<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_19_0032250</id>
	<title>Microsoft-Yahoo Search Deal Gets Go-Ahead From EU, US DoJ</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266592380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft and Yahoo announced Thursday morning that the US DOJ and the European Commission have <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158698/Microsoft\_Yahoo\_search\_deal\_gets\_go\_ahead">approved an agreement between the two firms</a> to have the Bing search engine power Yahoo's sites. The companies said that engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site 'in the coming days' and that they hope work is completed, at least the US, by the end of this year."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft and Yahoo announced Thursday morning that the US DOJ and the European Commission have approved an agreement between the two firms to have the Bing search engine power Yahoo 's sites .
The companies said that engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site 'in the coming days ' and that they hope work is completed , at least the US , by the end of this year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft and Yahoo announced Thursday morning that the US DOJ and the European Commission have approved an agreement between the two firms to have the Bing search engine power Yahoo's sites.
The companies said that engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site 'in the coming days' and that they hope work is completed, at least the US, by the end of this year.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207098</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, another search engine bites the dust. Bing is NOT a search engine, its an advertising platform. they have already been caught censoring anti-microsoft searches</p><p> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22833823-Bing-Censors-Microsoft-Questions-Reveals-ProMS-Results </p><p> And they will censor anything else that businesses or governments pay them to.</p><p>http://search.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0158213/Bing-Censoring-All-Simplified-Chinese-Language-Queries</p><p>http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/03/microsoft-bing-censors-sex-for-indians.htm</p><p>http://www.saschakimmel.com/2009/06/bings-blatant-censorship-in-germany/</p><p>There are 4,420,000 other examples if you care do a search, just don't do it on bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , another search engine bites the dust .
Bing is NOT a search engine , its an advertising platform .
they have already been caught censoring anti-microsoft searches http : //www.dslreports.com/forum/r22833823-Bing-Censors-Microsoft-Questions-Reveals-ProMS-Results And they will censor anything else that businesses or governments pay them to.http : //search.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0158213/Bing-Censoring-All-Simplified-Chinese-Language-Querieshttp : //business.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/03/microsoft-bing-censors-sex-for-indians.htmhttp : //www.saschakimmel.com/2009/06/bings-blatant-censorship-in-germany/There are 4,420,000 other examples if you care do a search , just do n't do it on bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, another search engine bites the dust.
Bing is NOT a search engine, its an advertising platform.
they have already been caught censoring anti-microsoft searches http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22833823-Bing-Censors-Microsoft-Questions-Reveals-ProMS-Results  And they will censor anything else that businesses or governments pay them to.http://search.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0158213/Bing-Censoring-All-Simplified-Chinese-Language-Querieshttp://business.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/03/microsoft-bing-censors-sex-for-indians.htmhttp://www.saschakimmel.com/2009/06/bings-blatant-censorship-in-germany/There are 4,420,000 other examples if you care do a search, just don't do it on bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196196</id>
	<title>Farewell Yahoo!</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1266521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its sad to see yahoo going down like this. It really had some excellent services and i will miss many of them. With the Google agreement they would have had a chance of surviving and even grow but now i give them at most a couple of years. Icahn must have some reverse Midas touch where things he gets involved in turns to shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its sad to see yahoo going down like this .
It really had some excellent services and i will miss many of them .
With the Google agreement they would have had a chance of surviving and even grow but now i give them at most a couple of years .
Icahn must have some reverse Midas touch where things he gets involved in turns to shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its sad to see yahoo going down like this.
It really had some excellent services and i will miss many of them.
With the Google agreement they would have had a chance of surviving and even grow but now i give them at most a couple of years.
Icahn must have some reverse Midas touch where things he gets involved in turns to shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31198098</id>
	<title>Google has no competition</title>
	<author>too2late</author>
	<datestamp>1266587820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run a small-medium sized web site that targets K-12 teachers. We started out small with very targeted ads, advertising on Google with a budget of $10/day and started making decent sales. We were doing so well that we decided to try Yahoo. We used the exact same ads and the exact same keywords as the ones for Google that were doing well. We put $100 in our Yahoo ads account to start with, and burned through the whole amount in 4 days without a single sale. Needless to say, we turned it off immediately and have never tried it again. Now we are making many more sales from our Google ads. I don't see how Yahoo's search marketing can be so inefficient and terrible.

BTW, we also tried MSN/Live search and it's been active for about a year with a $20/day budget. The amount of money we give Microsoft every month is about $5. In other words, Microsoft search has absolutely no volume at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a small-medium sized web site that targets K-12 teachers .
We started out small with very targeted ads , advertising on Google with a budget of $ 10/day and started making decent sales .
We were doing so well that we decided to try Yahoo .
We used the exact same ads and the exact same keywords as the ones for Google that were doing well .
We put $ 100 in our Yahoo ads account to start with , and burned through the whole amount in 4 days without a single sale .
Needless to say , we turned it off immediately and have never tried it again .
Now we are making many more sales from our Google ads .
I do n't see how Yahoo 's search marketing can be so inefficient and terrible .
BTW , we also tried MSN/Live search and it 's been active for about a year with a $ 20/day budget .
The amount of money we give Microsoft every month is about $ 5 .
In other words , Microsoft search has absolutely no volume at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a small-medium sized web site that targets K-12 teachers.
We started out small with very targeted ads, advertising on Google with a budget of $10/day and started making decent sales.
We were doing so well that we decided to try Yahoo.
We used the exact same ads and the exact same keywords as the ones for Google that were doing well.
We put $100 in our Yahoo ads account to start with, and burned through the whole amount in 4 days without a single sale.
Needless to say, we turned it off immediately and have never tried it again.
Now we are making many more sales from our Google ads.
I don't see how Yahoo's search marketing can be so inefficient and terrible.
BTW, we also tried MSN/Live search and it's been active for about a year with a $20/day budget.
The amount of money we give Microsoft every month is about $5.
In other words, Microsoft search has absolutely no volume at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195212</id>
	<title>ironic!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266509940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just got some head from kathleen fent!  ok, it's not actually ironic.  but damn I do love fucking her throat!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got some head from kathleen fent !
ok , it 's not actually ironic .
but damn I do love fucking her throat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got some head from kathleen fent!
ok, it's not actually ironic.
but damn I do love fucking her throat!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201694</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266606000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is part of a MS mission: Embrace, extend, and extinguish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is part of a MS mission : Embrace , extend , and extinguish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is part of a MS mission: Embrace, extend, and extinguish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195300</id>
	<title>Both?</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1266510780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yahoo and Bing?<br><br>Now I can ignore both at the same time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo and Bing ? Now I can ignore both at the same time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo and Bing?Now I can ignore both at the same time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207288</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it okay for Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266595200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>200lb gorilla?  200lb is somewhat below the weight of your average gorilla.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>200lb gorilla ?
200lb is somewhat below the weight of your average gorilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>200lb gorilla?
200lb is somewhat below the weight of your average gorilla.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254</id>
	<title>Who will suffer?</title>
	<author>nicknamenotavailable</author>
	<datestamp>1266510240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So will this make Yahoo suck like Bing, or Bing actually find pages (I'm interested in) just like Yahoo?</p><p>Every time I've used Bing, I've been disappointed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So will this make Yahoo suck like Bing , or Bing actually find pages ( I 'm interested in ) just like Yahoo ? Every time I 've used Bing , I 've been disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So will this make Yahoo suck like Bing, or Bing actually find pages (I'm interested in) just like Yahoo?Every time I've used Bing, I've been disappointed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195204</id>
	<title>Type-R stickers and huge spoilers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266509880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't go to movies to learn stuff, but it is hard to come away from them without having learned something. In the Fast and the Furious, it was shown that you don't need to buy a Ferrari to have the fastest car on the street. In fact, with a little work, any Japanese sports coupe can be made exceptionally fast (and furious).</p><p>The key is to change out the engine for something better. The stock 1500cc 4 banger can be swapped out for a 3500cc turbo and the car's entire character changes. But the looks don't need to necessarily change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't go to movies to learn stuff , but it is hard to come away from them without having learned something .
In the Fast and the Furious , it was shown that you do n't need to buy a Ferrari to have the fastest car on the street .
In fact , with a little work , any Japanese sports coupe can be made exceptionally fast ( and furious ) .The key is to change out the engine for something better .
The stock 1500cc 4 banger can be swapped out for a 3500cc turbo and the car 's entire character changes .
But the looks do n't need to necessarily change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't go to movies to learn stuff, but it is hard to come away from them without having learned something.
In the Fast and the Furious, it was shown that you don't need to buy a Ferrari to have the fastest car on the street.
In fact, with a little work, any Japanese sports coupe can be made exceptionally fast (and furious).The key is to change out the engine for something better.
The stock 1500cc 4 banger can be swapped out for a 3500cc turbo and the car's entire character changes.
But the looks don't need to necessarily change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195188</id>
	<title>The formula:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266509760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>Microsoft - third-rate, virus-ridden shitware from a company that is a load of stinky stagnant Indian-driven pants chili.</li><li>Yahoo! - the foremost playground for chat room trolls, 12 year olds, and the panty-sniffing Japs who follow them.</li></ul><p>

Here are the mathematical equations which describe their partnershitp:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Microsoft = Yahoo = shit = bad<br>
shit + shit = 2 * shit<br> </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
and since</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>2 * shit = 2 * bad</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
we find, counterintuitively and as a matter of public opinion, that</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>more shit is less than or equal to less shit </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Q.E.D.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft - third-rate , virus-ridden shitware from a company that is a load of stinky stagnant Indian-driven pants chili.Yahoo !
- the foremost playground for chat room trolls , 12 year olds , and the panty-sniffing Japs who follow them .
Here are the mathematical equations which describe their partnershitp : Microsoft = Yahoo = shit = bad shit + shit = 2 * shit and since 2 * shit = 2 * bad we find , counterintuitively and as a matter of public opinion , that more shit is less than or equal to less shit Q.E.D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Microsoft - third-rate, virus-ridden shitware from a company that is a load of stinky stagnant Indian-driven pants chili.Yahoo!
- the foremost playground for chat room trolls, 12 year olds, and the panty-sniffing Japs who follow them.
Here are the mathematical equations which describe their partnershitp: Microsoft = Yahoo = shit = bad
shit + shit = 2 * shit  
and since 2 * shit = 2 * bad 
we find, counterintuitively and as a matter of public opinion, that more shit is less than or equal to less shit  

Q.E.D.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201292</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1266604080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes fewer competitors leads to increased competition, if two or more small competitors merge to become one entity with sufficient resources to be able to actually compete effectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes fewer competitors leads to increased competition , if two or more small competitors merge to become one entity with sufficient resources to be able to actually compete effectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes fewer competitors leads to increased competition, if two or more small competitors merge to become one entity with sufficient resources to be able to actually compete effectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196848</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1266573600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google do need some competition on the technical merits of search, not from a convicted monopolist with years of abuse in their belt. Now that Yahoo is gone competition have disappeared, not increased.</p><p>The US did a major mistake when they denied Google helping Yahoo out. Google wants healthy competition, not the kind Microsoft brings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google do need some competition on the technical merits of search , not from a convicted monopolist with years of abuse in their belt .
Now that Yahoo is gone competition have disappeared , not increased.The US did a major mistake when they denied Google helping Yahoo out .
Google wants healthy competition , not the kind Microsoft brings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google do need some competition on the technical merits of search, not from a convicted monopolist with years of abuse in their belt.
Now that Yahoo is gone competition have disappeared, not increased.The US did a major mistake when they denied Google helping Yahoo out.
Google wants healthy competition, not the kind Microsoft brings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196110</id>
	<title>Does anybody actually use Yahoo for anything ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...besides throw-away e-mail accounts?</p><p>Seriously, the last time I used Yahoo search was in 1998. I remember because I had just started a new job and was trying to get the dumb bastards to remove ancient erroneous links in their directory (or whatever the fuck it was called) that were causing my new company big headaches. I did not succeed, but people stopped using that hideous thing and the problem went away.</p><p>Yahoo's motto at the time must have been "as dynamic as hard-set concrete".</p><p>I tried their search (powered by "Your Name Here") a few times and it sucked rocks.  End of Yahoo for me. Even stale old Alta Vista was better.  A few months later, Google arrived and I never looked back.</p><p>I did use the Swedish one, er<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... oh, yeah, Alltheweb as a backup to Google for the first few Google years, but then Yahoo sucked Alltheweb (and others) it into its vacuum bag and turned them uniformly shitty.</p><p>IMO, association with Yahoo is the kiss of death for search engines. Lets hope it keeps its record intact.  I think Google needs competition, but from someone innovative, not from the joint efforts of a couple of tired old whores.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...besides throw-away e-mail accounts ? Seriously , the last time I used Yahoo search was in 1998 .
I remember because I had just started a new job and was trying to get the dumb bastards to remove ancient erroneous links in their directory ( or whatever the fuck it was called ) that were causing my new company big headaches .
I did not succeed , but people stopped using that hideous thing and the problem went away.Yahoo 's motto at the time must have been " as dynamic as hard-set concrete " .I tried their search ( powered by " Your Name Here " ) a few times and it sucked rocks .
End of Yahoo for me .
Even stale old Alta Vista was better .
A few months later , Google arrived and I never looked back.I did use the Swedish one , er .... oh , yeah , Alltheweb as a backup to Google for the first few Google years , but then Yahoo sucked Alltheweb ( and others ) it into its vacuum bag and turned them uniformly shitty.IMO , association with Yahoo is the kiss of death for search engines .
Lets hope it keeps its record intact .
I think Google needs competition , but from someone innovative , not from the joint efforts of a couple of tired old whores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...besides throw-away e-mail accounts?Seriously, the last time I used Yahoo search was in 1998.
I remember because I had just started a new job and was trying to get the dumb bastards to remove ancient erroneous links in their directory (or whatever the fuck it was called) that were causing my new company big headaches.
I did not succeed, but people stopped using that hideous thing and the problem went away.Yahoo's motto at the time must have been "as dynamic as hard-set concrete".I tried their search (powered by "Your Name Here") a few times and it sucked rocks.
End of Yahoo for me.
Even stale old Alta Vista was better.
A few months later, Google arrived and I never looked back.I did use the Swedish one, er .... oh, yeah, Alltheweb as a backup to Google for the first few Google years, but then Yahoo sucked Alltheweb (and others) it into its vacuum bag and turned them uniformly shitty.IMO, association with Yahoo is the kiss of death for search engines.
Lets hope it keeps its record intact.
I think Google needs competition, but from someone innovative, not from the joint efforts of a couple of tired old whores.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195816</id>
	<title>it's been good to know you Yahoo</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1266515940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>you've been a big part of the internet for many people but as many partnerships like this in the past, you just don't walk away from a deal with Microsoft.  It's like that giant slug thing in Stormship Troopers where they suck out your brain thinking it'll make them smarter. It doesn't work but it does kill you.  It's been good to know you Yahoo and I hope Mr Icahn is happy knowing he handed you to Microsoft.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 've been a big part of the internet for many people but as many partnerships like this in the past , you just do n't walk away from a deal with Microsoft .
It 's like that giant slug thing in Stormship Troopers where they suck out your brain thinking it 'll make them smarter .
It does n't work but it does kill you .
It 's been good to know you Yahoo and I hope Mr Icahn is happy knowing he handed you to Microsoft.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you've been a big part of the internet for many people but as many partnerships like this in the past, you just don't walk away from a deal with Microsoft.
It's like that giant slug thing in Stormship Troopers where they suck out your brain thinking it'll make them smarter.
It doesn't work but it does kill you.
It's been good to know you Yahoo and I hope Mr Icahn is happy knowing he handed you to Microsoft.LoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31200302</id>
	<title>Two mediocre tastes that taste terrible together!</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1266599940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we know what search engine to use when you want to find useless shit that doesn't come anywhere close to your search query. Perhaps Google will partner with them to use them as a search result inverse filter -- anything Yahoobingstank returns can immediately be trimmed from the Google results. I better hurry up and patent that idea..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we know what search engine to use when you want to find useless shit that does n't come anywhere close to your search query .
Perhaps Google will partner with them to use them as a search result inverse filter -- anything Yahoobingstank returns can immediately be trimmed from the Google results .
I better hurry up and patent that idea. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we know what search engine to use when you want to find useless shit that doesn't come anywhere close to your search query.
Perhaps Google will partner with them to use them as a search result inverse filter -- anything Yahoobingstank returns can immediately be trimmed from the Google results.
I better hurry up and patent that idea..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196104</id>
	<title>padding</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1266520440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like it will give MS more time to develop Bing by padding its' market share with Yahoo traffic.</p><p>One thing I'd really like to see is how many people who have switched from mostly using Google to mostly using Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like it will give MS more time to develop Bing by padding its ' market share with Yahoo traffic.One thing I 'd really like to see is how many people who have switched from mostly using Google to mostly using Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like it will give MS more time to develop Bing by padding its' market share with Yahoo traffic.One thing I'd really like to see is how many people who have switched from mostly using Google to mostly using Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195882</id>
	<title>Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266516900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Lucid users can look forward to using Bing as the default search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Lucid users can look forward to using Bing as the default search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Lucid users can look forward to using Bing as the default search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195498</id>
	<title>One less..</title>
	<author>Timewasted</author>
	<datestamp>1266512400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>search engine to submit URLs for indexing?<br>
*Does happy dance*</htmltext>
<tokenext>search engine to submit URLs for indexing ?
* Does happy dance *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>search engine to submit URLs for indexing?
*Does happy dance*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195460</id>
	<title>More choices? wtf?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266512160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"I believe that together, Microsoft and Yahoo will promote more choice, better value and greater innovation to our customers, as well as to advertisers and publishers."</p></div><p>Wait, Two companies combining forces, eliminating the better search engine(IMHO) and then we're told this will result in "more choice"?</p><p>I really don't understand how this could be, but I won't use Yahoo (a mediocre SE. at best) anymore. For me it means less choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA " I believe that together , Microsoft and Yahoo will promote more choice , better value and greater innovation to our customers , as well as to advertisers and publishers .
" Wait , Two companies combining forces , eliminating the better search engine ( IMHO ) and then we 're told this will result in " more choice " ? I really do n't understand how this could be , but I wo n't use Yahoo ( a mediocre SE .
at best ) anymore .
For me it means less choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA"I believe that together, Microsoft and Yahoo will promote more choice, better value and greater innovation to our customers, as well as to advertisers and publishers.
"Wait, Two companies combining forces, eliminating the better search engine(IMHO) and then we're told this will result in "more choice"?I really don't understand how this could be, but I won't use Yahoo (a mediocre SE.
at best) anymore.
For me it means less choice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195760</id>
	<title>Re:Who will suffer?</title>
	<author>ellswrth666</author>
	<datestamp>1266515280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, Bing is licensing some of Yahoo's search algorithm technology, so hopefully this will improve Bing's results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Bing is licensing some of Yahoo 's search algorithm technology , so hopefully this will improve Bing 's results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Bing is licensing some of Yahoo's search algorithm technology, so hopefully this will improve Bing's results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195386</id>
	<title>And Ubuntu transitions to Yahoo search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266511440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's ironic.  Just today Firefox on Ubuntu (Lucid) was updated to default to Yahoo search...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's ironic .
Just today Firefox on Ubuntu ( Lucid ) was updated to default to Yahoo search.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's ironic.
Just today Firefox on Ubuntu (Lucid) was updated to default to Yahoo search...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31202118</id>
	<title>google cares not</title>
	<author>pastababa</author>
	<datestamp>1266608460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yahoo/Bing is not a threat for Google,as Google is so secure of its search market, such as the story that <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1173580/Microsofts-Bing-home-use-market-share-at-2" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Bing has only 2\% market share in Japan</a> [slashdot.org].

Google is now putting its efforts and money in other areas such as killing the iphone, being an high speed fiber optic ISP, an energy provider...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo/Bing is not a threat for Google,as Google is so secure of its search market , such as the story that Bing has only 2 \ % market share in Japan [ slashdot.org ] .
Google is now putting its efforts and money in other areas such as killing the iphone , being an high speed fiber optic ISP , an energy provider.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo/Bing is not a threat for Google,as Google is so secure of its search market, such as the story that Bing has only 2\% market share in Japan [slashdot.org].
Google is now putting its efforts and money in other areas such as killing the iphone, being an high speed fiber optic ISP, an energy provider...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196404</id>
	<title>Re:Both?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266610980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now I can ignore both at the same time!</i> </p><p>Because ignoring Microsoft has served the geek so well in the past.</p><p>Yahoo draws about 130 million visitors a month, who spend about 5\% of the their time online there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I can ignore both at the same time !
Because ignoring Microsoft has served the geek so well in the past.Yahoo draws about 130 million visitors a month , who spend about 5 \ % of the their time online there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I can ignore both at the same time!
Because ignoring Microsoft has served the geek so well in the past.Yahoo draws about 130 million visitors a month, who spend about 5\% of the their time online there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195362</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>plantman-the-womb-st</author>
	<datestamp>1266511080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have plenty of competition, there are thousands of companies that sell advertisement.  "Search" isn't a product, in exactly the same way that TV shows aren't products, the commercial slots between and during shows are.  You view of reality is skewed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have plenty of competition , there are thousands of companies that sell advertisement .
" Search " is n't a product , in exactly the same way that TV shows are n't products , the commercial slots between and during shows are .
You view of reality is skewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have plenty of competition, there are thousands of companies that sell advertisement.
"Search" isn't a product, in exactly the same way that TV shows aren't products, the commercial slots between and during shows are.
You view of reality is skewed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195968</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1266518340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod parent up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195768</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>c\_forq</author>
	<datestamp>1266515340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But search is a product, just like the Gillette Fusion I received in the mail or the X-Box under my TV.  In all these cases it is a discounted or free product pitched so the parent company can market and sell a second product (in these cases ads, razor blades, and games/movies).  TV shows are also products, producers make them and market them to TV networks.  TV networks than wrap some metrics/demographics on it and market them to marketing and advertising agencies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But search is a product , just like the Gillette Fusion I received in the mail or the X-Box under my TV .
In all these cases it is a discounted or free product pitched so the parent company can market and sell a second product ( in these cases ads , razor blades , and games/movies ) .
TV shows are also products , producers make them and market them to TV networks .
TV networks than wrap some metrics/demographics on it and market them to marketing and advertising agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But search is a product, just like the Gillette Fusion I received in the mail or the X-Box under my TV.
In all these cases it is a discounted or free product pitched so the parent company can market and sell a second product (in these cases ads, razor blades, and games/movies).
TV shows are also products, producers make them and market them to TV networks.
TV networks than wrap some metrics/demographics on it and market them to marketing and advertising agencies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207308</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266595440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, yet another search engine bites the dust. Bing is NOT a search engine, its an advertising platform. they have already been caught censoring anti-microsoft searches</p><p> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22833823-Bing-Censors-Microsoft-Questions-Reveals-ProMS-Results </p><p> And they will censor anything else that businesses or governments pay them to.</p><p>http://search.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0158213/Bing-Censoring-All-Simplified-Chinese-Language-Queries</p><p>http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/03/microsoft-bing-censors-sex-for-indians.htm</p><p>http://www.saschakimmel.com/2009/06/bings-blatant-censorship-in-germany/</p><p>There are 4,420,000 other examples if you care do a search, just don't do it on bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , yet another search engine bites the dust .
Bing is NOT a search engine , its an advertising platform .
they have already been caught censoring anti-microsoft searches http : //www.dslreports.com/forum/r22833823-Bing-Censors-Microsoft-Questions-Reveals-ProMS-Results And they will censor anything else that businesses or governments pay them to.http : //search.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0158213/Bing-Censoring-All-Simplified-Chinese-Language-Querieshttp : //business.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/03/microsoft-bing-censors-sex-for-indians.htmhttp : //www.saschakimmel.com/2009/06/bings-blatant-censorship-in-germany/There are 4,420,000 other examples if you care do a search , just do n't do it on bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, yet another search engine bites the dust.
Bing is NOT a search engine, its an advertising platform.
they have already been caught censoring anti-microsoft searches http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22833823-Bing-Censors-Microsoft-Questions-Reveals-ProMS-Results  And they will censor anything else that businesses or governments pay them to.http://search.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0158213/Bing-Censoring-All-Simplified-Chinese-Language-Querieshttp://business.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/03/microsoft-bing-censors-sex-for-indians.htmhttp://www.saschakimmel.com/2009/06/bings-blatant-censorship-in-germany/There are 4,420,000 other examples if you care do a search, just don't do it on bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196262</id>
	<title>bing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266522600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the Windows 95 equivalent of search engines..it looked good when it first came out, then people tried to use it. CRASH! You try to look up Winter Olympics, you get ticket prices, or "live" feeds that updated yesterday, not really what you are looking for. There are sometimes that you don't need "answers not links". I need links for sources, I don't want or need you Bing. I will stick to Google, or--God help me--ask.com if I must.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the Windows 95 equivalent of search engines..it looked good when it first came out , then people tried to use it .
CRASH ! You try to look up Winter Olympics , you get ticket prices , or " live " feeds that updated yesterday , not really what you are looking for .
There are sometimes that you do n't need " answers not links " .
I need links for sources , I do n't want or need you Bing .
I will stick to Google , or--God help me--ask.com if I must .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the Windows 95 equivalent of search engines..it looked good when it first came out, then people tried to use it.
CRASH! You try to look up Winter Olympics, you get ticket prices, or "live" feeds that updated yesterday, not really what you are looking for.
There are sometimes that you don't need "answers not links".
I need links for sources, I don't want or need you Bing.
I will stick to Google, or--God help me--ask.com if I must.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31198850</id>
	<title>Re:Who will suffer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just want Bing to actually index sites. I have a relatively new site (3 months) that has been submitted to Bing with a site map for a couple months. <br> <br>

The site is 100\% english and is getting traffic from Yandex, and Baidu... but if I type the title of the site, or the URL into bing. It doesn't even show up. <br> <br>

Wait to go microsoft, an exclusively Chinese search engine is faster at indexing English websites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want Bing to actually index sites .
I have a relatively new site ( 3 months ) that has been submitted to Bing with a site map for a couple months .
The site is 100 \ % english and is getting traffic from Yandex , and Baidu... but if I type the title of the site , or the URL into bing .
It does n't even show up .
Wait to go microsoft , an exclusively Chinese search engine is faster at indexing English websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want Bing to actually index sites.
I have a relatively new site (3 months) that has been submitted to Bing with a site map for a couple months.
The site is 100\% english and is getting traffic from Yandex, and Baidu... but if I type the title of the site, or the URL into bing.
It doesn't even show up.
Wait to go microsoft, an exclusively Chinese search engine is faster at indexing English websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31200654</id>
	<title>Oh great.</title>
	<author>caution live frogs</author>
	<datestamp>1266601320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's almost nothing available for download these days that doesn't try to package the Yahoo toolbar into the installer. I simply can't understand why so many companies are happy to have that that asinine, invasive, virus of a toolbar associated with their product. The only thing I can think of is that Yahoo might be hosting the download bandwidth for them.</p><p>And now this? My prediction: That damn toolbar will start showing up in MORE places, because now every Microsoft download will include it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's almost nothing available for download these days that does n't try to package the Yahoo toolbar into the installer .
I simply ca n't understand why so many companies are happy to have that that asinine , invasive , virus of a toolbar associated with their product .
The only thing I can think of is that Yahoo might be hosting the download bandwidth for them.And now this ?
My prediction : That damn toolbar will start showing up in MORE places , because now every Microsoft download will include it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's almost nothing available for download these days that doesn't try to package the Yahoo toolbar into the installer.
I simply can't understand why so many companies are happy to have that that asinine, invasive, virus of a toolbar associated with their product.
The only thing I can think of is that Yahoo might be hosting the download bandwidth for them.And now this?
My prediction: That damn toolbar will start showing up in MORE places, because now every Microsoft download will include it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195730</id>
	<title>Welcome to Google...</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1266514800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yahoo users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201330</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it okay for Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1266604320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because in the search engine arena, Google is the 200lb gorilla. If it bought out Yahoo, that would essentially kill competition.</p><p>With MS and Yahoo teaming up, that creates a single search company that while still smaller than Google is in a much better position to compete with it than Bing would have been against Google/Yahoo.</p><p>That is why it's ok for MS, but not for Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because in the search engine arena , Google is the 200lb gorilla .
If it bought out Yahoo , that would essentially kill competition.With MS and Yahoo teaming up , that creates a single search company that while still smaller than Google is in a much better position to compete with it than Bing would have been against Google/Yahoo.That is why it 's ok for MS , but not for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because in the search engine arena, Google is the 200lb gorilla.
If it bought out Yahoo, that would essentially kill competition.With MS and Yahoo teaming up, that creates a single search company that while still smaller than Google is in a much better position to compete with it than Bing would have been against Google/Yahoo.That is why it's ok for MS, but not for Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195934</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Ryanrule</author>
	<datestamp>1266517740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

The haters without information are out tonight!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The haters without information are out tonight !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

The haters without information are out tonight!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31199634</id>
	<title>Re:padding</title>
	<author>hollywoodb</author>
	<datestamp>1266597000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't switched, but sometimes Bing's results genuinely are better.  I still use Google for "interesting" searches, but when I just can't remember the URL to something or similar, Bing is typically better.
<br> <br>
Experiment for the reader:<br>
A very specific thing.  I want the WikiBooks LaTeX guide, and I can never be bothered to remember the kinda-long URL.<br>
Type "wikibooks latex" (no quotes) into both Bing and Google.  Tell me which results are better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't switched , but sometimes Bing 's results genuinely are better .
I still use Google for " interesting " searches , but when I just ca n't remember the URL to something or similar , Bing is typically better .
Experiment for the reader : A very specific thing .
I want the WikiBooks LaTeX guide , and I can never be bothered to remember the kinda-long URL .
Type " wikibooks latex " ( no quotes ) into both Bing and Google .
Tell me which results are better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't switched, but sometimes Bing's results genuinely are better.
I still use Google for "interesting" searches, but when I just can't remember the URL to something or similar, Bing is typically better.
Experiment for the reader:
A very specific thing.
I want the WikiBooks LaTeX guide, and I can never be bothered to remember the kinda-long URL.
Type "wikibooks latex" (no quotes) into both Bing and Google.
Tell me which results are better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195326</id>
	<title>Re:Type-R stickers and huge spoilers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266510840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, don't insult the dominant male or else his manly dyke girlfriend will <a href="http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Fast\_and\_the\_Furious\_4/fast\_\_\_furious\_movie\_image\_michelle\_rodriguez1.jpg" title="collider.com" rel="nofollow">shit on your face.</a> [collider.com] <br> <br>

She eats lots of mexican food, so you know it won't be pretty. To put it in a pizza analogy, it's like when a woman "sklitz-shits" on your pizza dough and you toss it only to have it splatter all over your floor and face when you fail to catch it. <b>Oniony Viscous Mexican Shit.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , do n't insult the dominant male or else his manly dyke girlfriend will shit on your face .
[ collider.com ] She eats lots of mexican food , so you know it wo n't be pretty .
To put it in a pizza analogy , it 's like when a woman " sklitz-shits " on your pizza dough and you toss it only to have it splatter all over your floor and face when you fail to catch it .
Oniony Viscous Mexican Shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, don't insult the dominant male or else his manly dyke girlfriend will shit on your face.
[collider.com]  

She eats lots of mexican food, so you know it won't be pretty.
To put it in a pizza analogy, it's like when a woman "sklitz-shits" on your pizza dough and you toss it only to have it splatter all over your floor and face when you fail to catch it.
Oniony Viscous Mexican Shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196624</id>
	<title>these guys are dead</title>
	<author>orabidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266571020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>from the article:<blockquote><div><p>engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site "in the coming days" and that they hope work is completed, at least the United States, <em>by the end of this year</em>.</p></div></blockquote><p>
and:</p><blockquote><div><p>After full implementation, which the companies expect will come about <i>two years after</i> regulatory approval...</p></div></blockquote><p>

with these kind of glacial speeds of development... and they wonder why the mighty Google is trouncing them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the article : engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site " in the coming days " and that they hope work is completed , at least the United States , by the end of this year .
and : After full implementation , which the companies expect will come about two years after regulatory approval.. . with these kind of glacial speeds of development... and they wonder why the mighty Google is trouncing them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the article:engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site "in the coming days" and that they hope work is completed, at least the United States, by the end of this year.
and:After full implementation, which the companies expect will come about two years after regulatory approval...

with these kind of glacial speeds of development... and they wonder why the mighty Google is trouncing them?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195302</id>
	<title>Slashcode bug</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1266510780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SLASH failed again. Explanation: this story is tagged "search", and the link to the left of "read more" on this story entry as appeared in the front page shows up as "search.slashdot.org" which is the domain name part of the story's url, which is semantically wrong. (There's no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. section called "Search". That domain should have been hosting the search tool for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. or whatever, but has deformed into a monster of a search page and an index of stories tagged "search", unlike other sections e.g. apple.slashdot.org, which just shows a clean sub-index similar to the index page.)</p><p>And this is clearly yet another sign of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. being eaten up by kipples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SLASH failed again .
Explanation : this story is tagged " search " , and the link to the left of " read more " on this story entry as appeared in the front page shows up as " search.slashdot.org " which is the domain name part of the story 's url , which is semantically wrong .
( There 's no / .
section called " Search " .
That domain should have been hosting the search tool for / .
or whatever , but has deformed into a monster of a search page and an index of stories tagged " search " , unlike other sections e.g .
apple.slashdot.org , which just shows a clean sub-index similar to the index page .
) And this is clearly yet another sign of / .
being eaten up by kipples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SLASH failed again.
Explanation: this story is tagged "search", and the link to the left of "read more" on this story entry as appeared in the front page shows up as "search.slashdot.org" which is the domain name part of the story's url, which is semantically wrong.
(There's no /.
section called "Search".
That domain should have been hosting the search tool for /.
or whatever, but has deformed into a monster of a search page and an index of stories tagged "search", unlike other sections e.g.
apple.slashdot.org, which just shows a clean sub-index similar to the index page.
)And this is clearly yet another sign of /.
being eaten up by kipples.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195598</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266513360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But this is less competition. Yahoo is no longer providing their own search results.</p><p>Google just lost a competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this is less competition .
Yahoo is no longer providing their own search results.Google just lost a competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this is less competition.
Yahoo is no longer providing their own search results.Google just lost a competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195316</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266510840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...</p></div><p>How will Yahoo or Microsoft help?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck , but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...How will Yahoo or Microsoft help ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...How will Yahoo or Microsoft help?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195606</id>
	<title>Why is it okay for Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266513540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google wanted to infuse Yahoo with money to keep them afloat with a search deal. It was immediately killed as an anti-trust violation, and they threatened Google with the possibility of breaking them up if they attempted something like that again.</p><p>So Microsoft infuses Yahoo with money in a search deal and it is approved.</p><p>I know Google has a larger market share than Yahoo, but which of the two companies has been anti-competitive in their business practices?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wanted to infuse Yahoo with money to keep them afloat with a search deal .
It was immediately killed as an anti-trust violation , and they threatened Google with the possibility of breaking them up if they attempted something like that again.So Microsoft infuses Yahoo with money in a search deal and it is approved.I know Google has a larger market share than Yahoo , but which of the two companies has been anti-competitive in their business practices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wanted to infuse Yahoo with money to keep them afloat with a search deal.
It was immediately killed as an anti-trust violation, and they threatened Google with the possibility of breaking them up if they attempted something like that again.So Microsoft infuses Yahoo with money in a search deal and it is approved.I know Google has a larger market share than Yahoo, but which of the two companies has been anti-competitive in their business practices?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195296</id>
	<title>Re:I think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266510720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, Google should have some competition, however do you really think that Microsoft really needs to get any bigger?

We've been hearing about Apple and Google going at each other's throats for quite some time now. I'd like to see if Apple ever steps up with a search engine of their own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Google should have some competition , however do you really think that Microsoft really needs to get any bigger ?
We 've been hearing about Apple and Google going at each other 's throats for quite some time now .
I 'd like to see if Apple ever steps up with a search engine of their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Google should have some competition, however do you really think that Microsoft really needs to get any bigger?
We've been hearing about Apple and Google going at each other's throats for quite some time now.
I'd like to see if Apple ever steps up with a search engine of their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218</id>
	<title>I think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266510000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I support this... I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs <i>some</i> legitimate competition in the search market...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I support this... I mean , Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck , but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I support this... I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195536</id>
	<title>Re:And Ubuntu transitions to Yahoo search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266512880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more ironic since I removed Yahoo as an option on FF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more ironic since I removed Yahoo as an option on FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more ironic since I removed Yahoo as an option on FF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195780</id>
	<title>I really did try to use Bing</title>
	<author>Freaky Spook</author>
	<datestamp>1266515520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gave it a shot for a month and I found I just wasn't satisfied with it. It didn't have the simplicity Google offered in Search and many times I'd find myself going back to Google.</p><p>The biggest notable area I had to keep going back to Google was actually searching Technet and MSDN for articles. I was finding one or two keywords would into Google would give me the correct page I was looking for while Bing would give me completley useless results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave it a shot for a month and I found I just was n't satisfied with it .
It did n't have the simplicity Google offered in Search and many times I 'd find myself going back to Google.The biggest notable area I had to keep going back to Google was actually searching Technet and MSDN for articles .
I was finding one or two keywords would into Google would give me the correct page I was looking for while Bing would give me completley useless results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave it a shot for a month and I found I just wasn't satisfied with it.
It didn't have the simplicity Google offered in Search and many times I'd find myself going back to Google.The biggest notable area I had to keep going back to Google was actually searching Technet and MSDN for articles.
I was finding one or two keywords would into Google would give me the correct page I was looking for while Bing would give me completley useless results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31222096</id>
	<title>Re:Who will suffer?</title>
	<author>Jearil</author>
	<datestamp>1266748320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(I work for Yahoo!, but my opinions are of course not Yahoo's)</p><p>Part of the contract with Bing deals with the relevancy of results. Basically Yahoo will only start using Bing's results if they are at least as relevant as Yahoo's current results. After a set time, if Bing does not meet the relevancy requirements then Microsoft has to pay Yahoo for the maintenance of Yahoo's current search infrastructure while Bing improves. The idea I think is that it will give MS a financial incentive to improve relevancy quickly as they'll be losing money on the deal.</p><p>So I expect that the results from Bing should improve quite a bit before Yahoo starts using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( I work for Yahoo ! , but my opinions are of course not Yahoo 's ) Part of the contract with Bing deals with the relevancy of results .
Basically Yahoo will only start using Bing 's results if they are at least as relevant as Yahoo 's current results .
After a set time , if Bing does not meet the relevancy requirements then Microsoft has to pay Yahoo for the maintenance of Yahoo 's current search infrastructure while Bing improves .
The idea I think is that it will give MS a financial incentive to improve relevancy quickly as they 'll be losing money on the deal.So I expect that the results from Bing should improve quite a bit before Yahoo starts using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I work for Yahoo!, but my opinions are of course not Yahoo's)Part of the contract with Bing deals with the relevancy of results.
Basically Yahoo will only start using Bing's results if they are at least as relevant as Yahoo's current results.
After a set time, if Bing does not meet the relevancy requirements then Microsoft has to pay Yahoo for the maintenance of Yahoo's current search infrastructure while Bing improves.
The idea I think is that it will give MS a financial incentive to improve relevancy quickly as they'll be losing money on the deal.So I expect that the results from Bing should improve quite a bit before Yahoo starts using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31198076</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about now Canonical? Will you change the default search engine of Lucid from Yahoo to something better?<br>Canonical now is also helping Microsoft. Great!<br>\_http://lifehacker.com/5458113/ubuntus-default-search-engine-switching-to-yahoo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about now Canonical ?
Will you change the default search engine of Lucid from Yahoo to something better ? Canonical now is also helping Microsoft .
Great ! \ _http : //lifehacker.com/5458113/ubuntus-default-search-engine-switching-to-yahoo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about now Canonical?
Will you change the default search engine of Lucid from Yahoo to something better?Canonical now is also helping Microsoft.
Great!\_http://lifehacker.com/5458113/ubuntus-default-search-engine-switching-to-yahoo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195428</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266511800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope and change... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.</p><p>I can't imagine any scenario where this benefits the market. I lean heavily toward free market economics, but one area where the government *must* exercise control is in creating more competition, not less.</p><p>I think if I were king, I'd pass a law that any market must have at least 3 or 4 strong players, otherwise it's monopoly bustin' time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope and change... meet the new boss , same as the old boss.I ca n't imagine any scenario where this benefits the market .
I lean heavily toward free market economics , but one area where the government * must * exercise control is in creating more competition , not less.I think if I were king , I 'd pass a law that any market must have at least 3 or 4 strong players , otherwise it 's monopoly bustin ' time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope and change... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.I can't imagine any scenario where this benefits the market.
I lean heavily toward free market economics, but one area where the government *must* exercise control is in creating more competition, not less.I think if I were king, I'd pass a law that any market must have at least 3 or 4 strong players, otherwise it's monopoly bustin' time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31222096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31198098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31199634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31198850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0032250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31199634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31198098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31201292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31196848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31207098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31222096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31198850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0032250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0032250.31195882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
