<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_13_146246</id>
	<title>Motorola To Split In Two</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266076800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that Motorola plans to reorganize itself into two independent publicly held companies by the first quarter of 2011. The first company will own the Motorola brand and will include Motorola's <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/motorola-confirms-new-plan-to-split-itself/">mobile handset unit and home set-top box business</a>. This new company will focus on the <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/motorola-considers-merging-units-for-a-spinoff/">'three screens' lifestyle</a> envisioned by carriers like AT&amp;T and Verizon, where customers would watch content on TV, on their computers, and on their mobile phones. The other company emerging from the split will include Motorola's wireless networking business and its enterprise radio systems operations. The wireless networking business would likely be sold off, leaving the second company with its profitable enterprise radio systems business, which generated $7 billion of the company's $22 billion in sales in 2009."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The NY Times reports that Motorola plans to reorganize itself into two independent publicly held companies by the first quarter of 2011 .
The first company will own the Motorola brand and will include Motorola 's mobile handset unit and home set-top box business .
This new company will focus on the 'three screens ' lifestyle envisioned by carriers like AT&amp;T and Verizon , where customers would watch content on TV , on their computers , and on their mobile phones .
The other company emerging from the split will include Motorola 's wireless networking business and its enterprise radio systems operations .
The wireless networking business would likely be sold off , leaving the second company with its profitable enterprise radio systems business , which generated $ 7 billion of the company 's $ 22 billion in sales in 2009 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Motorola plans to reorganize itself into two independent publicly held companies by the first quarter of 2011.
The first company will own the Motorola brand and will include Motorola's mobile handset unit and home set-top box business.
This new company will focus on the 'three screens' lifestyle envisioned by carriers like AT&amp;T and Verizon, where customers would watch content on TV, on their computers, and on their mobile phones.
The other company emerging from the split will include Motorola's wireless networking business and its enterprise radio systems operations.
The wireless networking business would likely be sold off, leaving the second company with its profitable enterprise radio systems business, which generated $7 billion of the company's $22 billion in sales in 2009.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31130056</id>
	<title>Re:Woohoo!</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1266056940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see what TV has to do with this. The future I'm seeing is one in which I have two, maybe three computers, and two, maybe three screens, any one of which can be plugged into another. If I want to watch a 1080p program that's on my phone, I'll dock my phone at a big screen. If I want to have a portable machine, I'll take my laptop, which might just be a phone dock with a keyboard and a screen.</p><p>Alternately, I'll just plug my keyboard into my phone if all I'm doing is notetaking. With that kind of setup, I could see me doing entirely without something in the netbook form factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see what TV has to do with this .
The future I 'm seeing is one in which I have two , maybe three computers , and two , maybe three screens , any one of which can be plugged into another .
If I want to watch a 1080p program that 's on my phone , I 'll dock my phone at a big screen .
If I want to have a portable machine , I 'll take my laptop , which might just be a phone dock with a keyboard and a screen.Alternately , I 'll just plug my keyboard into my phone if all I 'm doing is notetaking .
With that kind of setup , I could see me doing entirely without something in the netbook form factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see what TV has to do with this.
The future I'm seeing is one in which I have two, maybe three computers, and two, maybe three screens, any one of which can be plugged into another.
If I want to watch a 1080p program that's on my phone, I'll dock my phone at a big screen.
If I want to have a portable machine, I'll take my laptop, which might just be a phone dock with a keyboard and a screen.Alternately, I'll just plug my keyboard into my phone if all I'm doing is notetaking.
With that kind of setup, I could see me doing entirely without something in the netbook form factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127980</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you explained why the divestiture makes sense.  Top management (and there should be a de-layering, since there is now redundancy at the group management level) needs to be solely focused on mobile and consumer wireless products.  They need to sink or swim based on the profitability of that product group, otherwise some raider (Carl Icahn or similar) will come to that conclusion for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you explained why the divestiture makes sense .
Top management ( and there should be a de-layering , since there is now redundancy at the group management level ) needs to be solely focused on mobile and consumer wireless products .
They need to sink or swim based on the profitability of that product group , otherwise some raider ( Carl Icahn or similar ) will come to that conclusion for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you explained why the divestiture makes sense.
Top management (and there should be a de-layering, since there is now redundancy at the group management level) needs to be solely focused on mobile and consumer wireless products.
They need to sink or swim based on the profitability of that product group, otherwise some raider (Carl Icahn or similar) will come to that conclusion for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128516</id>
	<title>Re:Which one keeps the "Motorola" name?</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1266088440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anecdotes go only so far.<br>I've got a HTC Himalaya somewhere which also was abused a lot. It must be 6 years old now, was equipped with WM2003 back then but works even with WM6. Had to replace the battery twice, but other than that it just works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anecdotes go only so far.I 've got a HTC Himalaya somewhere which also was abused a lot .
It must be 6 years old now , was equipped with WM2003 back then but works even with WM6 .
Had to replace the battery twice , but other than that it just works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anecdotes go only so far.I've got a HTC Himalaya somewhere which also was abused a lot.
It must be 6 years old now, was equipped with WM2003 back then but works even with WM6.
Had to replace the battery twice, but other than that it just works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127970</id>
	<title>2008 news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Motorola to split, shocking news unfolding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>They hired Sanjay Jha from Qualcomm in 2008 with express intent of making him head of the cellphone company to split off. In fact Jha's contract has stipulations that he would get a buttlaod of money as compensation if this does not happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorola to split , shocking news unfolding ...They hired Sanjay Jha from Qualcomm in 2008 with express intent of making him head of the cellphone company to split off .
In fact Jha 's contract has stipulations that he would get a buttlaod of money as compensation if this does not happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorola to split, shocking news unfolding ...They hired Sanjay Jha from Qualcomm in 2008 with express intent of making him head of the cellphone company to split off.
In fact Jha's contract has stipulations that he would get a buttlaod of money as compensation if this does not happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31132684</id>
	<title>Timbuktu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266085980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what will become of Timbuktu.... the remote control software they now control since they acquired Netopia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what will become of Timbuktu.... the remote control software they now control since they acquired Netopia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what will become of Timbuktu.... the remote control software they now control since they acquired Netopia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128390</id>
	<title>Yaesu</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1266087360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Motorola owns Yaesu. Actually, it owns "Vertex Standard" and Yaesu is a division of it, thus the newer Yaesu logo which is a stylized "VS". I guess this is going with the enterprise radio division.</p><p>Obviously hams have been nervous that Motorola would kill Yaesu since the purchase happened. I don't see any reason to be less nervous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorola owns Yaesu .
Actually , it owns " Vertex Standard " and Yaesu is a division of it , thus the newer Yaesu logo which is a stylized " VS " .
I guess this is going with the enterprise radio division.Obviously hams have been nervous that Motorola would kill Yaesu since the purchase happened .
I do n't see any reason to be less nervous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorola owns Yaesu.
Actually, it owns "Vertex Standard" and Yaesu is a division of it, thus the newer Yaesu logo which is a stylized "VS".
I guess this is going with the enterprise radio division.Obviously hams have been nervous that Motorola would kill Yaesu since the purchase happened.
I don't see any reason to be less nervous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31144094</id>
	<title>Re:Which one keeps the "Motorola" name?</title>
	<author>JoeRandomHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1266249900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclosure: I am a current Motorola Home employee, but I have no insider insights into the split planning process.</p><p>This is speculation on my part, but it seems like both halves of the company may take on new names. However, the Mobile Devices/Home company will own the Motorola brand and license it royalty-free to the Government/Enterprise/Networks half of the company. (This was included in the public announcement on Thursday.) It will be messy, but it will allow both halves to carry on for a while while (potentially) building new brands.</p><p>It will be an interesting ride. The Home and Mobile Devices units have been part of the same company for a while, but never seemed to collaborate much. I'm guessing that will be changing, along with some of the culture and organization in Home. I expect it to be somewhat painful, but worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclosure : I am a current Motorola Home employee , but I have no insider insights into the split planning process.This is speculation on my part , but it seems like both halves of the company may take on new names .
However , the Mobile Devices/Home company will own the Motorola brand and license it royalty-free to the Government/Enterprise/Networks half of the company .
( This was included in the public announcement on Thursday .
) It will be messy , but it will allow both halves to carry on for a while while ( potentially ) building new brands.It will be an interesting ride .
The Home and Mobile Devices units have been part of the same company for a while , but never seemed to collaborate much .
I 'm guessing that will be changing , along with some of the culture and organization in Home .
I expect it to be somewhat painful , but worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclosure: I am a current Motorola Home employee, but I have no insider insights into the split planning process.This is speculation on my part, but it seems like both halves of the company may take on new names.
However, the Mobile Devices/Home company will own the Motorola brand and license it royalty-free to the Government/Enterprise/Networks half of the company.
(This was included in the public announcement on Thursday.
) It will be messy, but it will allow both halves to carry on for a while while (potentially) building new brands.It will be an interesting ride.
The Home and Mobile Devices units have been part of the same company for a while, but never seemed to collaborate much.
I'm guessing that will be changing, along with some of the culture and organization in Home.
I expect it to be somewhat painful, but worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127746</id>
	<title>Re:The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>Brewmeister\_Z</author>
	<datestamp>1266082740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MBA = Masters in Business Atrophy</p><p>I see the appointment of a pure MBA (without any background in what that company makes as a product)to CEO as the sign to get ready to cash out after they do their "Short Term Gain, Long Term Loss" changes that spike the the stocks value and then nosedive it down when there is realization that the cost saving changes hurts the company the most in areas that previously made it successfully.</p><p>I swear some of these MBA's read Dilbert to get "good" ideas from Dogbert and the PHB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MBA = Masters in Business AtrophyI see the appointment of a pure MBA ( without any background in what that company makes as a product ) to CEO as the sign to get ready to cash out after they do their " Short Term Gain , Long Term Loss " changes that spike the the stocks value and then nosedive it down when there is realization that the cost saving changes hurts the company the most in areas that previously made it successfully.I swear some of these MBA 's read Dilbert to get " good " ideas from Dogbert and the PHB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MBA = Masters in Business AtrophyI see the appointment of a pure MBA (without any background in what that company makes as a product)to CEO as the sign to get ready to cash out after they do their "Short Term Gain, Long Term Loss" changes that spike the the stocks value and then nosedive it down when there is realization that the cost saving changes hurts the company the most in areas that previously made it successfully.I swear some of these MBA's read Dilbert to get "good" ideas from Dogbert and the PHB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127436</id>
	<title>Can you hear me now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266080460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goodbye Moto</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodbye Moto</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodbye Moto</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128478</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>SMOKEING</author>
	<datestamp>1266088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Phones are hardware, but the software is key.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  but if the software is buggy and lacking functionality,<br>&gt; they will turn to a new source.</p><p>There is a big community around Motorola mobiles (modmymoto.com, motorolafans.com, motofan.ru). For each of their architectures (P2K, MOTOMAGX, EZX), there is a good deal of mods, flashes, skins, language packs, all things software existing in all possible colours and varieties, eventually bumping into the hardware limits. And all of it works.</p><p>I bought my L7 back in 2006 in The Netherlands, and it had (reasonably) no Cyrillic support. After a week of texting in translit, I had reflashed it, and have been happily texting ever since -- all it had taken me was, google the matter. Do I owe this improvement to Motorola? Yes, but only for making it possible and not being in the way.</p><p>You see the care and attention you seek in Apple's being ever at war with modders, where every next system update wrecks the phone that's been previously jailbroken: I see in this a monumental waste of resources. If Motorola refrains from enfocing their control over the devices they sold to you, this is by no means negligence, and least of all, evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Phones are hardware , but the software is key .
... but if the software is buggy and lacking functionality , &gt; they will turn to a new source.There is a big community around Motorola mobiles ( modmymoto.com , motorolafans.com , motofan.ru ) .
For each of their architectures ( P2K , MOTOMAGX , EZX ) , there is a good deal of mods , flashes , skins , language packs , all things software existing in all possible colours and varieties , eventually bumping into the hardware limits .
And all of it works.I bought my L7 back in 2006 in The Netherlands , and it had ( reasonably ) no Cyrillic support .
After a week of texting in translit , I had reflashed it , and have been happily texting ever since -- all it had taken me was , google the matter .
Do I owe this improvement to Motorola ?
Yes , but only for making it possible and not being in the way.You see the care and attention you seek in Apple 's being ever at war with modders , where every next system update wrecks the phone that 's been previously jailbroken : I see in this a monumental waste of resources .
If Motorola refrains from enfocing their control over the devices they sold to you , this is by no means negligence , and least of all , evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Phones are hardware, but the software is key.
...  but if the software is buggy and lacking functionality,&gt; they will turn to a new source.There is a big community around Motorola mobiles (modmymoto.com, motorolafans.com, motofan.ru).
For each of their architectures (P2K, MOTOMAGX, EZX), there is a good deal of mods, flashes, skins, language packs, all things software existing in all possible colours and varieties, eventually bumping into the hardware limits.
And all of it works.I bought my L7 back in 2006 in The Netherlands, and it had (reasonably) no Cyrillic support.
After a week of texting in translit, I had reflashed it, and have been happily texting ever since -- all it had taken me was, google the matter.
Do I owe this improvement to Motorola?
Yes, but only for making it possible and not being in the way.You see the care and attention you seek in Apple's being ever at war with modders, where every next system update wrecks the phone that's been previously jailbroken: I see in this a monumental waste of resources.
If Motorola refrains from enfocing their control over the devices they sold to you, this is by no means negligence, and least of all, evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127722</id>
	<title>Re:The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>fl!ptop</author>
	<datestamp>1266082500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Motorola forgot that the reason people bought their products was because they were the best in the world.</p></div></blockquote><p>No doubt.  When I was into amateur radios in the '70s and '80s, their products were always known for quality, durability and reliability.  Anyone who owned a Motorola hand-held knew that, if you were being mugged, you could probably beat your attacker down with your radio and then still be able to use it to call for help.</p><p>Hell, my 1st-gen razor has fallen off my hip while i was riding my motorcycle and it's still kicking ass.</p><p>So long!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorola forgot that the reason people bought their products was because they were the best in the world.No doubt .
When I was into amateur radios in the '70s and '80s , their products were always known for quality , durability and reliability .
Anyone who owned a Motorola hand-held knew that , if you were being mugged , you could probably beat your attacker down with your radio and then still be able to use it to call for help.Hell , my 1st-gen razor has fallen off my hip while i was riding my motorcycle and it 's still kicking ass.So long !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorola forgot that the reason people bought their products was because they were the best in the world.No doubt.
When I was into amateur radios in the '70s and '80s, their products were always known for quality, durability and reliability.
Anyone who owned a Motorola hand-held knew that, if you were being mugged, you could probably beat your attacker down with your radio and then still be able to use it to call for help.Hell, my 1st-gen razor has fallen off my hip while i was riding my motorcycle and it's still kicking ass.So long!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31132692</id>
	<title>The whole is more than the sum of its parts</title>
	<author>fragMasterFlash</author>
	<datestamp>1266086040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember when HP spun off Agilent? They basically sold their soul to in the name of becoming a cash generating machine. No one I know associates HP with innovation anymore. It will be sad if the same comes to pass with Motorola.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when HP spun off Agilent ?
They basically sold their soul to in the name of becoming a cash generating machine .
No one I know associates HP with innovation anymore .
It will be sad if the same comes to pass with Motorola .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when HP spun off Agilent?
They basically sold their soul to in the name of becoming a cash generating machine.
No one I know associates HP with innovation anymore.
It will be sad if the same comes to pass with Motorola.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128208</id>
	<title>Netopia?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266086040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's going to happen to the Netopia unit?<br>The business-class routers are pretty solid little devices when connecting remote offices and setting up VPNs.</p><p>I read originally (when this was still "unconfirmed") that the one company would take over the mobile handset and set-top units while the other would take everything else, including the wired and wireless networking units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's going to happen to the Netopia unit ? The business-class routers are pretty solid little devices when connecting remote offices and setting up VPNs.I read originally ( when this was still " unconfirmed " ) that the one company would take over the mobile handset and set-top units while the other would take everything else , including the wired and wireless networking units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's going to happen to the Netopia unit?The business-class routers are pretty solid little devices when connecting remote offices and setting up VPNs.I read originally (when this was still "unconfirmed") that the one company would take over the mobile handset and set-top units while the other would take everything else, including the wired and wireless networking units.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127594</id>
	<title>The most important question:</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1266081540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which division is going to end up owning those massive headsets with the gigantic batwing logos that they hand out to NFL head coaches?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which division is going to end up owning those massive headsets with the gigantic batwing logos that they hand out to NFL head coaches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which division is going to end up owning those massive headsets with the gigantic batwing logos that they hand out to NFL head coaches?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790</id>
	<title>Which one keeps the "Motorola" name?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266082980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because I *really* like Motorola cell phones.  They've always been tanks. My current one is 4 years old, almost 5,000 hours, and has been dropped (and smashed by one angry perp I caught on video who tried to "destroy the evidence") onto concrete.
</p><p>
The weak point was the plug at the bottom for the charger - it stopped working properly a few weeks ago.  10 minutes with the point of a kitchen knife to scrape off the accumulated gunk and it's good as new!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... because I * really * like Motorola cell phones .
They 've always been tanks .
My current one is 4 years old , almost 5,000 hours , and has been dropped ( and smashed by one angry perp I caught on video who tried to " destroy the evidence " ) onto concrete .
The weak point was the plug at the bottom for the charger - it stopped working properly a few weeks ago .
10 minutes with the point of a kitchen knife to scrape off the accumulated gunk and it 's good as new !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... because I *really* like Motorola cell phones.
They've always been tanks.
My current one is 4 years old, almost 5,000 hours, and has been dropped (and smashed by one angry perp I caught on video who tried to "destroy the evidence") onto concrete.
The weak point was the plug at the bottom for the charger - it stopped working properly a few weeks ago.
10 minutes with the point of a kitchen knife to scrape off the accumulated gunk and it's good as new!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</id>
	<title>The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266081300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Motorola forgot that the reason people bought their products was because they were the best in the world. Not the cheapest. The best. When Galvin Sr. ran the company, Motorola radios were the finest on Earth. Motorola brought us the 1st transistor TV, Quasar, the G4 chip was great. Iridium was a great idea, ruined by Galvin Jr. When Motorola was run by engineers, it thrived, even though it's products were usually the most expensive in the industry. Once the accountants and stock swindlers got hold of it, there was a race to the bottom, and this is the end result. The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation. Being cheapest, cutting R&amp;D, Ugh, I could go on, but I think you know what I mean.</p><p>So long Motorola! It was a good run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorola forgot that the reason people bought their products was because they were the best in the world .
Not the cheapest .
The best .
When Galvin Sr. ran the company , Motorola radios were the finest on Earth .
Motorola brought us the 1st transistor TV , Quasar , the G4 chip was great .
Iridium was a great idea , ruined by Galvin Jr. When Motorola was run by engineers , it thrived , even though it 's products were usually the most expensive in the industry .
Once the accountants and stock swindlers got hold of it , there was a race to the bottom , and this is the end result .
The MBA 's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation .
Being cheapest , cutting R&amp;D , Ugh , I could go on , but I think you know what I mean.So long Motorola !
It was a good run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorola forgot that the reason people bought their products was because they were the best in the world.
Not the cheapest.
The best.
When Galvin Sr. ran the company, Motorola radios were the finest on Earth.
Motorola brought us the 1st transistor TV, Quasar, the G4 chip was great.
Iridium was a great idea, ruined by Galvin Jr. When Motorola was run by engineers, it thrived, even though it's products were usually the most expensive in the industry.
Once the accountants and stock swindlers got hold of it, there was a race to the bottom, and this is the end result.
The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.
Being cheapest, cutting R&amp;D, Ugh, I could go on, but I think you know what I mean.So long Motorola!
It was a good run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128356</id>
	<title>More about Mr. Icahn</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1266087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not "Goodbye Moto". It's Hello Motos.

<br> <br>Another story about the underlying reason for the split: <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2008/tc20080324\_948118.htm?chan=rss\_topStories\_ssi\_5" title="businessweek.com">Icahn vs. Motorola: The Rematch</a> [businessweek.com]

<br> <br>Mr. Icahn often has good ideas: <a href="http://www.icahnreport.com/report/2009/04/its-up-to-the-shareholders-not-the-government-to-demand-change-at-a-company.html" title="icahnreport.com">It's Up to the Shareholders, Not the Government, to Demand Change at a Company</a> [icahnreport.com]. I think, however, that the government should stop banking abuses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not " Goodbye Moto " .
It 's Hello Motos .
Another story about the underlying reason for the split : Icahn vs. Motorola : The Rematch [ businessweek.com ] Mr. Icahn often has good ideas : It 's Up to the Shareholders , Not the Government , to Demand Change at a Company [ icahnreport.com ] .
I think , however , that the government should stop banking abuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not "Goodbye Moto".
It's Hello Motos.
Another story about the underlying reason for the split: Icahn vs. Motorola: The Rematch [businessweek.com]

 Mr. Icahn often has good ideas: It's Up to the Shareholders, Not the Government, to Demand Change at a Company [icahnreport.com].
I think, however, that the government should stop banking abuses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128700</id>
	<title>Re:More like split into 4</title>
	<author>ishobo</author>
	<datestamp>1266089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real Motorola is the radio business (car radios, walkie-talkies, base stations, repeaters, etc). The company's first product was a car radio (hence the name Motorola) and they invented the walkie-talkie under a contract with the U.S. War Department. They only got into the semiconductor business to supply their own needs, and did not start producing products for others until 40 years after its founding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real Motorola is the radio business ( car radios , walkie-talkies , base stations , repeaters , etc ) .
The company 's first product was a car radio ( hence the name Motorola ) and they invented the walkie-talkie under a contract with the U.S. War Department .
They only got into the semiconductor business to supply their own needs , and did not start producing products for others until 40 years after its founding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real Motorola is the radio business (car radios, walkie-talkies, base stations, repeaters, etc).
The company's first product was a car radio (hence the name Motorola) and they invented the walkie-talkie under a contract with the U.S. War Department.
They only got into the semiconductor business to supply their own needs, and did not start producing products for others until 40 years after its founding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31137074</id>
	<title>MBAs not the problem, x86 had advantage over 68K</title>
	<author>perpenso</author>
	<datestamp>1266142440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I'm a recent MBA.  I've also had a long software development career.  I've done a bit of assembly language (6502, 68K, x86, PPC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) and 68K was my all-time favorite.  I used to have the typical arrogant engineer's disdain of anything business related.  I loved business school in part because I loved learning how wrong I was.  I used more advanced math in marketing classes than in BS and MS computer science.  Most of my marketing professors have undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering and mechanical engineering.  I was also far from alone in my class as having an engineering background.  Furthermore, business school classmates with non-technical backgrounds such as finance and accounting seem inclined to contact classmates with technical backgrounds to get a second opinion or perspective on technical issues, just as those of us with technical backgrounds contact them for their perspectives and opinions on finance, accounting and other non-technical issues.  MBAs are about as accurately portrayed in the media and in popular culture as hackers.  I believe situations like mine are far more common than modern mythology suggests.<br> <br>

At a telco company I wrote firmware and a kernel for a custom x86-based board.  The lead engineer and the VP of engineering personally preferred the 68K over the x86.  I asked why they chose the x86, the answer was that they didn't expect to find someone like me who was comfortable with both 68K and x86 assembly language.  They thought it might also help the application programmers using PCs to develop and prototype code before moving it to the embedded environment, making debugging information a little more familiar.  Cost was not a big issue since we were using fairly high end x86 CPUs.  While I'm sure there are places where the 68K/x86 decision was a pure cost decision, I expect that things are far more complicated than suggested and other factors often came into play.<br> <br>

--<br>
<a href="http://www.perpenso.com/calc/" title="perpenso.com" rel="nofollow">Perpenso Calc</a> [perpenso.com] for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MBA 's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation .
I 'm a recent MBA .
I 've also had a long software development career .
I 've done a bit of assembly language ( 6502 , 68K , x86 , PPC , ... ) and 68K was my all-time favorite .
I used to have the typical arrogant engineer 's disdain of anything business related .
I loved business school in part because I loved learning how wrong I was .
I used more advanced math in marketing classes than in BS and MS computer science .
Most of my marketing professors have undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering and mechanical engineering .
I was also far from alone in my class as having an engineering background .
Furthermore , business school classmates with non-technical backgrounds such as finance and accounting seem inclined to contact classmates with technical backgrounds to get a second opinion or perspective on technical issues , just as those of us with technical backgrounds contact them for their perspectives and opinions on finance , accounting and other non-technical issues .
MBAs are about as accurately portrayed in the media and in popular culture as hackers .
I believe situations like mine are far more common than modern mythology suggests .
At a telco company I wrote firmware and a kernel for a custom x86-based board .
The lead engineer and the VP of engineering personally preferred the 68K over the x86 .
I asked why they chose the x86 , the answer was that they did n't expect to find someone like me who was comfortable with both 68K and x86 assembly language .
They thought it might also help the application programmers using PCs to develop and prototype code before moving it to the embedded environment , making debugging information a little more familiar .
Cost was not a big issue since we were using fairly high end x86 CPUs .
While I 'm sure there are places where the 68K/x86 decision was a pure cost decision , I expect that things are far more complicated than suggested and other factors often came into play .
-- Perpenso Calc [ perpenso.com ] for iPhone and iPod touch , scientific and bill/tip calculator , fractions , complex numbers , RPN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.
I'm a recent MBA.
I've also had a long software development career.
I've done a bit of assembly language (6502, 68K, x86, PPC, ...) and 68K was my all-time favorite.
I used to have the typical arrogant engineer's disdain of anything business related.
I loved business school in part because I loved learning how wrong I was.
I used more advanced math in marketing classes than in BS and MS computer science.
Most of my marketing professors have undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering and mechanical engineering.
I was also far from alone in my class as having an engineering background.
Furthermore, business school classmates with non-technical backgrounds such as finance and accounting seem inclined to contact classmates with technical backgrounds to get a second opinion or perspective on technical issues, just as those of us with technical backgrounds contact them for their perspectives and opinions on finance, accounting and other non-technical issues.
MBAs are about as accurately portrayed in the media and in popular culture as hackers.
I believe situations like mine are far more common than modern mythology suggests.
At a telco company I wrote firmware and a kernel for a custom x86-based board.
The lead engineer and the VP of engineering personally preferred the 68K over the x86.
I asked why they chose the x86, the answer was that they didn't expect to find someone like me who was comfortable with both 68K and x86 assembly language.
They thought it might also help the application programmers using PCs to develop and prototype code before moving it to the embedded environment, making debugging information a little more familiar.
Cost was not a big issue since we were using fairly high end x86 CPUs.
While I'm sure there are places where the 68K/x86 decision was a pure cost decision, I expect that things are far more complicated than suggested and other factors often came into play.
--
Perpenso Calc [perpenso.com] for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127688</id>
	<title>Re:The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>DrDitto</author>
	<datestamp>1266082320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Iridium was a terrible idea devised by engineers with an ill-thought out business plan.  The business model could *never* succeed by simple math (i.e., the max capacity of the Iridium system was so small that it could really never be profitable).  The worst part of Iridium was that it was an engineering drain on the rest of the company.  Some of our best cellphone engineers got sucked into making cellular plug-in cards for Iridium handsets.  <br> <br>
BTW-- I used to work for Motorola as a software engineer on handsets.  It was a lousy experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Iridium was a terrible idea devised by engineers with an ill-thought out business plan .
The business model could * never * succeed by simple math ( i.e. , the max capacity of the Iridium system was so small that it could really never be profitable ) .
The worst part of Iridium was that it was an engineering drain on the rest of the company .
Some of our best cellphone engineers got sucked into making cellular plug-in cards for Iridium handsets .
BTW-- I used to work for Motorola as a software engineer on handsets .
It was a lousy experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iridium was a terrible idea devised by engineers with an ill-thought out business plan.
The business model could *never* succeed by simple math (i.e., the max capacity of the Iridium system was so small that it could really never be profitable).
The worst part of Iridium was that it was an engineering drain on the rest of the company.
Some of our best cellphone engineers got sucked into making cellular plug-in cards for Iridium handsets.
BTW-- I used to work for Motorola as a software engineer on handsets.
It was a lousy experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127454</id>
	<title>Ehh... And there were times</title>
	<author>RCL</author>
	<datestamp>1266080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Motorola was a processor brand. And a good one. Ehh...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Motorola was a processor brand .
And a good one .
Ehh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Motorola was a processor brand.
And a good one.
Ehh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128876</id>
	<title>plus 3, TroLl)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266091020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>won't be standing 3uring tXhis file they're gone Mac</htmltext>
<tokenext>wo n't be standing 3uring tXhis file they 're gone Mac</tokentext>
<sentencetext>won't be standing 3uring tXhis file they're gone Mac</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128462</id>
	<title>"Split"?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266087960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds more like dumping a shit (the unprofitable parts of the company), and walking away...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds more like dumping a shit ( the unprofitable parts of the company ) , and walking away.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds more like dumping a shit (the unprofitable parts of the company), and walking away...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31133746</id>
	<title>Re:The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1266150840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Malcolm Baldridge Award and the chasing of same is also why you no longer see "Texaco" on any gas stations anymore.  One of the world's best brands, laid low by their own inward navel-gazing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Malcolm Baldridge Award and the chasing of same is also why you no longer see " Texaco " on any gas stations anymore .
One of the world 's best brands , laid low by their own inward navel-gazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Malcolm Baldridge Award and the chasing of same is also why you no longer see "Texaco" on any gas stations anymore.
One of the world's best brands, laid low by their own inward navel-gazing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31131878</id>
	<title>Re:Which one keeps the "Motorola" name?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266075300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know some people who work in Motorola's mobile devices.  Two things that I learned that really stuck with me are:</p><p>- Sometime in the 90's carriers took over design of the UI.  Its one of the reasons (probably not the only one) that it took an outsider (Apple) to kick the mobile industry in the pants.<br>- Motorola is a hardware company.  Software is secondary to the company.  This is why the Razor was a success - it was all size and form factor - hardware considerations.</p><p>The odd part about this is it seems like Motorola is starting a resurgence now that it realized it can't do software and is leaning on Android for that piece (instead of windows mobile).  Droid was the best phone on the market when it came out (IMHO, the sheer practicality of its GPS put it over iPhone, but each is entitled to his/her opinion).  The touch pad on the back of the flip is a neat idea.  They really seem to be innovating again.</p><p>Razor was a fad.  It was all size and form factor.  How do you build on that?  It seems like its easier to build on the ideas behind their current smart phones. HDMI output seems to be next coupled with faster processors.  Eventually it will be a wireless keyboard and you'll have a mobile PC replacement - at least for email/web surfing/media viewing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know some people who work in Motorola 's mobile devices .
Two things that I learned that really stuck with me are : - Sometime in the 90 's carriers took over design of the UI .
Its one of the reasons ( probably not the only one ) that it took an outsider ( Apple ) to kick the mobile industry in the pants.- Motorola is a hardware company .
Software is secondary to the company .
This is why the Razor was a success - it was all size and form factor - hardware considerations.The odd part about this is it seems like Motorola is starting a resurgence now that it realized it ca n't do software and is leaning on Android for that piece ( instead of windows mobile ) .
Droid was the best phone on the market when it came out ( IMHO , the sheer practicality of its GPS put it over iPhone , but each is entitled to his/her opinion ) .
The touch pad on the back of the flip is a neat idea .
They really seem to be innovating again.Razor was a fad .
It was all size and form factor .
How do you build on that ?
It seems like its easier to build on the ideas behind their current smart phones .
HDMI output seems to be next coupled with faster processors .
Eventually it will be a wireless keyboard and you 'll have a mobile PC replacement - at least for email/web surfing/media viewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know some people who work in Motorola's mobile devices.
Two things that I learned that really stuck with me are:- Sometime in the 90's carriers took over design of the UI.
Its one of the reasons (probably not the only one) that it took an outsider (Apple) to kick the mobile industry in the pants.- Motorola is a hardware company.
Software is secondary to the company.
This is why the Razor was a success - it was all size and form factor - hardware considerations.The odd part about this is it seems like Motorola is starting a resurgence now that it realized it can't do software and is leaning on Android for that piece (instead of windows mobile).
Droid was the best phone on the market when it came out (IMHO, the sheer practicality of its GPS put it over iPhone, but each is entitled to his/her opinion).
The touch pad on the back of the flip is a neat idea.
They really seem to be innovating again.Razor was a fad.
It was all size and form factor.
How do you build on that?
It seems like its easier to build on the ideas behind their current smart phones.
HDMI output seems to be next coupled with faster processors.
Eventually it will be a wireless keyboard and you'll have a mobile PC replacement - at least for email/web surfing/media viewing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128084</id>
	<title>Re:Can you hear me now?</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1266085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello Rola</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello Rola</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello Rola</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31131274</id>
	<title>DTACK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128520</id>
	<title>Sanjay Jha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266088500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Sanjay Jha's $100 million salary will inspire him to resurrect the company. Hahahhahaha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Sanjay Jha 's $ 100 million salary will inspire him to resurrect the company .
Hahahhahaha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Sanjay Jha's $100 million salary will inspire him to resurrect the company.
Hahahhahaha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608</id>
	<title>Woohoo!</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1266081600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks Motorola, AT&amp;T and Verizon. I can now watch TV on three... THREE whole screens. What a lifestyle those guys will allow me.</p><p>ok. let me put it this way. TV is shit. It is soul sucking garbage of the shallowest most inane kind.</p><p>If this is all the "executives" can come up with, the company is better off dead. Kill it. Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks Motorola , AT&amp;T and Verizon .
I can now watch TV on three... THREE whole screens .
What a lifestyle those guys will allow me.ok .
let me put it this way .
TV is shit .
It is soul sucking garbage of the shallowest most inane kind.If this is all the " executives " can come up with , the company is better off dead .
Kill it .
Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks Motorola, AT&amp;T and Verizon.
I can now watch TV on three... THREE whole screens.
What a lifestyle those guys will allow me.ok.
let me put it this way.
TV is shit.
It is soul sucking garbage of the shallowest most inane kind.If this is all the "executives" can come up with, the company is better off dead.
Kill it.
Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31129734</id>
	<title>Re:Ehh... And there were times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266054240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And before that they made radios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And before that they made radios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And before that they made radios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127924</id>
	<title>Slow disintegration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266084060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for Motorola for five years back in better times.</p><p>This summary is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola</p><p>... Iridium filed for bankruptcy in 1999  caused Semiconductor Components Group, (standard analog and standard logic devices) to spin off the ON Semiconductor</p><p>...declines in business during 2000 and 2001 caused Motorola to spin off its Government Electronics Division  (GED) to General Dynamics.</p><p>...October 16, 2003<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... spun off its Semiconductor Products Sector [IC's/microprocessors etc.]  into Freescale Semiconductor, Inc..</p><p>... July, 2006 Motorola completed the sale of its automotive business (vehicle navigation, engine/transmission, sensors steering/braking/doors) to Continental AG.</p><p>...October, 2008, Motorola sold its Biometrics business to Safran, a French defense firm.</p><p>... March 26, 2008  (after failing to find a buyer for its phone division) , board of directors approved a split into two different publicly traded companies.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; split has since been indefinitely delayed due to company restructuring problems and the 2008-2009 extreme economic downturn.</p><p>... February 11, 2010, Motorola announced its separation into two independent, publicly traded companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for Motorola for five years back in better times.This summary is from http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola... Iridium filed for bankruptcy in 1999 caused Semiconductor Components Group , ( standard analog and standard logic devices ) to spin off the ON Semiconductor...declines in business during 2000 and 2001 caused Motorola to spin off its Government Electronics Division ( GED ) to General Dynamics....October 16 , 2003 ... spun off its Semiconductor Products Sector [ IC 's/microprocessors etc .
] into Freescale Semiconductor , Inc..... July , 2006 Motorola completed the sale of its automotive business ( vehicle navigation , engine/transmission , sensors steering/braking/doors ) to Continental AG....October , 2008 , Motorola sold its Biometrics business to Safran , a French defense firm.... March 26 , 2008 ( after failing to find a buyer for its phone division ) , board of directors approved a split into two different publicly traded companies .
          split has since been indefinitely delayed due to company restructuring problems and the 2008-2009 extreme economic downturn.... February 11 , 2010 , Motorola announced its separation into two independent , publicly traded companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for Motorola for five years back in better times.This summary is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola... Iridium filed for bankruptcy in 1999  caused Semiconductor Components Group, (standard analog and standard logic devices) to spin off the ON Semiconductor...declines in business during 2000 and 2001 caused Motorola to spin off its Government Electronics Division  (GED) to General Dynamics....October 16, 2003 ... spun off its Semiconductor Products Sector [IC's/microprocessors etc.
]  into Freescale Semiconductor, Inc..... July, 2006 Motorola completed the sale of its automotive business (vehicle navigation, engine/transmission, sensors steering/braking/doors) to Continental AG....October, 2008, Motorola sold its Biometrics business to Safran, a French defense firm.... March 26, 2008  (after failing to find a buyer for its phone division) , board of directors approved a split into two different publicly traded companies.
          split has since been indefinitely delayed due to company restructuring problems and the 2008-2009 extreme economic downturn.... February 11, 2010, Motorola announced its separation into two independent, publicly traded companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>RobNich</author>
	<datestamp>1266082140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is an incredibly stupid decision. Motorola has sold off pieces of their business for cash over the years (spun off their IC division yet continued to buy ICs), while they also acquired other companies for various reasons.</p><p>Internally, the company's processes are woefully out of date, considering the ability of competitors like Nokia and Samsung to get products out the door. Splitting the company is not going to solve that.</p><p>As a consumer, Motorola has burned me too many times.  Their philosophy seems to revolve around putting out as many products as possible, instead of supporting and increasing functionality in their existing product line. When you bought a Motorola handset in the past, you essentially bought a car--closed to the world, no software upgrades, and if you want a slight improvement, you must buy a new one. Contrast that with Apple, who continue to provide updates to their original hardware for years. Look at the resale value of Apple devices in all categories!</p><p>Phones are hardware, but the software is key. Motorola took years to realize that, and there are still plenty of people working for the company that have the wrong attitude in this regard. People like flashy hardware, but if the software is buggy and lacking functionality, they will turn to a new source.</p><p>Apple has very few products in their handset line, and they sell plenty of them. They also sell wireless networking equipment, and set-top boxes (Apple TV).  They currently build, or at least commission, their own ICs (A4 processor). Apple is going stronger than ever. It seems that Motorola's executive leadership are about 5 years behind the times, not on top of the market like they should be.  If they weren't so far behind, they would have seen the need for a decent software platform in 2002, and they would see Apple as an example that a multifaceted company can do well in business.</p><p>Instead, they milked the RAZR for years, and invested the money it earned in the other businesses, such as the acquisition of Symbol. Then once the mobile device devision was languishing, they wanted to split it away from the "profitable" business!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is an incredibly stupid decision .
Motorola has sold off pieces of their business for cash over the years ( spun off their IC division yet continued to buy ICs ) , while they also acquired other companies for various reasons.Internally , the company 's processes are woefully out of date , considering the ability of competitors like Nokia and Samsung to get products out the door .
Splitting the company is not going to solve that.As a consumer , Motorola has burned me too many times .
Their philosophy seems to revolve around putting out as many products as possible , instead of supporting and increasing functionality in their existing product line .
When you bought a Motorola handset in the past , you essentially bought a car--closed to the world , no software upgrades , and if you want a slight improvement , you must buy a new one .
Contrast that with Apple , who continue to provide updates to their original hardware for years .
Look at the resale value of Apple devices in all categories ! Phones are hardware , but the software is key .
Motorola took years to realize that , and there are still plenty of people working for the company that have the wrong attitude in this regard .
People like flashy hardware , but if the software is buggy and lacking functionality , they will turn to a new source.Apple has very few products in their handset line , and they sell plenty of them .
They also sell wireless networking equipment , and set-top boxes ( Apple TV ) .
They currently build , or at least commission , their own ICs ( A4 processor ) .
Apple is going stronger than ever .
It seems that Motorola 's executive leadership are about 5 years behind the times , not on top of the market like they should be .
If they were n't so far behind , they would have seen the need for a decent software platform in 2002 , and they would see Apple as an example that a multifaceted company can do well in business.Instead , they milked the RAZR for years , and invested the money it earned in the other businesses , such as the acquisition of Symbol .
Then once the mobile device devision was languishing , they wanted to split it away from the " profitable " business !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is an incredibly stupid decision.
Motorola has sold off pieces of their business for cash over the years (spun off their IC division yet continued to buy ICs), while they also acquired other companies for various reasons.Internally, the company's processes are woefully out of date, considering the ability of competitors like Nokia and Samsung to get products out the door.
Splitting the company is not going to solve that.As a consumer, Motorola has burned me too many times.
Their philosophy seems to revolve around putting out as many products as possible, instead of supporting and increasing functionality in their existing product line.
When you bought a Motorola handset in the past, you essentially bought a car--closed to the world, no software upgrades, and if you want a slight improvement, you must buy a new one.
Contrast that with Apple, who continue to provide updates to their original hardware for years.
Look at the resale value of Apple devices in all categories!Phones are hardware, but the software is key.
Motorola took years to realize that, and there are still plenty of people working for the company that have the wrong attitude in this regard.
People like flashy hardware, but if the software is buggy and lacking functionality, they will turn to a new source.Apple has very few products in their handset line, and they sell plenty of them.
They also sell wireless networking equipment, and set-top boxes (Apple TV).
They currently build, or at least commission, their own ICs (A4 processor).
Apple is going stronger than ever.
It seems that Motorola's executive leadership are about 5 years behind the times, not on top of the market like they should be.
If they weren't so far behind, they would have seen the need for a decent software platform in 2002, and they would see Apple as an example that a multifaceted company can do well in business.Instead, they milked the RAZR for years, and invested the money it earned in the other businesses, such as the acquisition of Symbol.
Then once the mobile device devision was languishing, they wanted to split it away from the "profitable" business!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31132814</id>
	<title>Re:The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1266088200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.</i></p><p>I think this is an artifact of being thinking beings. People cannot conceive of anybody smarter than they. Similarly, they cannot conceive of innovations that they have not seen or experienced.</p><p>MBAs are not trained to innovate. They are trained to deal with what is. MBAs do a great job at dealing with commodity businesses - those where innovation isn't nearly as important as streamlining and efficiency. Want to run a steel foundry? Want to run a trucking company? MBAs are exactly what's needed there.</p><p>But MBAs are incompetent to run a company that bases itself on innovation! They were pretty consistently kill them. Witness 1990s Apple. Witness DEC. Witness... Motorola. Further, even though they are, practically by definition, incapable of running an innovation company, they are completely unaware of their shortcomings <a href="http://www.amerika.org/2009/social-reality/the-dunning-kruger-effect/" title="amerika.org"> thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect!</a> [amerika.org]</p><p>So what you have is a whole class of highly educated, intelligent people with a gaping blind spot in their vision who, because of their education and intelligent, are like submarine missiles torpedoing high-performance tech companies - the very type of company the USA most needs to survive!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MBA 's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.I think this is an artifact of being thinking beings .
People can not conceive of anybody smarter than they .
Similarly , they can not conceive of innovations that they have not seen or experienced.MBAs are not trained to innovate .
They are trained to deal with what is .
MBAs do a great job at dealing with commodity businesses - those where innovation is n't nearly as important as streamlining and efficiency .
Want to run a steel foundry ?
Want to run a trucking company ?
MBAs are exactly what 's needed there.But MBAs are incompetent to run a company that bases itself on innovation !
They were pretty consistently kill them .
Witness 1990s Apple .
Witness DEC. Witness... Motorola .
Further , even though they are , practically by definition , incapable of running an innovation company , they are completely unaware of their shortcomings thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect !
[ amerika.org ] So what you have is a whole class of highly educated , intelligent people with a gaping blind spot in their vision who , because of their education and intelligent , are like submarine missiles torpedoing high-performance tech companies - the very type of company the USA most needs to survive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.I think this is an artifact of being thinking beings.
People cannot conceive of anybody smarter than they.
Similarly, they cannot conceive of innovations that they have not seen or experienced.MBAs are not trained to innovate.
They are trained to deal with what is.
MBAs do a great job at dealing with commodity businesses - those where innovation isn't nearly as important as streamlining and efficiency.
Want to run a steel foundry?
Want to run a trucking company?
MBAs are exactly what's needed there.But MBAs are incompetent to run a company that bases itself on innovation!
They were pretty consistently kill them.
Witness 1990s Apple.
Witness DEC. Witness... Motorola.
Further, even though they are, practically by definition, incapable of running an innovation company, they are completely unaware of their shortcomings  thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect!
[amerika.org]So what you have is a whole class of highly educated, intelligent people with a gaping blind spot in their vision who, because of their education and intelligent, are like submarine missiles torpedoing high-performance tech companies - the very type of company the USA most needs to survive!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128800</id>
	<title>Re:The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266090360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.</p></div></blockquote><p>What really destroyed Motorola, IMO, was Six Sigma.  Motorola was one of the the first U.S. companies to get sucked into that MBA fad, and it ruined them.</p><p>Six Sigma, if left unchecked, quickly becomes the all-consuming passion of every mid-level manager.  All of management's efforts go into the bean-counting involved in keeping track of how corporate processes are constantly "improving".  You stop watching the competition, and what's happening outside the company, and turn inward instead.  Motorola was blindsided by the introduction of digital cellular technology while focused on Six Sigma, and never recovered.</p><p>You can begin to track Motorola's decline from the year they won the Malcolm Baldrige Award (1988).  Go look at the Wikepedia entry on the Baldrige Award, and you'll see that the list of winners is practically a "Who's Who" of failed and underperforming U.S. companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MBA 's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.What really destroyed Motorola , IMO , was Six Sigma .
Motorola was one of the the first U.S. companies to get sucked into that MBA fad , and it ruined them.Six Sigma , if left unchecked , quickly becomes the all-consuming passion of every mid-level manager .
All of management 's efforts go into the bean-counting involved in keeping track of how corporate processes are constantly " improving " .
You stop watching the competition , and what 's happening outside the company , and turn inward instead .
Motorola was blindsided by the introduction of digital cellular technology while focused on Six Sigma , and never recovered.You can begin to track Motorola 's decline from the year they won the Malcolm Baldrige Award ( 1988 ) .
Go look at the Wikepedia entry on the Baldrige Award , and you 'll see that the list of winners is practically a " Who 's Who " of failed and underperforming U.S. companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MBA's just can not conceive that people will pay for quality and innovation.What really destroyed Motorola, IMO, was Six Sigma.
Motorola was one of the the first U.S. companies to get sucked into that MBA fad, and it ruined them.Six Sigma, if left unchecked, quickly becomes the all-consuming passion of every mid-level manager.
All of management's efforts go into the bean-counting involved in keeping track of how corporate processes are constantly "improving".
You stop watching the competition, and what's happening outside the company, and turn inward instead.
Motorola was blindsided by the introduction of digital cellular technology while focused on Six Sigma, and never recovered.You can begin to track Motorola's decline from the year they won the Malcolm Baldrige Award (1988).
Go look at the Wikepedia entry on the Baldrige Award, and you'll see that the list of winners is practically a "Who's Who" of failed and underperforming U.S. companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31133752</id>
	<title>Re:Woohoo!</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1266151080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127464</id>
	<title>Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266080580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, maybe the second company will start working with Apple and competing against its former self?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , maybe the second company will start working with Apple and competing against its former self ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, maybe the second company will start working with Apple and competing against its former self?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660</id>
	<title>More like split into 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266082080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean Motorola is further splitting themselves up after having spun off its semiconductor components division as On Semi in 1999 and its semiconductor products division as Freescale (arguably the 'real' Motorola - inventor of the 68000 uP) in 2004. Motorola at this point is just an uninspired electronics company with little to no relevance in consumer handheld devices that also makes crummy radios and network products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean Motorola is further splitting themselves up after having spun off its semiconductor components division as On Semi in 1999 and its semiconductor products division as Freescale ( arguably the 'real ' Motorola - inventor of the 68000 uP ) in 2004 .
Motorola at this point is just an uninspired electronics company with little to no relevance in consumer handheld devices that also makes crummy radios and network products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean Motorola is further splitting themselves up after having spun off its semiconductor components division as On Semi in 1999 and its semiconductor products division as Freescale (arguably the 'real' Motorola - inventor of the 68000 uP) in 2004.
Motorola at this point is just an uninspired electronics company with little to no relevance in consumer handheld devices that also makes crummy radios and network products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127764</id>
	<title>whatever happened to the baby HPs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266082860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the AT&amp;T spinoffs other than the operating companies.</p><p>Might be a good time for a retrospective, including stock price history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the AT&amp;T spinoffs other than the operating companies.Might be a good time for a retrospective , including stock price history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the AT&amp;T spinoffs other than the operating companies.Might be a good time for a retrospective, including stock price history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127922</id>
	<title>Re:Woohoo!</title>
	<author>Bender0x7D1</author>
	<datestamp>1266084060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation.</i> </p><p>I believe you mean <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1156398/" title="imdb.com">Zombieland</a> [imdb.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation .
I believe you mean Zombieland [ imdb.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation.
I believe you mean Zombieland [imdb.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31198014</id>
	<title>Re:More like split into 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266586800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia:The Motorola 68000 is a 16/32-bit [1]  CISC microprocessor core designed and marketed by Freescale Semiconductor (formerly Motorola  Semiconductor Products Sector). Introduced in 1979.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia : The Motorola 68000 is a 16/32-bit [ 1 ] CISC microprocessor core designed and marketed by Freescale Semiconductor ( formerly Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector ) .
Introduced in 1979 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia:The Motorola 68000 is a 16/32-bit [1]  CISC microprocessor core designed and marketed by Freescale Semiconductor (formerly Motorola  Semiconductor Products Sector).
Introduced in 1979.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128570</id>
	<title>Re:Woohoo!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266088740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation.</p></div><p>I fear it&rsquo;s a little late for that, buddy. ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation.I fear it    s a little late for that , buddy .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kill it before the USA becomes known as the Zombie Nation.I fear it’s a little late for that, buddy.
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128144</id>
	<title>Symbol to be egested</title>
	<author>El Royo</author>
	<datestamp>1266085740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't really too surprising.  When they purchased <a href="http://www.symbol.com/" title="symbol.com">Symbol Technologies</a> [symbol.com] they were making a play for the wireless networking IP.  I really didn't think they were very interested in holding on to the bar code scanning end of that business.  Symbol is a big player in my industry so I'm very interested to see how those technologies get split up.  I suppose we'll be getting much better details soon (or maybe I could have RTFA).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really too surprising .
When they purchased Symbol Technologies [ symbol.com ] they were making a play for the wireless networking IP .
I really did n't think they were very interested in holding on to the bar code scanning end of that business .
Symbol is a big player in my industry so I 'm very interested to see how those technologies get split up .
I suppose we 'll be getting much better details soon ( or maybe I could have RTFA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really too surprising.
When they purchased Symbol Technologies [symbol.com] they were making a play for the wireless networking IP.
I really didn't think they were very interested in holding on to the bar code scanning end of that business.
Symbol is a big player in my industry so I'm very interested to see how those technologies get split up.
I suppose we'll be getting much better details soon (or maybe I could have RTFA).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128560</id>
	<title>It worked so well</title>
	<author>rdean400</author>
	<datestamp>1266088680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for AT&amp;T (where other companies came in and swooped up the remnants of the failed split) and Palm and Motorola's previous split.</p><p>It's the standard Icahn strategy: split the companies to make the shareholders more short-term money, at the expense of a lasting (and ultimately more profitable) presence in the industry.  The pieces will wither until they get scooped up for pennies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for AT&amp;T ( where other companies came in and swooped up the remnants of the failed split ) and Palm and Motorola 's previous split.It 's the standard Icahn strategy : split the companies to make the shareholders more short-term money , at the expense of a lasting ( and ultimately more profitable ) presence in the industry .
The pieces will wither until they get scooped up for pennies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for AT&amp;T (where other companies came in and swooped up the remnants of the failed split) and Palm and Motorola's previous split.It's the standard Icahn strategy: split the companies to make the shareholders more short-term money, at the expense of a lasting (and ultimately more profitable) presence in the industry.
The pieces will wither until they get scooped up for pennies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128706</id>
	<title>Re:More like split into 4</title>
	<author>kybred</author>
	<datestamp>1266089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>arguably the 'real' Motorola - inventor of the 68000 uP</p></div><p>Don't forget the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6800" title="wikipedia.org">6800</a> [wikipedia.org]!
</p><p>
BTW, get off my lawn!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>arguably the 'real ' Motorola - inventor of the 68000 uPDo n't forget the 6800 [ wikipedia.org ] !
BTW , get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arguably the 'real' Motorola - inventor of the 68000 uPDon't forget the 6800 [wikipedia.org]!
BTW, get off my lawn!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127730</id>
	<title>Re:The end of a giant.</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1266082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I forgot, the 68000. The best computer chip of the era!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I forgot , the 68000 .
The best computer chip of the era !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I forgot, the 68000.
The best computer chip of the era!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128396</id>
	<title>Re:Which one keeps the "Motorola" name?</title>
	<author>gnalle</author>
	<datestamp>1266087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once had a Motorola razor phone, and the user interface was horrible. The menu tree was too deep, and it was often difficult to guess which submenu contained which menu item.</p><p>I am for one not surprised that the company ended up in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once had a Motorola razor phone , and the user interface was horrible .
The menu tree was too deep , and it was often difficult to guess which submenu contained which menu item.I am for one not surprised that the company ended up in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once had a Motorola razor phone, and the user interface was horrible.
The menu tree was too deep, and it was often difficult to guess which submenu contained which menu item.I am for one not surprised that the company ended up in trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128150</id>
	<title>How will they name the new companies  ?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266085800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moto &amp; Rola ?<br>Mtrl  &amp; Oooa ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moto &amp; Rola ? Mtrl &amp; Oooa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moto &amp; Rola ?Mtrl  &amp; Oooa ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128386</id>
	<title>"Motorola" means squat at the moment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266087360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the fact that they break their products with "updates" https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/16191?start=0&amp;tstart=0 on the Droid for starters, there are tons of other issues with email, SSL, practically everything a business would need. I'm not surprise. They probably will not keep the name, hoping that their bad rap-sheet does not follow.<br>And they also can't keep their word. They promised (search on any search engine will find several links) a 2.1 Android update for the Droid this week. I'm still waiting. My Droid is siting beside me, still broken.<br>But even if or when the Droid get's the 2.1 update promised. All I can hope is they manage to actually FIX a problem or two, instead of breaking it even more.<br>And because I own the Droid, I stay up on it's problems. A friend bought the Cliq, it's got almost as many problems. You would think that they could at least learn from earlier mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the fact that they break their products with " updates " https : //supportforums.motorola.com/thread/16191 ? start = 0&amp;tstart = 0 on the Droid for starters , there are tons of other issues with email , SSL , practically everything a business would need .
I 'm not surprise .
They probably will not keep the name , hoping that their bad rap-sheet does not follow.And they also ca n't keep their word .
They promised ( search on any search engine will find several links ) a 2.1 Android update for the Droid this week .
I 'm still waiting .
My Droid is siting beside me , still broken.But even if or when the Droid get 's the 2.1 update promised .
All I can hope is they manage to actually FIX a problem or two , instead of breaking it even more.And because I own the Droid , I stay up on it 's problems .
A friend bought the Cliq , it 's got almost as many problems .
You would think that they could at least learn from earlier mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the fact that they break their products with "updates" https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/16191?start=0&amp;tstart=0 on the Droid for starters, there are tons of other issues with email, SSL, practically everything a business would need.
I'm not surprise.
They probably will not keep the name, hoping that their bad rap-sheet does not follow.And they also can't keep their word.
They promised (search on any search engine will find several links) a 2.1 Android update for the Droid this week.
I'm still waiting.
My Droid is siting beside me, still broken.But even if or when the Droid get's the 2.1 update promised.
All I can hope is they manage to actually FIX a problem or two, instead of breaking it even more.And because I own the Droid, I stay up on it's problems.
A friend bought the Cliq, it's got almost as many problems.
You would think that they could at least learn from earlier mistakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127772</id>
	<title>Re:More like split into 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266082860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since all that stuff already happened, and On Semi an Freescale are now distinct companies, and it is Motorola that is now splitting, I'd say that it's just Motorola that's splitting in two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since all that stuff already happened , and On Semi an Freescale are now distinct companies , and it is Motorola that is now splitting , I 'd say that it 's just Motorola that 's splitting in two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since all that stuff already happened, and On Semi an Freescale are now distinct companies, and it is Motorola that is now splitting, I'd say that it's just Motorola that's splitting in two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127584</id>
	<title>its enterprise radio systems operations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266081480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NX1 or NCC-1701 or NCC-1701a or NCC-1701B or NCC-1701c or NCC-1701D or NCC-1701E ?</p><p>or CVN65</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NX1 or NCC-1701 or NCC-1701a or NCC-1701B or NCC-1701c or NCC-1701D or NCC-1701E ? or CVN65</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NX1 or NCC-1701 or NCC-1701a or NCC-1701B or NCC-1701c or NCC-1701D or NCC-1701E ?or CVN65</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31130374</id>
	<title>A split?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266059520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the two resulting companies be named Moto and Rola?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the two resulting companies be named Moto and Rola ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the two resulting companies be named Moto and Rola?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31129472</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266052560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>They currently build, or at least commission, their own ICs (A4 processor)</i>

The build ONE processor for ONE product that has not yet been released. Otherwise, they purchase all their processors anywhere else.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They currently build , or at least commission , their own ICs ( A4 processor ) The build ONE processor for ONE product that has not yet been released .
Otherwise , they purchase all their processors anywhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They currently build, or at least commission, their own ICs (A4 processor)

The build ONE processor for ONE product that has not yet been released.
Otherwise, they purchase all their processors anywhere else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31129190</id>
	<title>No worries for their commercial radio</title>
	<author>transporter\_ii</author>
	<datestamp>1266093660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They put out poor to mid-quality radios, with a solid one here or there, with a large number used in public entities and paid for with taxpayer money...and then the cash rolls in as they force dealers and users to buy updated programming software every time they turn around (ok, you get updates for a year, but just about the time your subscription runs out, is when someone walks through the door with an updated radio firmware version that you can't program with the software you just paid hundreds of dollars for just 13 months ago.)</p><p>And with the mandated move to P25, motorola is just bending taxpayers over. And a few years from now, taxpayers will get bent over again when the entities using them are forced to buy updated programming software for radios that are just a few years old.</p><p>Forget winning the lottery, the scam that is motorola commercial radios is where it is at.</p><p>With some of the crap they pulling now, I wouldn't mind it if some lawsuits started flying to return some money to the agencies that purchased the stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They put out poor to mid-quality radios , with a solid one here or there , with a large number used in public entities and paid for with taxpayer money...and then the cash rolls in as they force dealers and users to buy updated programming software every time they turn around ( ok , you get updates for a year , but just about the time your subscription runs out , is when someone walks through the door with an updated radio firmware version that you ca n't program with the software you just paid hundreds of dollars for just 13 months ago .
) And with the mandated move to P25 , motorola is just bending taxpayers over .
And a few years from now , taxpayers will get bent over again when the entities using them are forced to buy updated programming software for radios that are just a few years old.Forget winning the lottery , the scam that is motorola commercial radios is where it is at.With some of the crap they pulling now , I would n't mind it if some lawsuits started flying to return some money to the agencies that purchased the stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They put out poor to mid-quality radios, with a solid one here or there, with a large number used in public entities and paid for with taxpayer money...and then the cash rolls in as they force dealers and users to buy updated programming software every time they turn around (ok, you get updates for a year, but just about the time your subscription runs out, is when someone walks through the door with an updated radio firmware version that you can't program with the software you just paid hundreds of dollars for just 13 months ago.
)And with the mandated move to P25, motorola is just bending taxpayers over.
And a few years from now, taxpayers will get bent over again when the entities using them are forced to buy updated programming software for radios that are just a few years old.Forget winning the lottery, the scam that is motorola commercial radios is where it is at.With some of the crap they pulling now, I wouldn't mind it if some lawsuits started flying to return some money to the agencies that purchased the stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31132814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31133752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31129472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31131878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31130056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31131274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31144094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31137074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31129734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31198014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_146246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31133746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31198014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31133752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31130056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31131878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31144094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31129734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31131274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31132814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31137074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31133746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_146246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31129472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31128478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_146246.31127980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
