out we need to do something about the federal deficit only one year into his term. And I thought Dubya was dumb.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama finally figured out we need to do something about the federal deficit only one year into his term .
And I thought Dubya was dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama finally figured out we need to do something about the federal deficit only one year into his term.
And I thought Dubya was dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976436</id>
	<title>Invest more in India?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264949580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just can't understand why the West doesn't invest more in India, a proven democratic, if somewhat chaotic country. It seems that the only thing China has (or "had" to speak on hindsight) going for it is (or "was") is a big population, that is, a momentarily cheap pool of labor. Both China and India have it (and Indian labor should by now be cheaper than China's). And for what it's worth many more Indians speak a form of Western language (English). The major languages of India are even distantly related to the major languages of Europe (Indo-European). What is it that China has that India has less of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ca n't understand why the West does n't invest more in India , a proven democratic , if somewhat chaotic country .
It seems that the only thing China has ( or " had " to speak on hindsight ) going for it is ( or " was " ) is a big population , that is , a momentarily cheap pool of labor .
Both China and India have it ( and Indian labor should by now be cheaper than China 's ) .
And for what it 's worth many more Indians speak a form of Western language ( English ) .
The major languages of India are even distantly related to the major languages of Europe ( Indo-European ) .
What is it that China has that India has less of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just can't understand why the West doesn't invest more in India, a proven democratic, if somewhat chaotic country.
It seems that the only thing China has (or "had" to speak on hindsight) going for it is (or "was") is a big population, that is, a momentarily cheap pool of labor.
Both China and India have it (and Indian labor should by now be cheaper than China's).
And for what it's worth many more Indians speak a form of Western language (English).
The major languages of India are even distantly related to the major languages of Europe (Indo-European).
What is it that China has that India has less of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975586</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1264943700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...</p></div><p>Google has been very vocal and very public about this. If they were staying mum to secure their business interests, then they really, really screwed up.</p><p>Only in the politics of global business news would holding a press conference that triggered comments from both your own Secretary of State and China's official news outlet and then letting that play out rather than continue to rant, be considered "staying quiet."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest .
Business as usual , nothing to see here folks , move along...Google has been very vocal and very public about this .
If they were staying mum to secure their business interests , then they really , really screwed up.Only in the politics of global business news would holding a press conference that triggered comments from both your own Secretary of State and China 's official news outlet and then letting that play out rather than continue to rant , be considered " staying quiet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest.
Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...Google has been very vocal and very public about this.
If they were staying mum to secure their business interests, then they really, really screwed up.Only in the politics of global business news would holding a press conference that triggered comments from both your own Secretary of State and China's official news outlet and then letting that play out rather than continue to rant, be considered "staying quiet.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974664</id>
	<title>nerd?</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1264937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Davros is attacking a meeting of world leaders?</p><p>It seems like the Daleks are always doing that. That gods Jon Pertwee was there before. What are we going to do now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Davros is attacking a meeting of world leaders ? It seems like the Daleks are always doing that .
That gods Jon Pertwee was there before .
What are we going to do now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Davros is attacking a meeting of world leaders?It seems like the Daleks are always doing that.
That gods Jon Pertwee was there before.
What are we going to do now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976116</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1264947120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its like claiming ignorance was bliss.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br>
When people grow up they become more and more aware of inethical behavior happening in various parts of the world (including the ones happening at their own country/neighborhood). They have an uneasy feeling about these and wish the world was as good as before (ie, wish the world would be as they imagined when they ignorant).<br> <br>
I bet if given the option, quite a lot of people will prefer ignorance to awareness/knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its like claiming ignorance was bliss .
: ) When people grow up they become more and more aware of inethical behavior happening in various parts of the world ( including the ones happening at their own country/neighborhood ) .
They have an uneasy feeling about these and wish the world was as good as before ( ie , wish the world would be as they imagined when they ignorant ) .
I bet if given the option , quite a lot of people will prefer ignorance to awareness/knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its like claiming ignorance was bliss.
:) 
When people grow up they become more and more aware of inethical behavior happening in various parts of the world (including the ones happening at their own country/neighborhood).
They have an uneasy feeling about these and wish the world was as good as before (ie, wish the world would be as they imagined when they ignorant).
I bet if given the option, quite a lot of people will prefer ignorance to awareness/knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977414</id>
	<title>Oh, wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another long discussion about "freedom", and white man's burden.</p><p>The elephant in the room is that those attacks are as much "Chinese" as 2009 H1N1 flu is "swine".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another long discussion about " freedom " , and white man 's burden.The elephant in the room is that those attacks are as much " Chinese " as 2009 H1N1 flu is " swine " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another long discussion about "freedom", and white man's burden.The elephant in the room is that those attacks are as much "Chinese" as 2009 H1N1 flu is "swine".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975660</id>
	<title>Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency,</title>
	<author>goga\_russian</author>
	<datestamp>1264944180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>damnit. i never got my Stalin Bobble head doll for +100XP, +5y in Gulag and +3 rad</htmltext>
<tokenext>damnit .
i never got my Stalin Bobble head doll for + 100XP , + 5y in Gulag and + 3 rad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>damnit.
i never got my Stalin Bobble head doll for +100XP, +5y in Gulag and +3 rad</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975002</id>
	<title>Ackermann? World leaders?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264940220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG</p></div><p>How exactly is that criminal a world leader? What is he doing there?<br>I guess we&rsquo;re really in a industrial feudalistic global system already...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Josef Ackermann , CEO of Deutsche Bank AGHow exactly is that criminal a world leader ?
What is he doing there ? I guess we    re really in a industrial feudalistic global system already.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AGHow exactly is that criminal a world leader?
What is he doing there?I guess we’re really in a industrial feudalistic global system already...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976678</id>
	<title>Re:might *does* make right</title>
	<author>HaynieMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264952160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a few decades China will be burdened with an enormous Generation of old people and a much smaller working generation. I don't think their future is what we need to worry about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a few decades China will be burdened with an enormous Generation of old people and a much smaller working generation .
I do n't think their future is what we need to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a few decades China will be burdened with an enormous Generation of old people and a much smaller working generation.
I don't think their future is what we need to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money.</i>

I hear this mantra repeated on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and elsewhere that the whole world is in moral and ethical decline.  Really?  Please give me a time period, anytime in world history, where nations were upstanding, moral, open, and fair to everyone.

It's fine if you want to argue that globalization has negative consequences that outweigh its positive effects.  But don't act like there was some bygone golden age in the past where everything was awesome.  Societies act solely in their own self interest, always have, always will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations , a degradation of honesty , transparency , and openness all in the name of making more money .
I hear this mantra repeated on / .
and elsewhere that the whole world is in moral and ethical decline .
Really ? Please give me a time period , anytime in world history , where nations were upstanding , moral , open , and fair to everyone .
It 's fine if you want to argue that globalization has negative consequences that outweigh its positive effects .
But do n't act like there was some bygone golden age in the past where everything was awesome .
Societies act solely in their own self interest , always have , always will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money.
I hear this mantra repeated on /.
and elsewhere that the whole world is in moral and ethical decline.
Really?  Please give me a time period, anytime in world history, where nations were upstanding, moral, open, and fair to everyone.
It's fine if you want to argue that globalization has negative consequences that outweigh its positive effects.
But don't act like there was some bygone golden age in the past where everything was awesome.
Societies act solely in their own self interest, always have, always will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976972</id>
	<title>Hey everybody, don't piss off china!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They own all our debt. And all of yours too probably. International cyber attacks but lets say it didn't happen so the credit merchant will keep buying our promises. Replace international law with a 90 day guarantee and a coupon for 20\% off our next bond sale. If China ends up owning the world it's because the world is a bunch of cowards who like to brag about The Law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They own all our debt .
And all of yours too probably .
International cyber attacks but lets say it did n't happen so the credit merchant will keep buying our promises .
Replace international law with a 90 day guarantee and a coupon for 20 \ % off our next bond sale .
If China ends up owning the world it 's because the world is a bunch of cowards who like to brag about The Law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They own all our debt.
And all of yours too probably.
International cyber attacks but lets say it didn't happen so the credit merchant will keep buying our promises.
Replace international law with a 90 day guarantee and a coupon for 20\% off our next bond sale.
If China ends up owning the world it's because the world is a bunch of cowards who like to brag about The Law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977080</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1264956840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.</p></div><p>I suspect that exactly the opposite is more likely: The <strong>IT powerhouses</strong> will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when the <strong>perpetrators</strong> decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.</p><p>... Not that I think <em>either</em> outcome is a certainty, by the way. Nonetheless, perhaps the most interesting part about this whole episode (and I'm including the mass-attack against US military assets earlier in 2009 here) is that the effort was so brazen. And when someone (Google) finally did pipe up, China's effective response was, '<em>Sit down and shut up if you know what's good for you.</em>'</p><p>It's not at all surprising that most of our so-called business leaders acquiesce. If MBA school teaches you anything, it's that you have to go along to get along.</p><p> <a href="http://scriptorum.imagicity.com/2010/02/01/google-china-and-anti-features/" title="imagicity.com">More analysis here</a> [imagicity.com], for anyone not frightened by TL;DR.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.I suspect that exactly the opposite is more likely : The IT powerhouses will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when the perpetrators decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.... Not that I think either outcome is a certainty , by the way .
Nonetheless , perhaps the most interesting part about this whole episode ( and I 'm including the mass-attack against US military assets earlier in 2009 here ) is that the effort was so brazen .
And when someone ( Google ) finally did pipe up , China 's effective response was , 'Sit down and shut up if you know what 's good for you .
'It 's not at all surprising that most of our so-called business leaders acquiesce .
If MBA school teaches you anything , it 's that you have to go along to get along .
More analysis here [ imagicity.com ] , for anyone not frightened by TL ; DR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.I suspect that exactly the opposite is more likely: The IT powerhouses will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when the perpetrators decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.... Not that I think either outcome is a certainty, by the way.
Nonetheless, perhaps the most interesting part about this whole episode (and I'm including the mass-attack against US military assets earlier in 2009 here) is that the effort was so brazen.
And when someone (Google) finally did pipe up, China's effective response was, 'Sit down and shut up if you know what's good for you.
'It's not at all surprising that most of our so-called business leaders acquiesce.
If MBA school teaches you anything, it's that you have to go along to get along.
More analysis here [imagicity.com], for anyone not frightened by TL;DR.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975342</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>TheNarrator</author>
	<datestamp>1264942380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China's strategy for regaining it's hegemonic strategy is pretty simple and utilizes a basic weakness in American democracy.</p><p>U.S Corporate lobbyists command massive influence politics in the united states.</p><p>U.S lobbyists are controlled by U.S corporations.</p><p>China can easily exert influence over U.S corporations by giving them preferential or non-preferential treatment with their China operations.  They can even tell them to get their lobbyists to tell the politicians in Washington to do what China wants.</p><p>Therefore China can easily exert influence on Washington.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China 's strategy for regaining it 's hegemonic strategy is pretty simple and utilizes a basic weakness in American democracy.U.S Corporate lobbyists command massive influence politics in the united states.U.S lobbyists are controlled by U.S corporations.China can easily exert influence over U.S corporations by giving them preferential or non-preferential treatment with their China operations .
They can even tell them to get their lobbyists to tell the politicians in Washington to do what China wants.Therefore China can easily exert influence on Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China's strategy for regaining it's hegemonic strategy is pretty simple and utilizes a basic weakness in American democracy.U.S Corporate lobbyists command massive influence politics in the united states.U.S lobbyists are controlled by U.S corporations.China can easily exert influence over U.S corporations by giving them preferential or non-preferential treatment with their China operations.
They can even tell them to get their lobbyists to tell the politicians in Washington to do what China wants.Therefore China can easily exert influence on Washington.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975178</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1264941420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So they can just get away with it, right?</p></div><p>This was not a military attack; it was espionage.  These types of things have been going on for decades without direct, public reprisals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they can just get away with it , right ? This was not a military attack ; it was espionage .
These types of things have been going on for decades without direct , public reprisals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they can just get away with it, right?This was not a military attack; it was espionage.
These types of things have been going on for decades without direct, public reprisals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977342</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1264959180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear Atlantis was pretty sweet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear Atlantis was pretty sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear Atlantis was pretty sweet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975524</id>
	<title>Re:might *does* make right</title>
	<author>strangelovian</author>
	<datestamp>1264943400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My theory is that we&rsquo;re moving into a post-progressive, negative sum, Malthusian paradigm, and China is way ahead of the curve.  The neoliberal notion that the U.S. has some supreme model of socioeconomic organization that will inevitably spread to the entire world is looking more and more delusional to me.  China plays hardball because they&rsquo;re smart; the West is led by people like Obama and Clinton who try to be the &ldquo;good guys&rdquo;, which the rest of the world interprets as weakness.  We&rsquo;ll eventually wake up when things really start to go downhill and competition for the planet&rsquo;s remaining resources becomes a matter of survival.  That&rsquo;s when the peaceful acceptance of China&rsquo;s rise will end, and World War III will begin.  Unless one side collapses like the U.S.S.R. did, I see this outcome as almost inevitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My theory is that we    re moving into a post-progressive , negative sum , Malthusian paradigm , and China is way ahead of the curve .
The neoliberal notion that the U.S. has some supreme model of socioeconomic organization that will inevitably spread to the entire world is looking more and more delusional to me .
China plays hardball because they    re smart ; the West is led by people like Obama and Clinton who try to be the    good guys    , which the rest of the world interprets as weakness .
We    ll eventually wake up when things really start to go downhill and competition for the planet    s remaining resources becomes a matter of survival .
That    s when the peaceful acceptance of China    s rise will end , and World War III will begin .
Unless one side collapses like the U.S.S.R. did , I see this outcome as almost inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My theory is that we’re moving into a post-progressive, negative sum, Malthusian paradigm, and China is way ahead of the curve.
The neoliberal notion that the U.S. has some supreme model of socioeconomic organization that will inevitably spread to the entire world is looking more and more delusional to me.
China plays hardball because they’re smart; the West is led by people like Obama and Clinton who try to be the “good guys”, which the rest of the world interprets as weakness.
We’ll eventually wake up when things really start to go downhill and competition for the planet’s remaining resources becomes a matter of survival.
That’s when the peaceful acceptance of China’s rise will end, and World War III will begin.
Unless one side collapses like the U.S.S.R. did, I see this outcome as almost inevitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976918</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization. I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness</p></div><p>Be realistic. Nobody wants open confrontation on a scale that provokes violence. Things are far better settled with back room negotiations, a little public humiliation and some secret slight of hand.</p><p>But if the lack of transparency and openness are not to your liking, pick up a rifle and go to Afghanistan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the nature of the beast , and the trend in globalization .
I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations , a degradation of honesty , transparency , and opennessBe realistic .
Nobody wants open confrontation on a scale that provokes violence .
Things are far better settled with back room negotiations , a little public humiliation and some secret slight of hand.But if the lack of transparency and openness are not to your liking , pick up a rifle and go to Afghanistan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization.
I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and opennessBe realistic.
Nobody wants open confrontation on a scale that provokes violence.
Things are far better settled with back room negotiations, a little public humiliation and some secret slight of hand.But if the lack of transparency and openness are not to your liking, pick up a rifle and go to Afghanistan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975024</id>
	<title>What are they going to say about it anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are they going to say about it anyway?  At least we know about it and can talk about it.  It's not revisionist history yet...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are they going to say about it anyway ?
At least we know about it and can talk about it .
It 's not revisionist history yet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are they going to say about it anyway?
At least we know about it and can talk about it.
It's not revisionist history yet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976722</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>twotailakitsune</author>
	<datestamp>1264952700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 mil BC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 mil BC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 mil BC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974890</id>
	<title>ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the RED CHINESE?</p><p>(Yes.)</p><p>Take this woman out back and shoot her.</p><p>(I take that back.  No.)</p><p>(POW!)</p><p>Mr. Gates.  Are you now or have you ever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the RED CHINESE ? ( Yes .
) Take this woman out back and shoot her .
( I take that back .
No. ) ( POW ! ) Mr. Gates .
Are you now or have you ever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the RED CHINESE?(Yes.
)Take this woman out back and shoot her.
(I take that back.
No.)(POW!)Mr. Gates.
Are you now or have you ever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977688</id>
	<title>Umm wow</title>
	<author>shoehornjob</author>
	<datestamp>1264962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhere in the middle of this thread we went from world leaders and google getting attacked to politics and government having poor morals etc. Pretty heavy shit for a site that's mostly focused on science and technology.<br><br>Government and corporations are as corrupt and devoid of morality as we allow them to be. Always have been always will. Until the people get tired of this shit why expect anything to change. Nothing interesting to see here move on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere in the middle of this thread we went from world leaders and google getting attacked to politics and government having poor morals etc .
Pretty heavy shit for a site that 's mostly focused on science and technology.Government and corporations are as corrupt and devoid of morality as we allow them to be .
Always have been always will .
Until the people get tired of this shit why expect anything to change .
Nothing interesting to see here move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere in the middle of this thread we went from world leaders and google getting attacked to politics and government having poor morals etc.
Pretty heavy shit for a site that's mostly focused on science and technology.Government and corporations are as corrupt and devoid of morality as we allow them to be.
Always have been always will.
Until the people get tired of this shit why expect anything to change.
Nothing interesting to see here move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975462</id>
	<title>Re:might *does* make right</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264943040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.</i></p><p>You mean, China is the new USA? Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market .
Smart players will play by China 's rules and not try to upset them.You mean , China is the new USA ?
Because 'til now it was " play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy , look at Cuba for reference " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market.
Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.You mean, China is the new USA?
Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336</id>
	<title>Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>and the most powerful military.</i>

</p><p>The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld" title="globalissues.org">http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld</a> [globalissues.org]

</p><p>Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and <b>the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008.</b>  Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.

</p><p>Per capita for the US, looks to be about $2500 in 2004, now $3200: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG</a> [wikipedia.org]

</p><p>Why not have a look at where that places us relative to everyone else?  For some reason "Nationmaster" doesn't list the US, but here you can see that figure is $1000 more than the next-highest, Israel (all the figures are from 2004): <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil\_exp\_dol\_fig\_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita" title="nationmaster.com">http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil\_exp\_dol\_fig\_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita</a> [nationmaster.com]

</p><p>GDP-wise, America outspends at a percentage twice the world average; Russia actually beat the US relative to GDP on a couple of occasions, but that probably has more to do with Russia's GDP being in the toilet.

</p><p>http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&amp;met=ms\_mil\_xpnd\_gd\_zs&amp;idim=country:USA:CHN:GBR:RUS&amp;tdim=true&amp;tstart=567993600000&amp;tunit=Y&amp;tlen=20</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the most powerful military .
The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined : http : //www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending # InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld [ globalissues.org ] Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart , and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008 .
Let 's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan .
Per capita for the US , looks to be about $ 2500 in 2004 , now $ 3200 : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG [ wikipedia.org ] Why not have a look at where that places us relative to everyone else ?
For some reason " Nationmaster " does n't list the US , but here you can see that figure is $ 1000 more than the next-highest , Israel ( all the figures are from 2004 ) : http : //www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil \ _exp \ _dol \ _fig \ _percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita [ nationmaster.com ] GDP-wise , America outspends at a percentage twice the world average ; Russia actually beat the US relative to GDP on a couple of occasions , but that probably has more to do with Russia 's GDP being in the toilet .
http : //www.google.com/publicdata ? ds = wb-wdi&amp;met = ms \ _mil \ _xpnd \ _gd \ _zs&amp;idim = country : USA : CHN : GBR : RUS&amp;tdim = true&amp;tstart = 567993600000&amp;tunit = Y&amp;tlen = 20</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and the most powerful military.
The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld [globalissues.org]

Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008.
Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.
Per capita for the US, looks to be about $2500 in 2004, now $3200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG [wikipedia.org]

Why not have a look at where that places us relative to everyone else?
For some reason "Nationmaster" doesn't list the US, but here you can see that figure is $1000 more than the next-highest, Israel (all the figures are from 2004): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil\_exp\_dol\_fig\_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita [nationmaster.com]

GDP-wise, America outspends at a percentage twice the world average; Russia actually beat the US relative to GDP on a couple of occasions, but that probably has more to do with Russia's GDP being in the toilet.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&amp;met=ms\_mil\_xpnd\_gd\_zs&amp;idim=country:USA:CHN:GBR:RUS&amp;tdim=true&amp;tstart=567993600000&amp;tunit=Y&amp;tlen=20</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977956</id>
	<title>Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1</title>
	<author>eggnoglatte</author>
	<datestamp>1264966260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld" title="globalissues.org">http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld</a> [globalissues.org]</p><p>Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and <b>the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008.</b>  Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.</p></div><p>And just how much longer do you think the US will be able to afford that? What happens when China stops financing the US deficit by buying up all the US bonds? US citizens are too much in the hole themselves to be able to afford buying those bonds.</p><p>This is the crucial mistake the US has made: it has blown its wealth on two wars that mean nothing. Those made a few people with Haliburton shares filthy rich, but the country is in real trouble for it now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined : http : //www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending # InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld [ globalissues.org ] Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart , and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008 .
Let 's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.And just how much longer do you think the US will be able to afford that ?
What happens when China stops financing the US deficit by buying up all the US bonds ?
US citizens are too much in the hole themselves to be able to afford buying those bonds.This is the crucial mistake the US has made : it has blown its wealth on two wars that mean nothing .
Those made a few people with Haliburton shares filthy rich , but the country is in real trouble for it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld [globalissues.org]Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008.
Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.And just how much longer do you think the US will be able to afford that?
What happens when China stops financing the US deficit by buying up all the US bonds?
US citizens are too much in the hole themselves to be able to afford buying those bonds.This is the crucial mistake the US has made: it has blown its wealth on two wars that mean nothing.
Those made a few people with Haliburton shares filthy rich, but the country is in real trouble for it now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974902</id>
	<title>You see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole situation is a lot like a car.</p><p>Nuff said...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole situation is a lot like a car.Nuff said.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole situation is a lot like a car.Nuff said...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30979014</id>
	<title>For a different viewpoint (some might not like it)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.voltairenet.org/article163619.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.voltairenet.org/article163619.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.voltairenet.org/article163619.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</id>
	<title>Soooo....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they can just get away with it, right?  Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting.  I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they can just get away with it , right ?
Somehow I think what 's -not- being said is far more interesting .
I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they can just get away with it, right?
Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting.
I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978804</id>
	<title>Re:Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265020800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the issue is that these things don't increase in a straight line, you get peaks and troughs, whilst modern Britain is clearly better than medieval Britain for example, I would argue at least that in Britain we are certanly much less free, and there is a lower standard of ethics and morals now than we had back in the 90s.</p><p>The tide does seem to be turning though now, as people in the UK finally get tired of Labour's authoritarianism, and as the European Court of Human Rights rules more and more of Labour's laws as illegal.</p><p>I would argue that the last decade has been quite bad for liberty, ethics, and morals, due to a cominbation of post 9/11 scaremongering, war, and counter-terrorism laws and companies being a little too unregulated. Certainly in the UK, I feel that the culmination of the financial crisis, too many steps too far in different areas by the government, and the MPs expenses scandal here represented a local minimum, and that we are now, hopefully, on a path to improvement with elections looming, people finally being tired of authoritarian Labour, and banks being so unethical they ended up shooting itself in the foot.</p><p>So I agree, the idea that things are worse in general now than they ever have been simply isn't true- things have been much worse, however I also agree that things have gotten markedly worse this last decade than the decade before, but I do not believe the decline is terminal- only a trough in some theoretical graph that could measure these things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue is that these things do n't increase in a straight line , you get peaks and troughs , whilst modern Britain is clearly better than medieval Britain for example , I would argue at least that in Britain we are certanly much less free , and there is a lower standard of ethics and morals now than we had back in the 90s.The tide does seem to be turning though now , as people in the UK finally get tired of Labour 's authoritarianism , and as the European Court of Human Rights rules more and more of Labour 's laws as illegal.I would argue that the last decade has been quite bad for liberty , ethics , and morals , due to a cominbation of post 9/11 scaremongering , war , and counter-terrorism laws and companies being a little too unregulated .
Certainly in the UK , I feel that the culmination of the financial crisis , too many steps too far in different areas by the government , and the MPs expenses scandal here represented a local minimum , and that we are now , hopefully , on a path to improvement with elections looming , people finally being tired of authoritarian Labour , and banks being so unethical they ended up shooting itself in the foot.So I agree , the idea that things are worse in general now than they ever have been simply is n't true- things have been much worse , however I also agree that things have gotten markedly worse this last decade than the decade before , but I do not believe the decline is terminal- only a trough in some theoretical graph that could measure these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue is that these things don't increase in a straight line, you get peaks and troughs, whilst modern Britain is clearly better than medieval Britain for example, I would argue at least that in Britain we are certanly much less free, and there is a lower standard of ethics and morals now than we had back in the 90s.The tide does seem to be turning though now, as people in the UK finally get tired of Labour's authoritarianism, and as the European Court of Human Rights rules more and more of Labour's laws as illegal.I would argue that the last decade has been quite bad for liberty, ethics, and morals, due to a cominbation of post 9/11 scaremongering, war, and counter-terrorism laws and companies being a little too unregulated.
Certainly in the UK, I feel that the culmination of the financial crisis, too many steps too far in different areas by the government, and the MPs expenses scandal here represented a local minimum, and that we are now, hopefully, on a path to improvement with elections looming, people finally being tired of authoritarian Labour, and banks being so unethical they ended up shooting itself in the foot.So I agree, the idea that things are worse in general now than they ever have been simply isn't true- things have been much worse, however I also agree that things have gotten markedly worse this last decade than the decade before, but I do not believe the decline is terminal- only a trough in some theoretical graph that could measure these things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670</id>
	<title>Disclosure At the Table</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...<br> <br>This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization. I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money. Will we ever see the end of these practices? I don't believe in my lifetime, if ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest .
Business as usual , nothing to see here folks , move along... This is the nature of the beast , and the trend in globalization .
I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations , a degradation of honesty , transparency , and openness all in the name of making more money .
Will we ever see the end of these practices ?
I do n't believe in my lifetime , if ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest.
Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along... This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization.
I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money.
Will we ever see the end of these practices?
I don't believe in my lifetime, if ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975338</id>
	<title>Re:might *does* make right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market.  Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.</p><p>The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business.  "Might makes right" *does* matter. </p></div><p>So, by your logic, the appropriate response to Hitler's Germany was to keep mum, because it was a superpower? By what most commenters to this article in general, it seems it was OK for IBM to supply Hitler the machines for the German census as well. History repeats itself indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market .
Smart players will play by China 's rules and not try to upset them.The thing a lot of people do n't get is that morals do n't matter in international politics and business .
" Might makes right " * does * matter .
So , by your logic , the appropriate response to Hitler 's Germany was to keep mum , because it was a superpower ?
By what most commenters to this article in general , it seems it was OK for IBM to supply Hitler the machines for the German census as well .
History repeats itself indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market.
Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business.
"Might makes right" *does* matter.
So, by your logic, the appropriate response to Hitler's Germany was to keep mum, because it was a superpower?
By what most commenters to this article in general, it seems it was OK for IBM to supply Hitler the machines for the German census as well.
History repeats itself indeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977508</id>
	<title>Everybody's So Freakin Xenophobic</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>China's got a BILLION people living in it.  It's naturally going to rise to its full potential over time, especially with such centralized control.  To say that it's doing all of this because it's out to get us, is rather paranoid, xenophobic, and shallow.  Wouldn't you want the best for yourself, too?  Also, BECAUSE China is growing, the US is falling apart?  Really?  Iraq and Afghanistan are going to destroy us?  Please.  Doesn't anybody remember Vietnam?  I think the US came out OK (albeit bruised and shamed) after that one.  Slashdot conversations like these are great, it's as if we're all having a real discussion on the issues, implications, and possibilities, yet we aren't.  This is just everybody's fears, angst, and value choices wrapped in the sesame seed bun of legitimate conversation.  China's going do it's thing, get over it.  Does it bug you that much?  Don't buy Chinese products, but don't come crying to me when that doesn't affect anything anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China 's got a BILLION people living in it .
It 's naturally going to rise to its full potential over time , especially with such centralized control .
To say that it 's doing all of this because it 's out to get us , is rather paranoid , xenophobic , and shallow .
Would n't you want the best for yourself , too ?
Also , BECAUSE China is growing , the US is falling apart ?
Really ? Iraq and Afghanistan are going to destroy us ?
Please. Does n't anybody remember Vietnam ?
I think the US came out OK ( albeit bruised and shamed ) after that one .
Slashdot conversations like these are great , it 's as if we 're all having a real discussion on the issues , implications , and possibilities , yet we are n't .
This is just everybody 's fears , angst , and value choices wrapped in the sesame seed bun of legitimate conversation .
China 's going do it 's thing , get over it .
Does it bug you that much ?
Do n't buy Chinese products , but do n't come crying to me when that does n't affect anything anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China's got a BILLION people living in it.
It's naturally going to rise to its full potential over time, especially with such centralized control.
To say that it's doing all of this because it's out to get us, is rather paranoid, xenophobic, and shallow.
Wouldn't you want the best for yourself, too?
Also, BECAUSE China is growing, the US is falling apart?
Really?  Iraq and Afghanistan are going to destroy us?
Please.  Doesn't anybody remember Vietnam?
I think the US came out OK (albeit bruised and shamed) after that one.
Slashdot conversations like these are great, it's as if we're all having a real discussion on the issues, implications, and possibilities, yet we aren't.
This is just everybody's fears, angst, and value choices wrapped in the sesame seed bun of legitimate conversation.
China's going do it's thing, get over it.
Does it bug you that much?
Don't buy Chinese products, but don't come crying to me when that doesn't affect anything anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974938</id>
	<title>Elephant in the room</title>
	<author>solferino</author>
	<datestamp>1264939740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://telescoper.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/la\_tai4.jpg" title="wordpress.com">Elephant in the room</a> [wordpress.com] by Banksy.<br> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/image/74726565" title="pbase.com">Elephant in the room</a> [pbase.com] by <i>The New Yorker</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Elephant in the room [ wordpress.com ] by Banksy .
Elephant in the room [ pbase.com ] by The New Yorker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elephant in the room [wordpress.com] by Banksy.
Elephant in the room [pbase.com] by The New Yorker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975078</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The interests of capitalism and nationalism may overlap, but they are never the same.<br>What may favor commercial interests may not work well for a given nation or nations.</p><p>"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."<br>Thomas Jefferson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interests of capitalism and nationalism may overlap , but they are never the same.What may favor commercial interests may not work well for a given nation or nations .
" Merchants have no country .
The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains .
" Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interests of capitalism and nationalism may overlap, but they are never the same.What may favor commercial interests may not work well for a given nation or nations.
"Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
"Thomas Jefferson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974878</id>
	<title>China is super precious...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have no real restrictions there like enforced copyright laws.</p><p>In the west everything is lost to restrictions.</p><p>China is a free country.</p><p>And the best thing: Only very few realize that fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have no real restrictions there like enforced copyright laws.In the west everything is lost to restrictions.China is a free country.And the best thing : Only very few realize that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have no real restrictions there like enforced copyright laws.In the west everything is lost to restrictions.China is a free country.And the best thing: Only very few realize that fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978520</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>Gunstick</author>
	<datestamp>1265017380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they are NOT my friends!</p><p>And I don't need them to poinson my Kids with dangerous toys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they are NOT my friends ! And I do n't need them to poinson my Kids with dangerous toys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are NOT my friends!And I don't need them to poinson my Kids with dangerous toys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974668</id>
	<title>Remember What Secretary of State Clintain Said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's NOT about ( establishing)  human rights in China. ( it's about money ) .</p><p>Yours In Astakhan,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's NOT about ( establishing ) human rights in China .
( it 's about money ) .Yours In Astakhan,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's NOT about ( establishing)  human rights in China.
( it's about money ) .Yours In Astakhan,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975012</id>
	<title>Re:Soooo....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.</p></div><p>You watch too much television, things are done differently in the real world. Once the rest of the world has had enough of the abuse from the Chinese, we will just unleash Chuck Norris on them. The ones he allows to survive will then be condemned to assembling iPads for the rest of their lives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.You watch too much television , things are done differently in the real world .
Once the rest of the world has had enough of the abuse from the Chinese , we will just unleash Chuck Norris on them .
The ones he allows to survive will then be condemned to assembling iPads for the rest of their lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.You watch too much television, things are done differently in the real world.
Once the rest of the world has had enough of the abuse from the Chinese, we will just unleash Chuck Norris on them.
The ones he allows to survive will then be condemned to assembling iPads for the rest of their lives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974924</id>
	<title>World Economic Forum co-chair representatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USA - 4<br>Germany - 1<br>India - 1<br>UK - 1</p><p>China - 0</p><p>http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Sun31/index.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USA - 4Germany - 1India - 1UK - 1China - 0http : //www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Sun31/index.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USA - 4Germany - 1India - 1UK - 1China - 0http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Sun31/index.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977516</id>
	<title>And now you know the final truth to the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Everyone has their commercial interests in mind."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Everyone has their commercial interests in mind .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Everyone has their commercial interests in mind.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977162</id>
	<title>China Will Have Its Own Problems</title>
	<author>the\_mushroom\_king</author>
	<datestamp>1264957440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What keeps the powers in Beijing up at night isn't the US, but Chinese people wanting the same rights and representation enjoyed in the Western world.

</p><p>The Communist Party is raping the country at the expense of the common people. Eventually, they will tire of eating poisoned food and washing it down with poisoned water. They will tire of watching their children die from the poisoned air.

</p><p>All the censorship in the world won't stop that from happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What keeps the powers in Beijing up at night is n't the US , but Chinese people wanting the same rights and representation enjoyed in the Western world .
The Communist Party is raping the country at the expense of the common people .
Eventually , they will tire of eating poisoned food and washing it down with poisoned water .
They will tire of watching their children die from the poisoned air .
All the censorship in the world wo n't stop that from happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What keeps the powers in Beijing up at night isn't the US, but Chinese people wanting the same rights and representation enjoyed in the Western world.
The Communist Party is raping the country at the expense of the common people.
Eventually, they will tire of eating poisoned food and washing it down with poisoned water.
They will tire of watching their children die from the poisoned air.
All the censorship in the world won't stop that from happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30979014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.31006646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_2227235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.31006646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30976476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30979014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30977508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_2227235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30974836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30975664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_2227235.30978520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
