<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_15_150227</id>
	<title>Spam Hits Google Buzz Already</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266248280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes <i>"Despite only being launched this week, <a href="http://news.techworld.com/security/3212681/spam-hits-google-buzz-already/?intcmp=nws-hm-l">spammers are already targeting Google Buzz</a>, the search engine's social network."</i>  If my buzz box is any indicator, the spammers are pretty much the only people actually using Buzz, and until Facebook can integrate, I wonder if that will change.  The Times also has a followup on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/technology/internet/15google.html">Google's Apologies</a> following various privacy bumbles throughout the launch of Buzz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes " Despite only being launched this week , spammers are already targeting Google Buzz , the search engine 's social network .
" If my buzz box is any indicator , the spammers are pretty much the only people actually using Buzz , and until Facebook can integrate , I wonder if that will change .
The Times also has a followup on Google 's Apologies following various privacy bumbles throughout the launch of Buzz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Despite only being launched this week, spammers are already targeting Google Buzz, the search engine's social network.
"  If my buzz box is any indicator, the spammers are pretty much the only people actually using Buzz, and until Facebook can integrate, I wonder if that will change.
The Times also has a followup on Google's Apologies following various privacy bumbles throughout the launch of Buzz.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146226</id>
	<title>Ben Heck is a poseur</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266260040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No real tech knowledge, nothing electronic done, just retail electronics jammed into a different 'box', and the end result is unusable.  His usual.  *yawn*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No real tech knowledge , nothing electronic done , just retail electronics jammed into a different 'box ' , and the end result is unusable .
His usual .
* yawn *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No real tech knowledge, nothing electronic done, just retail electronics jammed into a different 'box', and the end result is unusable.
His usual.
*yawn*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145986</id>
	<title>I see no spam on Buzz</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1266258840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that may be because I'm only following people I actually know, and a few of the more lucid friends of theirs.</p><p>Who on earth are you following that are spamming you, and why are you following them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that may be because I 'm only following people I actually know , and a few of the more lucid friends of theirs.Who on earth are you following that are spamming you , and why are you following them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that may be because I'm only following people I actually know, and a few of the more lucid friends of theirs.Who on earth are you following that are spamming you, and why are you following them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147930</id>
	<title>Facebook : Google :: Netscape : Microsoft</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1266225300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, everyone is saying Facebook is the juggernaut that everyone uses, it can't be dethroned at this point.  I can't help but think of the days when Netscape had essentially 100\% of the browser market.</p><p>OTOH, it was a lot easier for a Netscape user to simply switch browsers than a user embedded in a social network to pull up roots and sink them into a different one.  But on the third (gripping) hand, there are steps Google could take to help smooth that transition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , everyone is saying Facebook is the juggernaut that everyone uses , it ca n't be dethroned at this point .
I ca n't help but think of the days when Netscape had essentially 100 \ % of the browser market.OTOH , it was a lot easier for a Netscape user to simply switch browsers than a user embedded in a social network to pull up roots and sink them into a different one .
But on the third ( gripping ) hand , there are steps Google could take to help smooth that transition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, everyone is saying Facebook is the juggernaut that everyone uses, it can't be dethroned at this point.
I can't help but think of the days when Netscape had essentially 100\% of the browser market.OTOH, it was a lot easier for a Netscape user to simply switch browsers than a user embedded in a social network to pull up roots and sink them into a different one.
But on the third (gripping) hand, there are steps Google could take to help smooth that transition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145572</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook Will Not Acknowledge the New Guy</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1266256560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Hilarious that Google got bit on privacy concerns.  Facebook learned the lengthy hard way on that one...</p></div><p>If by "learned the lengthy and hard way" you mean "has made a fortune off of, and has grown exponentially despite of, its continuously worsening lack of respect for user privacy" than I totally agree with you. Otherwise I don't think we're talking about the same Facebook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hilarious that Google got bit on privacy concerns .
Facebook learned the lengthy hard way on that one...If by " learned the lengthy and hard way " you mean " has made a fortune off of , and has grown exponentially despite of , its continuously worsening lack of respect for user privacy " than I totally agree with you .
Otherwise I do n't think we 're talking about the same Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hilarious that Google got bit on privacy concerns.
Facebook learned the lengthy hard way on that one...If by "learned the lengthy and hard way" you mean "has made a fortune off of, and has grown exponentially despite of, its continuously worsening lack of respect for user privacy" than I totally agree with you.
Otherwise I don't think we're talking about the same Facebook.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144892</id>
	<title>Indicator</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1266253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if my inbox is an indicator, Spammers are the only ones -not- using it.</p><p>Seriously.  1 inbox as a measure of success?</p><p>Now, for seriousness...  HOW are the spammers hitting it?  The article doesn't say, and I've never seen it myself.  With twitter, you can target a person just like you can with email...  Does Buzz do that?  Or is there some way to force things into a user's feed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if my inbox is an indicator , Spammers are the only ones -not- using it.Seriously .
1 inbox as a measure of success ? Now , for seriousness... HOW are the spammers hitting it ?
The article does n't say , and I 've never seen it myself .
With twitter , you can target a person just like you can with email... Does Buzz do that ?
Or is there some way to force things into a user 's feed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if my inbox is an indicator, Spammers are the only ones -not- using it.Seriously.
1 inbox as a measure of success?Now, for seriousness...  HOW are the spammers hitting it?
The article doesn't say, and I've never seen it myself.
With twitter, you can target a person just like you can with email...  Does Buzz do that?
Or is there some way to force things into a user's feed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145328</id>
	<title>Reporting in</title>
	<author>buckadude</author>
	<datestamp>1266255420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No spam in my buzz box... also I would add that buzz imho is great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No spam in my buzz box... also I would add that buzz imho is great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No spam in my buzz box... also I would add that buzz imho is great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</id>
	<title>Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>MediaStreams</author>
	<datestamp>1266252900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If my buzz box is any indicator, the spammers are pretty much the only people actually using Buzz, and until Facebook can integrate, i wonder if that will change. "</p><p>Wow, way to make to make yourself look silly submitter:</p><p><a href="http://mashable.com/2010/02/14/google-buzz-column/" title="mashable.com">http://mashable.com/2010/02/14/google-buzz-column/</a> [mashable.com]</p><p>"Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage<br>While it's still very early into Buzz's life cycle, initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands. Linking Buzz to Gmail's millions of users has clearly brought people into the company's new social domain.</p><p>Google has only released two numbers so far: there have been over 9 million posts and comments in about 56 hours, amounting to around 160,000 posts and comments per hour. That's even more impressive if you consider the fact that most users didn't get Buzz until Wednesday the 10th.</p><p>The other number: over 200 mobile check-ins per minute, nearly 300,000 mobile check-ins per day.</p><p>Those numbers are simply stellar."</p><p>Every major blogger is using Buzz now and some of them are saying they already have a larger Buzz following in just a few days than they had with other social media sites that they spent years building up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If my buzz box is any indicator , the spammers are pretty much the only people actually using Buzz , and until Facebook can integrate , i wonder if that will change .
" Wow , way to make to make yourself look silly submitter : http : //mashable.com/2010/02/14/google-buzz-column/ [ mashable.com ] " Google Buzz 's Skyrocketing UsageWhile it 's still very early into Buzz 's life cycle , initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands .
Linking Buzz to Gmail 's millions of users has clearly brought people into the company 's new social domain.Google has only released two numbers so far : there have been over 9 million posts and comments in about 56 hours , amounting to around 160,000 posts and comments per hour .
That 's even more impressive if you consider the fact that most users did n't get Buzz until Wednesday the 10th.The other number : over 200 mobile check-ins per minute , nearly 300,000 mobile check-ins per day.Those numbers are simply stellar .
" Every major blogger is using Buzz now and some of them are saying they already have a larger Buzz following in just a few days than they had with other social media sites that they spent years building up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If my buzz box is any indicator, the spammers are pretty much the only people actually using Buzz, and until Facebook can integrate, i wonder if that will change.
"Wow, way to make to make yourself look silly submitter:http://mashable.com/2010/02/14/google-buzz-column/ [mashable.com]"Google Buzz's Skyrocketing UsageWhile it's still very early into Buzz's life cycle, initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands.
Linking Buzz to Gmail's millions of users has clearly brought people into the company's new social domain.Google has only released two numbers so far: there have been over 9 million posts and comments in about 56 hours, amounting to around 160,000 posts and comments per hour.
That's even more impressive if you consider the fact that most users didn't get Buzz until Wednesday the 10th.The other number: over 200 mobile check-ins per minute, nearly 300,000 mobile check-ins per day.Those numbers are simply stellar.
"Every major blogger is using Buzz now and some of them are saying they already have a larger Buzz following in just a few days than they had with other social media sites that they spent years building up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147284</id>
	<title>How Google Failed</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1266265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love Google, but they fail at socail networking. Google profiles is sooooooooooooo fucking kick ass except one minor problem, I cant add any friends to it at all! Give us that, like all the other sites buzz is a twitter rip off and until we can add friends to our google profiles without them being gmail onry users then and only then will google succeed in socail networking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Google , but they fail at socail networking .
Google profiles is sooooooooooooo fucking kick ass except one minor problem , I cant add any friends to it at all !
Give us that , like all the other sites buzz is a twitter rip off and until we can add friends to our google profiles without them being gmail onry users then and only then will google succeed in socail networking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Google, but they fail at socail networking.
Google profiles is sooooooooooooo fucking kick ass except one minor problem, I cant add any friends to it at all!
Give us that, like all the other sites buzz is a twitter rip off and until we can add friends to our google profiles without them being gmail onry users then and only then will google succeed in socail networking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145434</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1266255960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does any of that refute the initial assertion, that most of the "buzz" about Buzz is the result of spammers?</p><p>Gmail is a notorious harbor for forum spam e-mail accounts (used to receive the "click this link to complete your registration" e-mails from forums), meaning the spammers already have countless registered accounts on Gmail.  It would seem trivial to update the spambots to use those accounts for the purpose of spamming other folks on Buzz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does any of that refute the initial assertion , that most of the " buzz " about Buzz is the result of spammers ? Gmail is a notorious harbor for forum spam e-mail accounts ( used to receive the " click this link to complete your registration " e-mails from forums ) , meaning the spammers already have countless registered accounts on Gmail .
It would seem trivial to update the spambots to use those accounts for the purpose of spamming other folks on Buzz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does any of that refute the initial assertion, that most of the "buzz" about Buzz is the result of spammers?Gmail is a notorious harbor for forum spam e-mail accounts (used to receive the "click this link to complete your registration" e-mails from forums), meaning the spammers already have countless registered accounts on Gmail.
It would seem trivial to update the spambots to use those accounts for the purpose of spamming other folks on Buzz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31148922</id>
	<title>I'm using gmail daily..where's buzz?</title>
	<author>hatten</author>
	<datestamp>1266230160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm checking my gmail account for several times a day, and when people started talking about buzz and gmail I couldn't get it together. Then I rememberd that I got a branded gmail, archlinux.us. I'm just hoping that it isn't allowed even though I ain't seeing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm checking my gmail account for several times a day , and when people started talking about buzz and gmail I could n't get it together .
Then I rememberd that I got a branded gmail , archlinux.us .
I 'm just hoping that it is n't allowed even though I ai n't seeing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm checking my gmail account for several times a day, and when people started talking about buzz and gmail I couldn't get it together.
Then I rememberd that I got a branded gmail, archlinux.us.
I'm just hoping that it isn't allowed even though I ain't seeing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145790</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1266257820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"First we had personal websites"</p><p>Hmm, no, first we had Bulletin Boards, Xchat and Gopher.</p><p>There hasn't really been anything new on the internet since about 1970.</p><p>People think that if they add colour or more pixels to something that it becomes a new idea, but it is merely an incremental improvement of the same old crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" First we had personal websites " Hmm , no , first we had Bulletin Boards , Xchat and Gopher.There has n't really been anything new on the internet since about 1970.People think that if they add colour or more pixels to something that it becomes a new idea , but it is merely an incremental improvement of the same old crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"First we had personal websites"Hmm, no, first we had Bulletin Boards, Xchat and Gopher.There hasn't really been anything new on the internet since about 1970.People think that if they add colour or more pixels to something that it becomes a new idea, but it is merely an incremental improvement of the same old crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145942</id>
	<title>As fine tuned as you want</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1266258540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>ow Buzz needs finer tuned privacy control</i>

</p><p>It's as fine-grained as you want it to be.  Each Buzz can be published to any contact group you want, and you can select as many or as few as you want.

</p><p>I'd never used groups in Gmail, but after spending about 20 minutes to sort my most common contacts into groups, I was able to publish Buzzes to specific groups of friends.  For example, my friends really into cars probably are less interested in my posts about community group events.

</p><p>End result, if you're smart, are Buzzes that are of the most interest to specific groups.  Win for everyone.  So many people post crap to Facebook endlessly about stuff I don't care about, and get 'hidden' as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ow Buzz needs finer tuned privacy control It 's as fine-grained as you want it to be .
Each Buzz can be published to any contact group you want , and you can select as many or as few as you want .
I 'd never used groups in Gmail , but after spending about 20 minutes to sort my most common contacts into groups , I was able to publish Buzzes to specific groups of friends .
For example , my friends really into cars probably are less interested in my posts about community group events .
End result , if you 're smart , are Buzzes that are of the most interest to specific groups .
Win for everyone .
So many people post crap to Facebook endlessly about stuff I do n't care about , and get 'hidden ' as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ow Buzz needs finer tuned privacy control

It's as fine-grained as you want it to be.
Each Buzz can be published to any contact group you want, and you can select as many or as few as you want.
I'd never used groups in Gmail, but after spending about 20 minutes to sort my most common contacts into groups, I was able to publish Buzzes to specific groups of friends.
For example, my friends really into cars probably are less interested in my posts about community group events.
End result, if you're smart, are Buzzes that are of the most interest to specific groups.
Win for everyone.
So many people post crap to Facebook endlessly about stuff I don't care about, and get 'hidden' as a result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146126</id>
	<title>Google Apologies - Beta</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1266259620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an app someone needs to write.  In a hurry.  Sure would save some time.</p><p>Suppose it will be in beta forever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an app someone needs to write .
In a hurry .
Sure would save some time.Suppose it will be in beta forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an app someone needs to write.
In a hurry.
Sure would save some time.Suppose it will be in beta forever?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145216</id>
	<title>Astroturf</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1266254940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for Buzz astroturfing.  It's the perfect format for it, considering it is geo-tagged and then piggybacked onto one of the most popular online maps.
</p><p>So, a store just needs to post lots of fake positive buzzes, like "Wow, I can't believe the great deal on shoes/hardware I just got at Macy's/Best Buy" centered around your store.  Alternatively, you can pay real people (preferably me) to do the astroturfing for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for Buzz astroturfing .
It 's the perfect format for it , considering it is geo-tagged and then piggybacked onto one of the most popular online maps .
So , a store just needs to post lots of fake positive buzzes , like " Wow , I ca n't believe the great deal on shoes/hardware I just got at Macy 's/Best Buy " centered around your store .
Alternatively , you can pay real people ( preferably me ) to do the astroturfing for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for Buzz astroturfing.
It's the perfect format for it, considering it is geo-tagged and then piggybacked onto one of the most popular online maps.
So, a store just needs to post lots of fake positive buzzes, like "Wow, I can't believe the great deal on shoes/hardware I just got at Macy's/Best Buy" centered around your store.
Alternatively, you can pay real people (preferably me) to do the astroturfing for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146676</id>
	<title>Re:Totally Riding That Buzz</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1266262380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think Buzz targets people who desire a very simple interface.  It seems to perform a lot better on my slow machine than Facebook but is negligible on my main box.</p></div><p>So basically everyone that jumped ship from MySpace to Facebook?</p><p>Then they added Apps and started redesigning the site monthly (I JUST figured out the old interface). I still don't know how to go directly TO my albums without having to go to photos of me, then me, then my albums.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Buzz targets people who desire a very simple interface .
It seems to perform a lot better on my slow machine than Facebook but is negligible on my main box.So basically everyone that jumped ship from MySpace to Facebook ? Then they added Apps and started redesigning the site monthly ( I JUST figured out the old interface ) .
I still do n't know how to go directly TO my albums without having to go to photos of me , then me , then my albums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Buzz targets people who desire a very simple interface.
It seems to perform a lot better on my slow machine than Facebook but is negligible on my main box.So basically everyone that jumped ship from MySpace to Facebook?Then they added Apps and started redesigning the site monthly (I JUST figured out the old interface).
I still don't know how to go directly TO my albums without having to go to photos of me, then me, then my albums.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145618</id>
	<title>You're Doing it Wrong</title>
	<author>MBoffin</author>
	<datestamp>1266256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're Buzz box is full of spam, it means <i>you</i> you are <i>following</i> spammers. Either you suck at finding new people to follow, or your frequent contacts are spammers. Either way, "you're doing it wrong."</p><p>If you don't like what someone is posting in Buzz, <i>don't follow them</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're Buzz box is full of spam , it means you you are following spammers .
Either you suck at finding new people to follow , or your frequent contacts are spammers .
Either way , " you 're doing it wrong .
" If you do n't like what someone is posting in Buzz , do n't follow them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're Buzz box is full of spam, it means you you are following spammers.
Either you suck at finding new people to follow, or your frequent contacts are spammers.
Either way, "you're doing it wrong.
"If you don't like what someone is posting in Buzz, don't follow them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146036</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1266259080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it's still very early into Buzz's life cycle, initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands.</p></div><p>My astroturfing meter is pegged.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's still very early into Buzz 's life cycle , initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands.My astroturfing meter is pegged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's still very early into Buzz's life cycle, initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands.My astroturfing meter is pegged.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147834</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1266224820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there's anything I've learned over the years watching technology, it's that if everyone is suddenly climbing aboard a certain technology, it's time to find the next big thing.</p></div><p>I believe this was Microsoft's attitude when the Internet first started taking off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's anything I 've learned over the years watching technology , it 's that if everyone is suddenly climbing aboard a certain technology , it 's time to find the next big thing.I believe this was Microsoft 's attitude when the Internet first started taking off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's anything I've learned over the years watching technology, it's that if everyone is suddenly climbing aboard a certain technology, it's time to find the next big thing.I believe this was Microsoft's attitude when the Internet first started taking off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31153632</id>
	<title>Re:What exactly were you expecting?</title>
	<author>st0nes</author>
	<datestamp>1266318540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What makes Facebook so good is that it's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people.</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/dufus.widdicombe" title="facebook.com">Like this one?</a> [facebook.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes Facebook so good is that it 's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people .
Like this one ?
[ facebook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes Facebook so good is that it's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people.
Like this one?
[facebook.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31153922</id>
	<title>Is buzz that revolutionary?</title>
	<author>glaucomys</author>
	<datestamp>1266323580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's something I have surely missed about Buzz... because to me, it looks that what Google has released after so much time and efforts is just a clone of Twitter! So I don't get what is the fuss all about...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something I have surely missed about Buzz... because to me , it looks that what Google has released after so much time and efforts is just a clone of Twitter !
So I do n't get what is the fuss all about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something I have surely missed about Buzz... because to me, it looks that what Google has released after so much time and efforts is just a clone of Twitter!
So I don't get what is the fuss all about...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147254</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1266265080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What are you working on or with that is the next step in technological evolution?</p></div></blockquote><p>Teledildonics</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you working on or with that is the next step in technological evolution ? Teledildonics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you working on or with that is the next step in technological evolution?Teledildonics
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31148816</id>
	<title>Re:What exactly were you expecting?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1266229680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Social networking is about the walled garden, and the security it gives you in terms of who you're talking to.</p><p>The underlying problem is one of anonymity and the Internet, and finding a way to verify identity without a walled garden. If Google is looking at innovating, they need to find a compelling way to bridge the anonymity gap.</p></div><p>I agree that social networking is about verifiable identity, but disagree that it is or should be about the walled garden. Current social networks ARE walled gardens, and that's a huge net negative for me.</p><p>What frustrates me hugely is that we've had email identity-verification proposals like SPF for years now and always people say 'meh that's useless it doesn't stop spam'. But it's not about spam (bulk of mail received from strangers). It's about identity (knowing that someone who sends to you is who they say they are). The second is FAR more important than the first. And we've had OpenID, and who uses that beyond LiveJournal and Blogger?</p><p>Facebook and Twitter give us an identity, an aggregator, and a content generator, and a simple web-based interface to all three. But we should be able to do this without requiring a centralised proprietary routing hub. For crying out loud, isn't this EXACTLY what RSS was invented for? Why didn't it work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Social networking is about the walled garden , and the security it gives you in terms of who you 're talking to.The underlying problem is one of anonymity and the Internet , and finding a way to verify identity without a walled garden .
If Google is looking at innovating , they need to find a compelling way to bridge the anonymity gap.I agree that social networking is about verifiable identity , but disagree that it is or should be about the walled garden .
Current social networks ARE walled gardens , and that 's a huge net negative for me.What frustrates me hugely is that we 've had email identity-verification proposals like SPF for years now and always people say 'meh that 's useless it does n't stop spam' .
But it 's not about spam ( bulk of mail received from strangers ) .
It 's about identity ( knowing that someone who sends to you is who they say they are ) .
The second is FAR more important than the first .
And we 've had OpenID , and who uses that beyond LiveJournal and Blogger ? Facebook and Twitter give us an identity , an aggregator , and a content generator , and a simple web-based interface to all three .
But we should be able to do this without requiring a centralised proprietary routing hub .
For crying out loud , is n't this EXACTLY what RSS was invented for ?
Why did n't it work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Social networking is about the walled garden, and the security it gives you in terms of who you're talking to.The underlying problem is one of anonymity and the Internet, and finding a way to verify identity without a walled garden.
If Google is looking at innovating, they need to find a compelling way to bridge the anonymity gap.I agree that social networking is about verifiable identity, but disagree that it is or should be about the walled garden.
Current social networks ARE walled gardens, and that's a huge net negative for me.What frustrates me hugely is that we've had email identity-verification proposals like SPF for years now and always people say 'meh that's useless it doesn't stop spam'.
But it's not about spam (bulk of mail received from strangers).
It's about identity (knowing that someone who sends to you is who they say they are).
The second is FAR more important than the first.
And we've had OpenID, and who uses that beyond LiveJournal and Blogger?Facebook and Twitter give us an identity, an aggregator, and a content generator, and a simple web-based interface to all three.
But we should be able to do this without requiring a centralised proprietary routing hub.
For crying out loud, isn't this EXACTLY what RSS was invented for?
Why didn't it work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147972</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason not to use Gmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266225480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I consider this utterly, well, evil. Deceitful. Sketchy. This stuff needs to be totally opt-in.</p></div><p>It <b>is</b> totally opt-in.  The first time you log onto gmail after they introduced buzz, they bring you to a buzz screen.  You choose to enable it or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider this utterly , well , evil .
Deceitful. Sketchy .
This stuff needs to be totally opt-in.It is totally opt-in .
The first time you log onto gmail after they introduced buzz , they bring you to a buzz screen .
You choose to enable it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider this utterly, well, evil.
Deceitful. Sketchy.
This stuff needs to be totally opt-in.It is totally opt-in.
The first time you log onto gmail after they introduced buzz, they bring you to a buzz screen.
You choose to enable it or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814</id>
	<title>I knew there was a reason not to use Gmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266257940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For years now, it's been "Gmail is so great", "why don't you use Gmail?"  I've been that curmudgeon who has these strange ideas about privacy and not entrusting too much data to one company.</p><p>I felt vindicated the other day when my wife freaked out upon seeing people she had emailed with on gmail sudden on her new friends list in the Google Buzz system that she never signed up for, along with the suggestion that she share photos with them and other private data about every action she takes on any system owned by Google.</p><p>On Facebook, at least you went into it *knowing* that everything you post there gets shared with every person you once spoke to in a grad school class who friended you randomly three years later.  Google has insidiously roped you into using a bunch of disconnected services that were great and generally free and all the while, you've known that sure, they collect data they can use for advertising to you, but it's all so goddamned warm and fuzzy, what's there to worry about?</p><p>Suddenly, you find that Google Reader, Picasa, Gmail, etc. are all part of a social networking service you didn't intend to sign up for and Google is trying to push you into sharing everything you do with everybody you email with.</p><p>I consider this utterly, well, evil.  Deceitful.  Sketchy.  This stuff needs to be totally opt-in.</p><p>I helped my wife turn off all the "sharing" features of Buzz.  But could not find any way to completely opt-out of Buzz.  There didn't seem to be a way, other than to cease using Gmail entirely.  I consider that vile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For years now , it 's been " Gmail is so great " , " why do n't you use Gmail ?
" I 've been that curmudgeon who has these strange ideas about privacy and not entrusting too much data to one company.I felt vindicated the other day when my wife freaked out upon seeing people she had emailed with on gmail sudden on her new friends list in the Google Buzz system that she never signed up for , along with the suggestion that she share photos with them and other private data about every action she takes on any system owned by Google.On Facebook , at least you went into it * knowing * that everything you post there gets shared with every person you once spoke to in a grad school class who friended you randomly three years later .
Google has insidiously roped you into using a bunch of disconnected services that were great and generally free and all the while , you 've known that sure , they collect data they can use for advertising to you , but it 's all so goddamned warm and fuzzy , what 's there to worry about ? Suddenly , you find that Google Reader , Picasa , Gmail , etc .
are all part of a social networking service you did n't intend to sign up for and Google is trying to push you into sharing everything you do with everybody you email with.I consider this utterly , well , evil .
Deceitful. Sketchy .
This stuff needs to be totally opt-in.I helped my wife turn off all the " sharing " features of Buzz .
But could not find any way to completely opt-out of Buzz .
There did n't seem to be a way , other than to cease using Gmail entirely .
I consider that vile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years now, it's been "Gmail is so great", "why don't you use Gmail?
"  I've been that curmudgeon who has these strange ideas about privacy and not entrusting too much data to one company.I felt vindicated the other day when my wife freaked out upon seeing people she had emailed with on gmail sudden on her new friends list in the Google Buzz system that she never signed up for, along with the suggestion that she share photos with them and other private data about every action she takes on any system owned by Google.On Facebook, at least you went into it *knowing* that everything you post there gets shared with every person you once spoke to in a grad school class who friended you randomly three years later.
Google has insidiously roped you into using a bunch of disconnected services that were great and generally free and all the while, you've known that sure, they collect data they can use for advertising to you, but it's all so goddamned warm and fuzzy, what's there to worry about?Suddenly, you find that Google Reader, Picasa, Gmail, etc.
are all part of a social networking service you didn't intend to sign up for and Google is trying to push you into sharing everything you do with everybody you email with.I consider this utterly, well, evil.
Deceitful.  Sketchy.
This stuff needs to be totally opt-in.I helped my wife turn off all the "sharing" features of Buzz.
But could not find any way to completely opt-out of Buzz.
There didn't seem to be a way, other than to cease using Gmail entirely.
I consider that vile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31149422</id>
	<title>But you chose to follow the spammers, right?</title>
	<author>Artifex</author>
	<datestamp>1266232440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buzz lets you choose who to follow, and I don't see how you can get spam from people you didn't choose to hear from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz lets you choose who to follow , and I do n't see how you can get spam from people you did n't choose to hear from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz lets you choose who to follow, and I don't see how you can get spam from people you didn't choose to hear from?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146788</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason not to use Gmail</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1266262980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been trying to find an alternative to gmail for just the reasons you've specified.  Do you have any suggestions?  I've thought about using my ISP but I don't know if I trust them much further than Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been trying to find an alternative to gmail for just the reasons you 've specified .
Do you have any suggestions ?
I 've thought about using my ISP but I do n't know if I trust them much further than Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been trying to find an alternative to gmail for just the reasons you've specified.
Do you have any suggestions?
I've thought about using my ISP but I don't know if I trust them much further than Google...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842</id>
	<title>What exactly were you expecting?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1266253140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes Facebook so good is that it's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people.</p><p>When you enable social networking for everyone who thought they were signing up for a mailbox, you're naturally going to cause a mess. Social networking is about the walled garden, and the security it gives you in terms of who you're talking to.</p><p>The underlying problem is one of anonymity and the Internet, and finding a way to verify identity without a walled garden. If Google is looking at innovating, they need to find a compelling way to bridge the anonymity gap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes Facebook so good is that it 's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people.When you enable social networking for everyone who thought they were signing up for a mailbox , you 're naturally going to cause a mess .
Social networking is about the walled garden , and the security it gives you in terms of who you 're talking to.The underlying problem is one of anonymity and the Internet , and finding a way to verify identity without a walled garden .
If Google is looking at innovating , they need to find a compelling way to bridge the anonymity gap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes Facebook so good is that it's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people.When you enable social networking for everyone who thought they were signing up for a mailbox, you're naturally going to cause a mess.
Social networking is about the walled garden, and the security it gives you in terms of who you're talking to.The underlying problem is one of anonymity and the Internet, and finding a way to verify identity without a walled garden.
If Google is looking at innovating, they need to find a compelling way to bridge the anonymity gap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145036</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1266254100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Every major blogger is using Buzz now...</i> <br> <br>
You might as well say "Every major loser is using Buzz now". Most bloggers write drivel (hence <a href="http://dropline.net/past-projects/drivel-blog-editor/" title="dropline.net" rel="nofollow">this</a> [dropline.net]), and I fail to see the value in Google providing yet another means for cretins to prattle inanities into the void.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every major blogger is using Buzz now.. . You might as well say " Every major loser is using Buzz now " .
Most bloggers write drivel ( hence this [ dropline.net ] ) , and I fail to see the value in Google providing yet another means for cretins to prattle inanities into the void .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every major blogger is using Buzz now...  
You might as well say "Every major loser is using Buzz now".
Most bloggers write drivel (hence this [dropline.net]), and I fail to see the value in Google providing yet another means for cretins to prattle inanities into the void.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146012</id>
	<title>Which Times?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266258960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Times is usually used to refer to The Times of London, not the New York Times.  This is an international site, let's get it right people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Times is usually used to refer to The Times of London , not the New York Times .
This is an international site , let 's get it right people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Times is usually used to refer to The Times of London, not the New York Times.
This is an international site, let's get it right people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145854</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook Will Not Acknowledge the New Guy</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1266258120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They (google) can always copy facebook information by asking the user for their facebook login + password.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ( google ) can always copy facebook information by asking the user for their facebook login + password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They (google) can always copy facebook information by asking the user for their facebook login + password.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496</id>
	<title>Facebook Will Not Acknowledge the New Guy</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266251880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... until Facebook can integrate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>The only way Facebook would integrate is if it didn't view Buzz as a competitor in anyway.  But Buzz <i>is</i> a competitor already in some respects.  The damned thing keeps asking me to integrate with my Picassa account.  And it is already integrated with GMail and GChat.  So you've got ad revenue, messaging and pictures<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... now Buzz needs finer tuned privacy control and a developer platform to be a direct competitor with Facebook.  That last one is a big sticky mess though and Facebook seems to have done as best as possible with it.  <br> <br>

Hilarious that Google got bit on privacy concerns.  Facebook learned the lengthy hard way on that one but it does give me hope that people are not entirely offering up their privacy to Google without batting an eye.  Maybe the general public is not as <a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/13/1925206" title="slashdot.org">doomed as we thought</a> [slashdot.org]?  <br> <br>

Anyway, there is no way in hell Facebook would validate Buzz's existence by integrating with them.  It would just give their users who already use GMail a chance to seamlessly transfer over to Buzz while keeping up with their archaic Facebook contacts.  It would be potential suicide for Facebook to do such a thing if/when Google keeps up expanding Buzz.  <br> <br>

Personally I think Buzz targets another market but losing any number of users to Buzz does not make sense in anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... devoting time and resources to that endeavor makes even less sense.  Facebook will sacrifice interaction between it's large user base and the few Buzz-only people in the name of maintaining its superiority.  Really it's sad because the user loses out of being able to transfer and interact with users on Buzz<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but when you're as big as Facebook, you just don't care about those kinds of integration competitor benefits and 'features.'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... until Facebook can integrate ...The only way Facebook would integrate is if it did n't view Buzz as a competitor in anyway .
But Buzz is a competitor already in some respects .
The damned thing keeps asking me to integrate with my Picassa account .
And it is already integrated with GMail and GChat .
So you 've got ad revenue , messaging and pictures ... now Buzz needs finer tuned privacy control and a developer platform to be a direct competitor with Facebook .
That last one is a big sticky mess though and Facebook seems to have done as best as possible with it .
Hilarious that Google got bit on privacy concerns .
Facebook learned the lengthy hard way on that one but it does give me hope that people are not entirely offering up their privacy to Google without batting an eye .
Maybe the general public is not as doomed as we thought [ slashdot.org ] ?
Anyway , there is no way in hell Facebook would validate Buzz 's existence by integrating with them .
It would just give their users who already use GMail a chance to seamlessly transfer over to Buzz while keeping up with their archaic Facebook contacts .
It would be potential suicide for Facebook to do such a thing if/when Google keeps up expanding Buzz .
Personally I think Buzz targets another market but losing any number of users to Buzz does not make sense in anyway ... devoting time and resources to that endeavor makes even less sense .
Facebook will sacrifice interaction between it 's large user base and the few Buzz-only people in the name of maintaining its superiority .
Really it 's sad because the user loses out of being able to transfer and interact with users on Buzz ... but when you 're as big as Facebook , you just do n't care about those kinds of integration competitor benefits and 'features .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... until Facebook can integrate ...The only way Facebook would integrate is if it didn't view Buzz as a competitor in anyway.
But Buzz is a competitor already in some respects.
The damned thing keeps asking me to integrate with my Picassa account.
And it is already integrated with GMail and GChat.
So you've got ad revenue, messaging and pictures ... now Buzz needs finer tuned privacy control and a developer platform to be a direct competitor with Facebook.
That last one is a big sticky mess though and Facebook seems to have done as best as possible with it.
Hilarious that Google got bit on privacy concerns.
Facebook learned the lengthy hard way on that one but it does give me hope that people are not entirely offering up their privacy to Google without batting an eye.
Maybe the general public is not as doomed as we thought [slashdot.org]?
Anyway, there is no way in hell Facebook would validate Buzz's existence by integrating with them.
It would just give their users who already use GMail a chance to seamlessly transfer over to Buzz while keeping up with their archaic Facebook contacts.
It would be potential suicide for Facebook to do such a thing if/when Google keeps up expanding Buzz.
Personally I think Buzz targets another market but losing any number of users to Buzz does not make sense in anyway ... devoting time and resources to that endeavor makes even less sense.
Facebook will sacrifice interaction between it's large user base and the few Buzz-only people in the name of maintaining its superiority.
Really it's sad because the user loses out of being able to transfer and interact with users on Buzz ... but when you're as big as Facebook, you just don't care about those kinds of integration competitor benefits and 'features.
'
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145718</id>
	<title>I'm just waiting for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266257400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FarmVille for Buzz... come one already!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FarmVille for Buzz... come one already !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FarmVille for Buzz... come one already!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145830</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1266258000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and 99\% of that 9 million posts is:<br>
"testing... testing",<br>
"is this going to work?"<br>
or<br>
"hi all"</htmltext>
<tokenext>and 99 \ % of that 9 million posts is : " testing... testing " , " is this going to work ?
" or " hi all "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and 99\% of that 9 million posts is:
"testing... testing",
"is this going to work?
"
or
"hi all"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144594</id>
	<title>Totally Riding That Buzz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266252180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>

I think Buzz targets people who desire a very simple interface.  It seems to perform a lot better on my slow machine than Facebook but is negligible on my main box.  Honestly I haven't experienced any Spam on Buzz at all.  Don't you have to follow the Spam bot or hacked account to get the Spam?  <br> <br>

It's missing a lot of options, I guess time will tell if that is the intent or merely TBD yet.  I do like how it's integrated with Google Reader.  I share a lot of my news offerings with my followers.  I <b>don't</b> like that it wants me to integrate with Picassa.  I simply have too many Google contacts (some Slashdot readers I've never met!) to have them looking at my pictures!  <br> <br>

So the one thing that Buzz has over Facebook is <a href="http://search.slashdot.org/story/10/02/12/0224211/Google-Buys-AI-Social-Search-Service-Aardvark" title="slashdot.org">Aardvark</a> [slashdot.org].  I signed up for that three or four days ago and have asked <a href="http://vark.com/t/874f95" title="vark.com">a question</a> [vark.com] (with very positive results) and answered <a href="http://vark.com/t/4732f4" title="vark.com">a</a> [vark.com] <a href="http://vark.com/t/e5331a" title="vark.com">few</a> [vark.com] <a href="http://vark.com/t/87c299" title="vark.com">questions</a> [vark.com].  I didn't get quite what I wanted out of answering questions although I think the people that answered my question did a pretty good job.  How this is different from Yahoo Answers or Wiki Answers seems to be that it's tightly integrated with Buzz and GChat.  Also it actively finds things for you to answer.  I'm guessing what Google has with mining your e-mail and chats and searches it will use to locate experts for your questions and also pair you with better questions you're more capable of answering.  A lot remains to be seen as to whether or not this is an actual <i>beneficial</i> addition or some more of the bloat a Facebook application would have to offer one.  <br> <br>

Yes, I have already made two book purchases off of those suggestions from my question.  Note that a problem with GChat caused two of my questions (which I tried to designate as separate) get slotted into one question.  I could <i>just hear</i> the software thinking: the second question is about authors, he must be continuing his thought.  <br> <br>

Personally I'm not leaving Facebook for Buzz.  But I'm not decommissioning Buzz.  I'm keeping it as a sort of News social network much like <a href="http://www.theauteurs.com/" title="theauteurs.com">The Auteurs</a> [theauteurs.com] and <a href="http://afternoonrecords.ning.com/" title="ning.com">Afternoon Records Community</a> [ning.com] are for my movies and music respectively.  Granted none of these niche networks get as much time as the all encompassing Facebook, they still exist harmoniously in the bag of sites I visit.  I recognize I'm probably an outlier though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Buzz targets people who desire a very simple interface .
It seems to perform a lot better on my slow machine than Facebook but is negligible on my main box .
Honestly I have n't experienced any Spam on Buzz at all .
Do n't you have to follow the Spam bot or hacked account to get the Spam ?
It 's missing a lot of options , I guess time will tell if that is the intent or merely TBD yet .
I do like how it 's integrated with Google Reader .
I share a lot of my news offerings with my followers .
I do n't like that it wants me to integrate with Picassa .
I simply have too many Google contacts ( some Slashdot readers I 've never met !
) to have them looking at my pictures !
So the one thing that Buzz has over Facebook is Aardvark [ slashdot.org ] .
I signed up for that three or four days ago and have asked a question [ vark.com ] ( with very positive results ) and answered a [ vark.com ] few [ vark.com ] questions [ vark.com ] .
I did n't get quite what I wanted out of answering questions although I think the people that answered my question did a pretty good job .
How this is different from Yahoo Answers or Wiki Answers seems to be that it 's tightly integrated with Buzz and GChat .
Also it actively finds things for you to answer .
I 'm guessing what Google has with mining your e-mail and chats and searches it will use to locate experts for your questions and also pair you with better questions you 're more capable of answering .
A lot remains to be seen as to whether or not this is an actual beneficial addition or some more of the bloat a Facebook application would have to offer one .
Yes , I have already made two book purchases off of those suggestions from my question .
Note that a problem with GChat caused two of my questions ( which I tried to designate as separate ) get slotted into one question .
I could just hear the software thinking : the second question is about authors , he must be continuing his thought .
Personally I 'm not leaving Facebook for Buzz .
But I 'm not decommissioning Buzz .
I 'm keeping it as a sort of News social network much like The Auteurs [ theauteurs.com ] and Afternoon Records Community [ ning.com ] are for my movies and music respectively .
Granted none of these niche networks get as much time as the all encompassing Facebook , they still exist harmoniously in the bag of sites I visit .
I recognize I 'm probably an outlier though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

I think Buzz targets people who desire a very simple interface.
It seems to perform a lot better on my slow machine than Facebook but is negligible on my main box.
Honestly I haven't experienced any Spam on Buzz at all.
Don't you have to follow the Spam bot or hacked account to get the Spam?
It's missing a lot of options, I guess time will tell if that is the intent or merely TBD yet.
I do like how it's integrated with Google Reader.
I share a lot of my news offerings with my followers.
I don't like that it wants me to integrate with Picassa.
I simply have too many Google contacts (some Slashdot readers I've never met!
) to have them looking at my pictures!
So the one thing that Buzz has over Facebook is Aardvark [slashdot.org].
I signed up for that three or four days ago and have asked a question [vark.com] (with very positive results) and answered a [vark.com] few [vark.com] questions [vark.com].
I didn't get quite what I wanted out of answering questions although I think the people that answered my question did a pretty good job.
How this is different from Yahoo Answers or Wiki Answers seems to be that it's tightly integrated with Buzz and GChat.
Also it actively finds things for you to answer.
I'm guessing what Google has with mining your e-mail and chats and searches it will use to locate experts for your questions and also pair you with better questions you're more capable of answering.
A lot remains to be seen as to whether or not this is an actual beneficial addition or some more of the bloat a Facebook application would have to offer one.
Yes, I have already made two book purchases off of those suggestions from my question.
Note that a problem with GChat caused two of my questions (which I tried to designate as separate) get slotted into one question.
I could just hear the software thinking: the second question is about authors, he must be continuing his thought.
Personally I'm not leaving Facebook for Buzz.
But I'm not decommissioning Buzz.
I'm keeping it as a sort of News social network much like The Auteurs [theauteurs.com] and Afternoon Records Community [ning.com] are for my movies and music respectively.
Granted none of these niche networks get as much time as the all encompassing Facebook, they still exist harmoniously in the bag of sites I visit.
I recognize I'm probably an outlier though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145098</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266254400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</p></div><p>When the usage passed from 0 to 1, one might argue it got infinitely more popular!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Buzz 's Skyrocketing UsageWhen the usage passed from 0 to 1 , one might argue it got infinitely more popular !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Buzz's Skyrocketing UsageWhen the usage passed from 0 to 1, one might argue it got infinitely more popular!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145016</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266253980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; it's time to find the next big thing.</p><p>Information arranged linearly on pressed dead plant material?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; it 's time to find the next big thing.Information arranged linearly on pressed dead plant material ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; it's time to find the next big thing.Information arranged linearly on pressed dead plant material?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266252600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there's anything I've learned over the years watching technology, it's that if everyone is suddenly climbing aboard a certain technology, it's time to find the next big thing.</p><p>Social computing may be really hot right now, but I'm wondering what the next big thing is going to be. First we had personal websites, then we moved to blogs, then to social computing and tweeting. What's next? What are you working on or with that is the next step in technological evolution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's anything I 've learned over the years watching technology , it 's that if everyone is suddenly climbing aboard a certain technology , it 's time to find the next big thing.Social computing may be really hot right now , but I 'm wondering what the next big thing is going to be .
First we had personal websites , then we moved to blogs , then to social computing and tweeting .
What 's next ?
What are you working on or with that is the next step in technological evolution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's anything I've learned over the years watching technology, it's that if everyone is suddenly climbing aboard a certain technology, it's time to find the next big thing.Social computing may be really hot right now, but I'm wondering what the next big thing is going to be.
First we had personal websites, then we moved to blogs, then to social computing and tweeting.
What's next?
What are you working on or with that is the next step in technological evolution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146588</id>
	<title>Anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266261960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>|On Facebook, at least you went into it *knowing* that everything you post there gets shared with every person you once spoke to in a grad school class who friended you randomly three years later.</p><p>Wow, when I joinned Buzz on day one, there was a windows saying "Make you're profile available to public" and you had to click Yes or No, if your wife clicked Yes without knowing what it was (like 80 \% of all the internet users) then yes she didn't know (it's like riding on an highway that suddently change to a slow speed road, but you didn't see the sign, it was there but you didn't read it, and then the cop arrest you and you say "Mr Officer, I didnt see the speed limit")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>| On Facebook , at least you went into it * knowing * that everything you post there gets shared with every person you once spoke to in a grad school class who friended you randomly three years later.Wow , when I joinned Buzz on day one , there was a windows saying " Make you 're profile available to public " and you had to click Yes or No , if your wife clicked Yes without knowing what it was ( like 80 \ % of all the internet users ) then yes she did n't know ( it 's like riding on an highway that suddently change to a slow speed road , but you did n't see the sign , it was there but you did n't read it , and then the cop arrest you and you say " Mr Officer , I didnt see the speed limit " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>|On Facebook, at least you went into it *knowing* that everything you post there gets shared with every person you once spoke to in a grad school class who friended you randomly three years later.Wow, when I joinned Buzz on day one, there was a windows saying "Make you're profile available to public" and you had to click Yes or No, if your wife clicked Yes without knowing what it was (like 80 \% of all the internet users) then yes she didn't know (it's like riding on an highway that suddently change to a slow speed road, but you didn't see the sign, it was there but you didn't read it, and then the cop arrest you and you say "Mr Officer, I didnt see the speed limit")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145040</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1266254100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree with this. I found buzz to be just about ideal - it's unobtrusive, simple. and more of a 'feed aggregator' than a twitter app.</p><p>One of my friends just uses it to share his twitter feed with those of us not using twitter. Another just uses it for occasional comments on his flickr photo stream. I use it just for the occasional IM type comment that I would want to send to 3 or 4 people (not things like "I'm watching the game", but things like "everyone who bet on x owes me money", or "did you see this news story").</p><p>Sure, it's kinda pointless. But it does a really good job of combining several disparate feeds of pointless into one simple console that I already have open anyway.</p><p>It's a win for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with this .
I found buzz to be just about ideal - it 's unobtrusive , simple .
and more of a 'feed aggregator ' than a twitter app.One of my friends just uses it to share his twitter feed with those of us not using twitter .
Another just uses it for occasional comments on his flickr photo stream .
I use it just for the occasional IM type comment that I would want to send to 3 or 4 people ( not things like " I 'm watching the game " , but things like " everyone who bet on x owes me money " , or " did you see this news story " ) .Sure , it 's kinda pointless .
But it does a really good job of combining several disparate feeds of pointless into one simple console that I already have open anyway.It 's a win for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with this.
I found buzz to be just about ideal - it's unobtrusive, simple.
and more of a 'feed aggregator' than a twitter app.One of my friends just uses it to share his twitter feed with those of us not using twitter.
Another just uses it for occasional comments on his flickr photo stream.
I use it just for the occasional IM type comment that I would want to send to 3 or 4 people (not things like "I'm watching the game", but things like "everyone who bet on x owes me money", or "did you see this news story").Sure, it's kinda pointless.
But it does a really good job of combining several disparate feeds of pointless into one simple console that I already have open anyway.It's a win for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145604</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1266256680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's just everyone in Brazil.</p><p>Kinda like how Orcut turned into a non starter for social media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's just everyone in Brazil.Kinda like how Orcut turned into a non starter for social media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's just everyone in Brazil.Kinda like how Orcut turned into a non starter for social media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146934</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266263640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far the progression has been from larger coherent bodies of work to smaller streams of consciousness.  Pretty soon people will just be grunting at each other.  We are coming full circle!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far the progression has been from larger coherent bodies of work to smaller streams of consciousness .
Pretty soon people will just be grunting at each other .
We are coming full circle !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far the progression has been from larger coherent bodies of work to smaller streams of consciousness.
Pretty soon people will just be grunting at each other.
We are coming full circle!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144798</id>
	<title>Example Link</title>
	<author>brownpau</author>
	<datestamp>1266253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how TFA is pretty much a fluff piece which doesn't even bother showing a single link to (or even screenshot) of said Google Buzz spam. It's not hard to find; like with Buzz searches for pharma-related terms: <a href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#buzz/search/levitra" title="google.com">https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#buzz/search/levitra</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how TFA is pretty much a fluff piece which does n't even bother showing a single link to ( or even screenshot ) of said Google Buzz spam .
It 's not hard to find ; like with Buzz searches for pharma-related terms : https : //mail.google.com/mail/ ? shva = 1 # buzz/search/levitra [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how TFA is pretty much a fluff piece which doesn't even bother showing a single link to (or even screenshot) of said Google Buzz spam.
It's not hard to find; like with Buzz searches for pharma-related terms: https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#buzz/search/levitra [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145772</id>
	<title>Re:What exactly were you expecting?</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1266257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What makes Facebook so good is that it's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Current prices for a facebook account on the spam markets are around $5 per 1000 friends. Creating fake accounts that seem to be people isn't that hard - just scrape pics of hot girls off MySpace, couple with a fake name generator and off you go (assuming you can get past Facebooks defences of course, but then GMail has defences too).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes Facebook so good is that it 's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people .
Current prices for a facebook account on the spam markets are around $ 5 per 1000 friends .
Creating fake accounts that seem to be people is n't that hard - just scrape pics of hot girls off MySpace , couple with a fake name generator and off you go ( assuming you can get past Facebooks defences of course , but then GMail has defences too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes Facebook so good is that it's all tied to people - even the fake accounts need to seem to be people.
Current prices for a facebook account on the spam markets are around $5 per 1000 friends.
Creating fake accounts that seem to be people isn't that hard - just scrape pics of hot girls off MySpace, couple with a fake name generator and off you go (assuming you can get past Facebooks defences of course, but then GMail has defences too).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147656</id>
	<title>Re:I knew there was a reason not to use Gmail</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266267000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to enable it and you can disable it. I fail to see how giving people more options is a bad thing</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to enable it and you can disable it .
I fail to see how giving people more options is a bad thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to enable it and you can disable it.
I fail to see how giving people more options is a bad thing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145366</id>
	<title>(1)</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1266255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, if in my GMail, next to Inbox it says something like (1) or some other value (N), then to me that's an indicator: I have a mail or a TODO! Must process the mail to get back to 0 unread messages!</p><p>Now suddenly this Buzz thing appeared below Inbox, and it sometimes also gets a (1) next to it, and this for things that I'm currently not using (I'm waiting a bit until all the privacy things are settled and/or enough friends push me into using it before actually using it)!</p><p>So the Buzz gives my GMail the appearance of being "Busy" or requiring processing!</p><p>Luckily you can hide things from the list on the left, so that's what I did to Buzz as a current solution for this problem...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , if in my GMail , next to Inbox it says something like ( 1 ) or some other value ( N ) , then to me that 's an indicator : I have a mail or a TODO !
Must process the mail to get back to 0 unread messages ! Now suddenly this Buzz thing appeared below Inbox , and it sometimes also gets a ( 1 ) next to it , and this for things that I 'm currently not using ( I 'm waiting a bit until all the privacy things are settled and/or enough friends push me into using it before actually using it ) ! So the Buzz gives my GMail the appearance of being " Busy " or requiring processing ! Luckily you can hide things from the list on the left , so that 's what I did to Buzz as a current solution for this problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, if in my GMail, next to Inbox it says something like (1) or some other value (N), then to me that's an indicator: I have a mail or a TODO!
Must process the mail to get back to 0 unread messages!Now suddenly this Buzz thing appeared below Inbox, and it sometimes also gets a (1) next to it, and this for things that I'm currently not using (I'm waiting a bit until all the privacy things are settled and/or enough friends push me into using it before actually using it)!So the Buzz gives my GMail the appearance of being "Busy" or requiring processing!Luckily you can hide things from the list on the left, so that's what I did to Buzz as a current solution for this problem...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145092</id>
	<title>Has google lost touch with reality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266254400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lately they seem to be the kid who does what the cool kids seem to be doing but can never get it right.  Buzz was a dumb idea with an even worse implementation, and what exactly did Google really hope to gain with this one?  If you are going to enter a market you damn well better have a good plan to actually do something other than slap your label on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lately they seem to be the kid who does what the cool kids seem to be doing but can never get it right .
Buzz was a dumb idea with an even worse implementation , and what exactly did Google really hope to gain with this one ?
If you are going to enter a market you damn well better have a good plan to actually do something other than slap your label on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lately they seem to be the kid who does what the cool kids seem to be doing but can never get it right.
Buzz was a dumb idea with an even worse implementation, and what exactly did Google really hope to gain with this one?
If you are going to enter a market you damn well better have a good plan to actually do something other than slap your label on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145632</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1266256800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feed aggregator?  just use yahoo pipes and create a custom one.</p><p>That's what I did, I simply filter my own facebook feed to give me friends feeds, as well as twitter and the like.   works great and I have 100\% control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feed aggregator ?
just use yahoo pipes and create a custom one.That 's what I did , I simply filter my own facebook feed to give me friends feeds , as well as twitter and the like .
works great and I have 100 \ % control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feed aggregator?
just use yahoo pipes and create a custom one.That's what I did, I simply filter my own facebook feed to give me friends feeds, as well as twitter and the like.
works great and I have 100\% control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145842</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1266258060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First we had personal websites, then we moved to blogs, then to social computing and tweeting.</p></div><p>Isn't that like saying first we had automobiles, then we moved to cars, then to mass transit and bicycling.  I thought blogs were personal web logs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First we had personal websites , then we moved to blogs , then to social computing and tweeting.Is n't that like saying first we had automobiles , then we moved to cars , then to mass transit and bicycling .
I thought blogs were personal web logs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First we had personal websites, then we moved to blogs, then to social computing and tweeting.Isn't that like saying first we had automobiles, then we moved to cars, then to mass transit and bicycling.
I thought blogs were personal web logs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146880</id>
	<title>Re:Google Buzz's Skyrocketing Usage</title>
	<author>Curmudgeonlyoldbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1266263460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rarely have I read such complete bollocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rarely have I read such complete bollocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rarely have I read such complete bollocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31148650</id>
	<title>The first Buzz I read was...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266228780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh shit. I did something horribly wrong. My Facebook is set to update from my Twitter and blog accounts, Tumblr and flixter repeat updates from Facebook, if applicable, and Myspace bulletins get repeated to Twitter and Facebook. I have Posterous and Friendster feeds that update Facebook and Tumblr. When I post to Yelp, Foursquare or Gowalla, my Twitter account gets CCd and Google Reader monitors each of these. I have Reddit, Stumbleupon, Linkedin, del.icio.us and Digg accounts that get repeated, but I don't exactly remember the update cycle of all this shit. Just now, I added Buzz and now my entire system has broken. It's become a circle, somehow I've created my own internet Ouroboros. The circuit is flowing and I'm absentmindedly making 200 updates per minute. They're all about the same thing: a post I made announcing my trying Buzz. Only the posts are all slightly different because I stupidly use a random thesaurus filter to overcome Facebook and Twitter's anti-spam policies, and this is used along with a random introductory phrase and generated short url link. Dear god, what have I done? I think it's all become sentient and decided that the human is expendable and I'm not needed any more.</p><p>I can't stop the cycle. Oh fuck help me. God damn you Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh shit .
I did something horribly wrong .
My Facebook is set to update from my Twitter and blog accounts , Tumblr and flixter repeat updates from Facebook , if applicable , and Myspace bulletins get repeated to Twitter and Facebook .
I have Posterous and Friendster feeds that update Facebook and Tumblr .
When I post to Yelp , Foursquare or Gowalla , my Twitter account gets CCd and Google Reader monitors each of these .
I have Reddit , Stumbleupon , Linkedin , del.icio.us and Digg accounts that get repeated , but I do n't exactly remember the update cycle of all this shit .
Just now , I added Buzz and now my entire system has broken .
It 's become a circle , somehow I 've created my own internet Ouroboros .
The circuit is flowing and I 'm absentmindedly making 200 updates per minute .
They 're all about the same thing : a post I made announcing my trying Buzz .
Only the posts are all slightly different because I stupidly use a random thesaurus filter to overcome Facebook and Twitter 's anti-spam policies , and this is used along with a random introductory phrase and generated short url link .
Dear god , what have I done ?
I think it 's all become sentient and decided that the human is expendable and I 'm not needed any more.I ca n't stop the cycle .
Oh fuck help me .
God damn you Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh shit.
I did something horribly wrong.
My Facebook is set to update from my Twitter and blog accounts, Tumblr and flixter repeat updates from Facebook, if applicable, and Myspace bulletins get repeated to Twitter and Facebook.
I have Posterous and Friendster feeds that update Facebook and Tumblr.
When I post to Yelp, Foursquare or Gowalla, my Twitter account gets CCd and Google Reader monitors each of these.
I have Reddit, Stumbleupon, Linkedin, del.icio.us and Digg accounts that get repeated, but I don't exactly remember the update cycle of all this shit.
Just now, I added Buzz and now my entire system has broken.
It's become a circle, somehow I've created my own internet Ouroboros.
The circuit is flowing and I'm absentmindedly making 200 updates per minute.
They're all about the same thing: a post I made announcing my trying Buzz.
Only the posts are all slightly different because I stupidly use a random thesaurus filter to overcome Facebook and Twitter's anti-spam policies, and this is used along with a random introductory phrase and generated short url link.
Dear god, what have I done?
I think it's all become sentient and decided that the human is expendable and I'm not needed any more.I can't stop the cycle.
Oh fuck help me.
God damn you Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146790</id>
	<title>Spam on Google Buzz</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1266262980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And Begg-Smith gets the gold!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Begg-Smith gets the gold !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Begg-Smith gets the gold!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31148816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31153632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_150227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31148816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31153632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31144892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_150227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31145814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31146788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_150227.31147972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
