<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_19_0516248</id>
	<title>Who Will Control the Cost of the NYT On Digital Readers?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266583440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>RobotRunAmok writes <i>"Ryan Tate, at Gawker, describes the 'heated turf war' waging at the New York Times.  The print and digital divisions have differing views over <a href="http://gawker.com/5473023/turf-war-at-the-new-york-times-who-will-control-the-ipad">how much a subscription to the Gray Lady (iPad edition) should cost</a>.  The print troops believe $20-$30 monthly is the proper price point (fearing that setting the mark any lower will jeopardize print distribution), while the digital soldiers are digging in their heels at $10 a month.  The Kindle version is already managed by the Print Army, so don't count on logic necessarily driving any decisions here.  It's complicated: the Web version of the paper is still free through 2011, and the computer 'Times Reader' has already been released and priced at $14.95 monthly."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>RobotRunAmok writes " Ryan Tate , at Gawker , describes the 'heated turf war ' waging at the New York Times .
The print and digital divisions have differing views over how much a subscription to the Gray Lady ( iPad edition ) should cost .
The print troops believe $ 20- $ 30 monthly is the proper price point ( fearing that setting the mark any lower will jeopardize print distribution ) , while the digital soldiers are digging in their heels at $ 10 a month .
The Kindle version is already managed by the Print Army , so do n't count on logic necessarily driving any decisions here .
It 's complicated : the Web version of the paper is still free through 2011 , and the computer 'Times Reader ' has already been released and priced at $ 14.95 monthly .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RobotRunAmok writes "Ryan Tate, at Gawker, describes the 'heated turf war' waging at the New York Times.
The print and digital divisions have differing views over how much a subscription to the Gray Lady (iPad edition) should cost.
The print troops believe $20-$30 monthly is the proper price point (fearing that setting the mark any lower will jeopardize print distribution), while the digital soldiers are digging in their heels at $10 a month.
The Kindle version is already managed by the Print Army, so don't count on logic necessarily driving any decisions here.
It's complicated: the Web version of the paper is still free through 2011, and the computer 'Times Reader' has already been released and priced at $14.95 monthly.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198992</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1266593820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that you, Data?</p><p><i>Especially if you can't ever seem to get it right.</i></p><p>Aha, an imposter!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that you , Data ? Especially if you ca n't ever seem to get it right.Aha , an imposter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that you, Data?Especially if you can't ever seem to get it right.Aha, an imposter!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201036</id>
	<title>Lesson learned by the Dallas Morning News</title>
	<author>geemon</author>
	<datestamp>1266603120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NY Times print folks need to learn from the same lessons the leadership of the Dallas Morning News learned a year or two back - namely that news consumers do not consider the print and electronic versions of the paper equal or interchangeable substitutes.  That is, there is far less crossover in each of the customer bases than the newspaper execs or the conventional wisdom might suggest.  Unfortunately, if the print folks win out, they will learn this lesson the hard way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NY Times print folks need to learn from the same lessons the leadership of the Dallas Morning News learned a year or two back - namely that news consumers do not consider the print and electronic versions of the paper equal or interchangeable substitutes .
That is , there is far less crossover in each of the customer bases than the newspaper execs or the conventional wisdom might suggest .
Unfortunately , if the print folks win out , they will learn this lesson the hard way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NY Times print folks need to learn from the same lessons the leadership of the Dallas Morning News learned a year or two back - namely that news consumers do not consider the print and electronic versions of the paper equal or interchangeable substitutes.
That is, there is far less crossover in each of the customer bases than the newspaper execs or the conventional wisdom might suggest.
Unfortunately, if the print folks win out, they will learn this lesson the hard way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31205892</id>
	<title>Quite so, indeed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266582540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And indeed indeed !</p><p>And those new-fangled horseless carriages shouldn'a be allowed on the road, unless preceded by a walking man waving a red flag fifteen feet ahead of it. The damnable infernal contraptions are mere fashion and playthings, anyway. Carriages are and have always been much more comfortable and safe. Weel worth the extra ha'Guinea, or two.</p><p>All the carriage industry has to do is improve quality a bit, and it'll promptly recover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And indeed indeed ! And those new-fangled horseless carriages shouldn'a be allowed on the road , unless preceded by a walking man waving a red flag fifteen feet ahead of it .
The damnable infernal contraptions are mere fashion and playthings , anyway .
Carriages are and have always been much more comfortable and safe .
Weel worth the extra ha'Guinea , or two.All the carriage industry has to do is improve quality a bit , and it 'll promptly recover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And indeed indeed !And those new-fangled horseless carriages shouldn'a be allowed on the road, unless preceded by a walking man waving a red flag fifteen feet ahead of it.
The damnable infernal contraptions are mere fashion and playthings, anyway.
Carriages are and have always been much more comfortable and safe.
Weel worth the extra ha'Guinea, or two.All the carriage industry has to do is improve quality a bit, and it'll promptly recover.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199096</id>
	<title>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1266594180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Errrm,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the market and the customers?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Maybe?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Just some random thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Errrm , ... the market and the customers ?
... Maybe ?
... Just some random thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errrm, ... the market and the customers?
... Maybe?
... Just some random thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200998</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>meta\_gorn</author>
	<datestamp>1266602940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a generational thing.  Older folks, like, oh, say, Rupert Murdoch, believe that a newspaper is a newspaper, no matter what its format, and you should pony up for it. Serious investigative journalism costs real money, they say.  Fair enough.  But of course, Murdoch goes too far, in pricing content too high and with this nonsense of trying shake down search engines for even linking to content.</p><p>Middle-age folks like me, who grew up w/o the internet but are still young enough to fully embrace it, might be willing to pay, but as yog said, watch that price.  We know that distribution costs on the web are close to nothing, so don't price your content as if it costs the same as print.  I don't know what that price is, but you better keep it down and offer a la carte pricing too.</p><p>The younger generation, the people who grew up with the internet, well, most of them figure you're a chump if you pay for *any* internet content, so who knows how you get them to suddenly value it.  But media companies only have themselves to blame for not creating pay models years ago that could have steered cultural attitudes about the dollar worth of journalism on the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a generational thing .
Older folks , like , oh , say , Rupert Murdoch , believe that a newspaper is a newspaper , no matter what its format , and you should pony up for it .
Serious investigative journalism costs real money , they say .
Fair enough .
But of course , Murdoch goes too far , in pricing content too high and with this nonsense of trying shake down search engines for even linking to content.Middle-age folks like me , who grew up w/o the internet but are still young enough to fully embrace it , might be willing to pay , but as yog said , watch that price .
We know that distribution costs on the web are close to nothing , so do n't price your content as if it costs the same as print .
I do n't know what that price is , but you better keep it down and offer a la carte pricing too.The younger generation , the people who grew up with the internet , well , most of them figure you 're a chump if you pay for * any * internet content , so who knows how you get them to suddenly value it .
But media companies only have themselves to blame for not creating pay models years ago that could have steered cultural attitudes about the dollar worth of journalism on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a generational thing.
Older folks, like, oh, say, Rupert Murdoch, believe that a newspaper is a newspaper, no matter what its format, and you should pony up for it.
Serious investigative journalism costs real money, they say.
Fair enough.
But of course, Murdoch goes too far, in pricing content too high and with this nonsense of trying shake down search engines for even linking to content.Middle-age folks like me, who grew up w/o the internet but are still young enough to fully embrace it, might be willing to pay, but as yog said, watch that price.
We know that distribution costs on the web are close to nothing, so don't price your content as if it costs the same as print.
I don't know what that price is, but you better keep it down and offer a la carte pricing too.The younger generation, the people who grew up with the internet, well, most of them figure you're a chump if you pay for *any* internet content, so who knows how you get them to suddenly value it.
But media companies only have themselves to blame for not creating pay models years ago that could have steered cultural attitudes about the dollar worth of journalism on the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198298</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266589740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me?  I dont think the NYT is worth more than $4.99 a month. and that is only if it's available on ANY of my readers not just a blessed one they want me to have.</p><p>Honestly, they have to compete with every other source of news on the net, Many free, some I pay for.  and honestly the "lyfestyle" and other sections I really dont care about so they have a zero value to me.  AND not being a New York resident it has even lower value to me as it's only a source for national news which I can get myself elsewhere.   Google,CNN,Yahoo and others give me a ton of that for free.  So outside of NY the NYT has even a lower value, most people I know think my $4.99 is way too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me ?
I dont think the NYT is worth more than $ 4.99 a month .
and that is only if it 's available on ANY of my readers not just a blessed one they want me to have.Honestly , they have to compete with every other source of news on the net , Many free , some I pay for .
and honestly the " lyfestyle " and other sections I really dont care about so they have a zero value to me .
AND not being a New York resident it has even lower value to me as it 's only a source for national news which I can get myself elsewhere .
Google,CNN,Yahoo and others give me a ton of that for free .
So outside of NY the NYT has even a lower value , most people I know think my $ 4.99 is way too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me?
I dont think the NYT is worth more than $4.99 a month.
and that is only if it's available on ANY of my readers not just a blessed one they want me to have.Honestly, they have to compete with every other source of news on the net, Many free, some I pay for.
and honestly the "lyfestyle" and other sections I really dont care about so they have a zero value to me.
AND not being a New York resident it has even lower value to me as it's only a source for national news which I can get myself elsewhere.
Google,CNN,Yahoo and others give me a ton of that for free.
So outside of NY the NYT has even a lower value, most people I know think my $4.99 is way too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202162</id>
	<title>You're aware that WSJ can be read for free, right?</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1266608760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>putting aside the ethics of the situation...<br> <br>

any article you want to read on WSJ.com can be read via doing a google news search for it and then clicking on the generated link<br> <br>

such a strategy yields an unpaywalled version of the article</htmltext>
<tokenext>putting aside the ethics of the situation.. . any article you want to read on WSJ.com can be read via doing a google news search for it and then clicking on the generated link such a strategy yields an unpaywalled version of the article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>putting aside the ethics of the situation... 

any article you want to read on WSJ.com can be read via doing a google news search for it and then clicking on the generated link 

such a strategy yields an unpaywalled version of the article</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199220</id>
	<title>Re:Walled gardens</title>
	<author>StayFrosty</author>
	<datestamp>1266594840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So pretty much all of them.  Nobody is locking you in to any particular book store.  Just mount the reader as USB storage, copy your ebook to it and enjoy.  Sony ereaders, the kindle, the nook, and pretty much all of the off-brand ereaders can do this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So pretty much all of them .
Nobody is locking you in to any particular book store .
Just mount the reader as USB storage , copy your ebook to it and enjoy .
Sony ereaders , the kindle , the nook , and pretty much all of the off-brand ereaders can do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So pretty much all of them.
Nobody is locking you in to any particular book store.
Just mount the reader as USB storage, copy your ebook to it and enjoy.
Sony ereaders, the kindle, the nook, and pretty much all of the off-brand ereaders can do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198088</id>
	<title>Like everything else related to their God, money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Jews will.</p><p>Why oh why could the holocaust crocodile tear fairy tale not be real? For that matter why do so many retarded chimpanzees mistaken for humans so graciously provide their tongue for their Jew masters to use as toilet paper? Must be house niggeritis or maybe just too stupid to realize they are slaves with chains of debt while fooled into fervent worship of pieces of paper with money or just simple numbers in a databse.</p><p>Fools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Jews will.Why oh why could the holocaust crocodile tear fairy tale not be real ?
For that matter why do so many retarded chimpanzees mistaken for humans so graciously provide their tongue for their Jew masters to use as toilet paper ?
Must be house niggeritis or maybe just too stupid to realize they are slaves with chains of debt while fooled into fervent worship of pieces of paper with money or just simple numbers in a databse.Fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Jews will.Why oh why could the holocaust crocodile tear fairy tale not be real?
For that matter why do so many retarded chimpanzees mistaken for humans so graciously provide their tongue for their Jew masters to use as toilet paper?
Must be house niggeritis or maybe just too stupid to realize they are slaves with chains of debt while fooled into fervent worship of pieces of paper with money or just simple numbers in a databse.Fools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199356</id>
	<title>Re:newspaper bussiness</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1266595500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem they have is that they have (today) two major expenses:  content and printing.  They also have (today) three sources of revenue: print advertising, print subscription, and online advertising.  As I understand it, the print subscription revenue basically pays the printing costs/delivery.  The print advertising revenue pays for the collecting and writing of the news.  The online advertising revenue is tiny, even though they are one of the most visited sites.  So, as print goes away, they basically lose all of their revenue that is used to pay for content.  People look at it (like you) and saying online is supporting print, but the reality is print supports online.  As print goes away, online needs to pay for all the content, and that is likely to make a subscription cost more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem they have is that they have ( today ) two major expenses : content and printing .
They also have ( today ) three sources of revenue : print advertising , print subscription , and online advertising .
As I understand it , the print subscription revenue basically pays the printing costs/delivery .
The print advertising revenue pays for the collecting and writing of the news .
The online advertising revenue is tiny , even though they are one of the most visited sites .
So , as print goes away , they basically lose all of their revenue that is used to pay for content .
People look at it ( like you ) and saying online is supporting print , but the reality is print supports online .
As print goes away , online needs to pay for all the content , and that is likely to make a subscription cost more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem they have is that they have (today) two major expenses:  content and printing.
They also have (today) three sources of revenue: print advertising, print subscription, and online advertising.
As I understand it, the print subscription revenue basically pays the printing costs/delivery.
The print advertising revenue pays for the collecting and writing of the news.
The online advertising revenue is tiny, even though they are one of the most visited sites.
So, as print goes away, they basically lose all of their revenue that is used to pay for content.
People look at it (like you) and saying online is supporting print, but the reality is print supports online.
As print goes away, online needs to pay for all the content, and that is likely to make a subscription cost more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198540</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1266591360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As for my own writing (which, admittedly, could use some serious improvement) I like using "they're" instead of "they are" for two reasons:</p><p>1.  It flows smoother<br>2.  It sounds closer to how I would speak with someone face to face.  I try to write articles on my website as if I'm talking to the reader, instead of having them read what I have written.</p><p>In a formal or legal document, I agree..."they are" is more appropriate.  However, when it comes to discussion (be it in person or on a forum like Slashdot), striking a more conversational tone is preferable.</p><p>At least for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for my own writing ( which , admittedly , could use some serious improvement ) I like using " they 're " instead of " they are " for two reasons : 1 .
It flows smoother2 .
It sounds closer to how I would speak with someone face to face .
I try to write articles on my website as if I 'm talking to the reader , instead of having them read what I have written.In a formal or legal document , I agree... " they are " is more appropriate .
However , when it comes to discussion ( be it in person or on a forum like Slashdot ) , striking a more conversational tone is preferable.At least for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for my own writing (which, admittedly, could use some serious improvement) I like using "they're" instead of "they are" for two reasons:1.
It flows smoother2.
It sounds closer to how I would speak with someone face to face.
I try to write articles on my website as if I'm talking to the reader, instead of having them read what I have written.In a formal or legal document, I agree..."they are" is more appropriate.
However, when it comes to discussion (be it in person or on a forum like Slashdot), striking a more conversational tone is preferable.At least for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199090</id>
	<title>Not so simple...</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1266594180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people seem to believe that because content is available in electronic form that it's somehow significantly cheaper to produce than in print. Having had some experience with the printing industry I can assure you that printing costs are relatively small compared to the overall cost of producing a newspaper or magazine. And in the case on NY Times or WSJ printing costs must be even cheaper given the relationship they've obviously established with their printers, assuming it isn't done in-house. Also keep in mind that some of the expense that may be spared by not printing physical copies inevitably goes to hosting and site maintenance.</p><p>And most publications live on advertising, almost more so than actual sales. Another department at my company does a lot of publication work and their clients have cut pages if they don't have a sufficient density of advertising versus content. There are obvious exceptions where they're just taking advantage and cramming the magazine excessively full of ads. Magazines like Maxim, Cosmopolitan and other such crap come to mind.</p><p>However, advertising on the web versus print are very different animals. While web ads can be more intrusive they're also easier to ignore. It's a lot easier to quantify their effectiveness. So it's difficult to charge what would be charged for print ads. Although in print, the publications actually have the work of having to place these ads and ensure there are no printing issues with them.</p><p>I had to deactivate ad block to get a sense for how they place advertising. I'm surprised by how few ads both NYTimes and WSJ run on their homepage. WSJ features a house ad at the time (advertising for themselves) and the first other ad appears pretty far down on the right which means if you're browsing on a netbook, for example, you probably wouldn't even see it. NYTimes has two small ads to either side of their header and then links to sponsored content here and there which most people may miss.</p><p>On the other hand, visit some of the news aggregate sites, anything from Gawker Media is a good example. Their sites feature more invasive advertising and they routinely do themed promotions, like one they're running now for some HBO show. So they're obviously getting a lot more bang for their buck even though they're producing far less content themselves. Of course the audience is a little different. I think most readers of WSJ and NYTimes would be pissed if suddenly they started covering their sites in advertising. Whereas the visitors to these other sites, who I'd say skew younger, tend to have lower standards and are more tolerant of this sort of thing. But of course, it enables them to continue offering content for free.</p><p>The work that NYTimes and WSJ does is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. So if charging for content doesn't work they need to embrace a more advertising-heavy model. And even then they may be forced to cut staff and content which will hurt the quality of their work and make them a little more generic.</p><p>I personally hate advertising. But I acknowledge that sometimes you have to pay a little more for quality. Unfortunately, on the internet people seem to believe that everything should be free. They're apparently oblivious to all the work that goes into creating this content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people seem to believe that because content is available in electronic form that it 's somehow significantly cheaper to produce than in print .
Having had some experience with the printing industry I can assure you that printing costs are relatively small compared to the overall cost of producing a newspaper or magazine .
And in the case on NY Times or WSJ printing costs must be even cheaper given the relationship they 've obviously established with their printers , assuming it is n't done in-house .
Also keep in mind that some of the expense that may be spared by not printing physical copies inevitably goes to hosting and site maintenance.And most publications live on advertising , almost more so than actual sales .
Another department at my company does a lot of publication work and their clients have cut pages if they do n't have a sufficient density of advertising versus content .
There are obvious exceptions where they 're just taking advantage and cramming the magazine excessively full of ads .
Magazines like Maxim , Cosmopolitan and other such crap come to mind.However , advertising on the web versus print are very different animals .
While web ads can be more intrusive they 're also easier to ignore .
It 's a lot easier to quantify their effectiveness .
So it 's difficult to charge what would be charged for print ads .
Although in print , the publications actually have the work of having to place these ads and ensure there are no printing issues with them.I had to deactivate ad block to get a sense for how they place advertising .
I 'm surprised by how few ads both NYTimes and WSJ run on their homepage .
WSJ features a house ad at the time ( advertising for themselves ) and the first other ad appears pretty far down on the right which means if you 're browsing on a netbook , for example , you probably would n't even see it .
NYTimes has two small ads to either side of their header and then links to sponsored content here and there which most people may miss.On the other hand , visit some of the news aggregate sites , anything from Gawker Media is a good example .
Their sites feature more invasive advertising and they routinely do themed promotions , like one they 're running now for some HBO show .
So they 're obviously getting a lot more bang for their buck even though they 're producing far less content themselves .
Of course the audience is a little different .
I think most readers of WSJ and NYTimes would be pissed if suddenly they started covering their sites in advertising .
Whereas the visitors to these other sites , who I 'd say skew younger , tend to have lower standards and are more tolerant of this sort of thing .
But of course , it enables them to continue offering content for free.The work that NYTimes and WSJ does is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination .
So if charging for content does n't work they need to embrace a more advertising-heavy model .
And even then they may be forced to cut staff and content which will hurt the quality of their work and make them a little more generic.I personally hate advertising .
But I acknowledge that sometimes you have to pay a little more for quality .
Unfortunately , on the internet people seem to believe that everything should be free .
They 're apparently oblivious to all the work that goes into creating this content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people seem to believe that because content is available in electronic form that it's somehow significantly cheaper to produce than in print.
Having had some experience with the printing industry I can assure you that printing costs are relatively small compared to the overall cost of producing a newspaper or magazine.
And in the case on NY Times or WSJ printing costs must be even cheaper given the relationship they've obviously established with their printers, assuming it isn't done in-house.
Also keep in mind that some of the expense that may be spared by not printing physical copies inevitably goes to hosting and site maintenance.And most publications live on advertising, almost more so than actual sales.
Another department at my company does a lot of publication work and their clients have cut pages if they don't have a sufficient density of advertising versus content.
There are obvious exceptions where they're just taking advantage and cramming the magazine excessively full of ads.
Magazines like Maxim, Cosmopolitan and other such crap come to mind.However, advertising on the web versus print are very different animals.
While web ads can be more intrusive they're also easier to ignore.
It's a lot easier to quantify their effectiveness.
So it's difficult to charge what would be charged for print ads.
Although in print, the publications actually have the work of having to place these ads and ensure there are no printing issues with them.I had to deactivate ad block to get a sense for how they place advertising.
I'm surprised by how few ads both NYTimes and WSJ run on their homepage.
WSJ features a house ad at the time (advertising for themselves) and the first other ad appears pretty far down on the right which means if you're browsing on a netbook, for example, you probably wouldn't even see it.
NYTimes has two small ads to either side of their header and then links to sponsored content here and there which most people may miss.On the other hand, visit some of the news aggregate sites, anything from Gawker Media is a good example.
Their sites feature more invasive advertising and they routinely do themed promotions, like one they're running now for some HBO show.
So they're obviously getting a lot more bang for their buck even though they're producing far less content themselves.
Of course the audience is a little different.
I think most readers of WSJ and NYTimes would be pissed if suddenly they started covering their sites in advertising.
Whereas the visitors to these other sites, who I'd say skew younger, tend to have lower standards and are more tolerant of this sort of thing.
But of course, it enables them to continue offering content for free.The work that NYTimes and WSJ does is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
So if charging for content doesn't work they need to embrace a more advertising-heavy model.
And even then they may be forced to cut staff and content which will hurt the quality of their work and make them a little more generic.I personally hate advertising.
But I acknowledge that sometimes you have to pay a little more for quality.
Unfortunately, on the internet people seem to believe that everything should be free.
They're apparently oblivious to all the work that goes into creating this content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200336</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266600060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that in big companies like the NYT, there are dozens of departments that each function like semi-independent companies. Print division and online division are more or less competitors that try to cannibalise each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that in big companies like the NYT , there are dozens of departments that each function like semi-independent companies .
Print division and online division are more or less competitors that try to cannibalise each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that in big companies like the NYT, there are dozens of departments that each function like semi-independent companies.
Print division and online division are more or less competitors that try to cannibalise each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200126</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266599160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cutting print circulation to that extent results in each printed copy of the paper costing $12,134.1</p><p>Compare the cost of a full page ad in the NYT with the cost of a banner ad on a web page. That might be a hint as to why they'd rather not cannibalize their printed subscription base.</p><p>* The result of extensive economic calculations, or made up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting print circulation to that extent results in each printed copy of the paper costing $ 12,134.1Compare the cost of a full page ad in the NYT with the cost of a banner ad on a web page .
That might be a hint as to why they 'd rather not cannibalize their printed subscription base .
* The result of extensive economic calculations , or made up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting print circulation to that extent results in each printed copy of the paper costing $12,134.1Compare the cost of a full page ad in the NYT with the cost of a banner ad on a web page.
That might be a hint as to why they'd rather not cannibalize their printed subscription base.
* The result of extensive economic calculations, or made up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198534</id>
	<title>A place in history.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266591360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Take the two biggest fucked up States in the Nation (New York and California) and then look at the publications from their cultural capitals (LA and New York) and ask ourselves do we really want to be like either of these groups of idiots, much less listen to what they have to say.</p><p>Now answer me this:  Exactly how is the New York Times relavent anymore?</p><p>As far as the price goes, it will continue to work its way to zero as all media with little worth will.  Who cares who controls the price, in the long run in it will not matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the two biggest fucked up States in the Nation ( New York and California ) and then look at the publications from their cultural capitals ( LA and New York ) and ask ourselves do we really want to be like either of these groups of idiots , much less listen to what they have to say.Now answer me this : Exactly how is the New York Times relavent anymore ? As far as the price goes , it will continue to work its way to zero as all media with little worth will .
Who cares who controls the price , in the long run in it will not matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Take the two biggest fucked up States in the Nation (New York and California) and then look at the publications from their cultural capitals (LA and New York) and ask ourselves do we really want to be like either of these groups of idiots, much less listen to what they have to say.Now answer me this:  Exactly how is the New York Times relavent anymore?As far as the price goes, it will continue to work its way to zero as all media with little worth will.
Who cares who controls the price, in the long run in it will not matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201856</id>
	<title>It must not be important if...</title>
	<author>Hylandr</author>
	<datestamp>1266606840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can read any kind of news from a first person perspective on a blog or forum.<br> <br>

If they expect me to pay for the privilege of consuming their sensationalist hyperbole then what they have to say must not be that important. I could care less and they won't be receiving a page impression from me.
<br> <br>

- Dan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can read any kind of news from a first person perspective on a blog or forum .
If they expect me to pay for the privilege of consuming their sensationalist hyperbole then what they have to say must not be that important .
I could care less and they wo n't be receiving a page impression from me .
- Dan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can read any kind of news from a first person perspective on a blog or forum.
If they expect me to pay for the privilege of consuming their sensationalist hyperbole then what they have to say must not be that important.
I could care less and they won't be receiving a page impression from me.
- Dan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198348</id>
	<title>newspaper bussiness</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1266590160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like so many transitional businesses, newspapers have to ask what is their core concern.  Do they want to collect and write news that will attract customers, or run printing presses and distribution routes.
<p>
While book publishers can claim that printing and distribution is not a major cost, newspapers cannot, and online newsreaders cannot subsidize the offline equipment.  Given this anything over $100 a year is likely unreasonable. We do not have to a pay a human to deliver. We do not have to pay for a vehicle and gas.  We do not have to pay for waste.  The cut for the news agent does not have to be nearly as much.
</p><p>
There is an argument for artificially keeping the perceived value high, but there is also a value to having more customers for the advertisers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like so many transitional businesses , newspapers have to ask what is their core concern .
Do they want to collect and write news that will attract customers , or run printing presses and distribution routes .
While book publishers can claim that printing and distribution is not a major cost , newspapers can not , and online newsreaders can not subsidize the offline equipment .
Given this anything over $ 100 a year is likely unreasonable .
We do not have to a pay a human to deliver .
We do not have to pay for a vehicle and gas .
We do not have to pay for waste .
The cut for the news agent does not have to be nearly as much .
There is an argument for artificially keeping the perceived value high , but there is also a value to having more customers for the advertisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like so many transitional businesses, newspapers have to ask what is their core concern.
Do they want to collect and write news that will attract customers, or run printing presses and distribution routes.
While book publishers can claim that printing and distribution is not a major cost, newspapers cannot, and online newsreaders cannot subsidize the offline equipment.
Given this anything over $100 a year is likely unreasonable.
We do not have to a pay a human to deliver.
We do not have to pay for a vehicle and gas.
We do not have to pay for waste.
The cut for the news agent does not have to be nearly as much.
There is an argument for artificially keeping the perceived value high, but there is also a value to having more customers for the advertisers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200050</id>
	<title>more for less?</title>
	<author>erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1266598740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a Kindle subscription to the NYT, but canceled it recently because it didn't have a lot of the cool stuff - like the puzzle.  I couldn't see the point to paying for a neutered product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a Kindle subscription to the NYT , but canceled it recently because it did n't have a lot of the cool stuff - like the puzzle .
I could n't see the point to paying for a neutered product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a Kindle subscription to the NYT, but canceled it recently because it didn't have a lot of the cool stuff - like the puzzle.
I couldn't see the point to paying for a neutered product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199364</id>
	<title>Re:Printed newspapers is a shrinking segment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266595560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The prices should be much lower than print, distribution cost are much lower.  Make the price $5.00 and volume will make up the difference in no time.  Not that a single person at the Time as a clue about how economics actually work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The prices should be much lower than print , distribution cost are much lower .
Make the price $ 5.00 and volume will make up the difference in no time .
Not that a single person at the Time as a clue about how economics actually work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The prices should be much lower than print, distribution cost are much lower.
Make the price $5.00 and volume will make up the difference in no time.
Not that a single person at the Time as a clue about how economics actually work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31265708</id>
	<title>Re:That much per month??</title>
	<author>zummit</author>
	<datestamp>1265110020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (The Denver Post) next year. I'm paying about $35/year for a Thursday-Sunday subscription</p><p>Just so everyone knows, the Monday Denver Post is little more than a pamphlet.  The Tuesday edition is a little bigger but mostly advertisements.  Wednesday you finally get an almost complete paper, so that Thursday-Sunday deal is really the best way to get the Denver Post.</p><p>[I myself am still a sucker having just renewed for 7 days a week.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ... ( The Denver Post ) next year .
I 'm paying about $ 35/year for a Thursday-Sunday subscriptionJust so everyone knows , the Monday Denver Post is little more than a pamphlet .
The Tuesday edition is a little bigger but mostly advertisements .
Wednesday you finally get an almost complete paper , so that Thursday-Sunday deal is really the best way to get the Denver Post .
[ I myself am still a sucker having just renewed for 7 days a week .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ... (The Denver Post) next year.
I'm paying about $35/year for a Thursday-Sunday subscriptionJust so everyone knows, the Monday Denver Post is little more than a pamphlet.
The Tuesday edition is a little bigger but mostly advertisements.
Wednesday you finally get an almost complete paper, so that Thursday-Sunday deal is really the best way to get the Denver Post.
[I myself am still a sucker having just renewed for 7 days a week.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199378</id>
	<title>Yeah, but,</title>
	<author>david@ecsd.com</author>
	<datestamp>1266595560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can you still do the crossword on it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>can you still do the crossword on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can you still do the crossword on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199134</id>
	<title>Print media still doesn't understand marginal cost</title>
	<author>RandCraw</author>
	<datestamp>1266594360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the cost of producing one more of your product is zero (e.g. on-line media), your pricing model has to change.  You're not delivering a rag to peoples' doorsteps any more.  If priced right, it's feasible to sell a billion more of your product.  If priced wrong, you're overlooked and irrelevant.  And bankrupt.  That's mistake #1.</p><p>Of course, if you charge a truly nominal fee ($1-$5/month) you'll attract a far greater number of readers, and wield a great deal more influence politically and culturally.  For a newspaper like the NYT, that's especially important if you want mindshare and if your columnists are to win Pulitzers.  Increasing the number of eyes on your prize "gets out The Word".</p><p>Your price also needs to reflect the way people use your product.  Unlike readers of snail newspapers, most net-denizens follow many media sources.  But they scan them, not read them closely they way you read a newspaper.  If you price the product like a newspaper, you force the consumer into *your* model of consumption, not theirs.  That's mistake #2.</p><p>I'm a big fan of the NYT, and would happily subscribe to continue my access, but only at the right price.  That said, I'd be hard pressed to pay for ANY daily newspaper these days, so a subscription fee over $60/year just ain't gonna happen.  I'd go back to taking The Economist on paper and RSS the Reuters/AP websites instead.</p><p>Wake up, NYT.  In the e-conomy you either publish MORE or you perish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the cost of producing one more of your product is zero ( e.g .
on-line media ) , your pricing model has to change .
You 're not delivering a rag to peoples ' doorsteps any more .
If priced right , it 's feasible to sell a billion more of your product .
If priced wrong , you 're overlooked and irrelevant .
And bankrupt .
That 's mistake # 1.Of course , if you charge a truly nominal fee ( $ 1- $ 5/month ) you 'll attract a far greater number of readers , and wield a great deal more influence politically and culturally .
For a newspaper like the NYT , that 's especially important if you want mindshare and if your columnists are to win Pulitzers .
Increasing the number of eyes on your prize " gets out The Word " .Your price also needs to reflect the way people use your product .
Unlike readers of snail newspapers , most net-denizens follow many media sources .
But they scan them , not read them closely they way you read a newspaper .
If you price the product like a newspaper , you force the consumer into * your * model of consumption , not theirs .
That 's mistake # 2.I 'm a big fan of the NYT , and would happily subscribe to continue my access , but only at the right price .
That said , I 'd be hard pressed to pay for ANY daily newspaper these days , so a subscription fee over $ 60/year just ai n't gon na happen .
I 'd go back to taking The Economist on paper and RSS the Reuters/AP websites instead.Wake up , NYT .
In the e-conomy you either publish MORE or you perish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the cost of producing one more of your product is zero (e.g.
on-line media), your pricing model has to change.
You're not delivering a rag to peoples' doorsteps any more.
If priced right, it's feasible to sell a billion more of your product.
If priced wrong, you're overlooked and irrelevant.
And bankrupt.
That's mistake #1.Of course, if you charge a truly nominal fee ($1-$5/month) you'll attract a far greater number of readers, and wield a great deal more influence politically and culturally.
For a newspaper like the NYT, that's especially important if you want mindshare and if your columnists are to win Pulitzers.
Increasing the number of eyes on your prize "gets out The Word".Your price also needs to reflect the way people use your product.
Unlike readers of snail newspapers, most net-denizens follow many media sources.
But they scan them, not read them closely they way you read a newspaper.
If you price the product like a newspaper, you force the consumer into *your* model of consumption, not theirs.
That's mistake #2.I'm a big fan of the NYT, and would happily subscribe to continue my access, but only at the right price.
That said, I'd be hard pressed to pay for ANY daily newspaper these days, so a subscription fee over $60/year just ain't gonna happen.
I'd go back to taking The Economist on paper and RSS the Reuters/AP websites instead.Wake up, NYT.
In the e-conomy you either publish MORE or you perish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198642</id>
	<title>Multiplying profits</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1266592020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have profit from the printed version, even if the cost that the user pay includes the cost of paper/ink/infrastructure to make it, plus all the costs around distribution (that is a big percent of the total). The digital version and distribution have its costs too, but are close to nil for each reader. and the distribution goes really global and on time. And that, without taking into account the income of ads. Is a field where they have more potential readers, but more competition too. But still,they choose to raise their profits several times selling the digital version at a price comparable to the print version one, a move that could have some margin be done if you have the monopoly of something, but they dont have the monopoly of information in internet.<br><br>Oh, well... the digital world needs Darwin awards too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have profit from the printed version , even if the cost that the user pay includes the cost of paper/ink/infrastructure to make it , plus all the costs around distribution ( that is a big percent of the total ) .
The digital version and distribution have its costs too , but are close to nil for each reader .
and the distribution goes really global and on time .
And that , without taking into account the income of ads .
Is a field where they have more potential readers , but more competition too .
But still,they choose to raise their profits several times selling the digital version at a price comparable to the print version one , a move that could have some margin be done if you have the monopoly of something , but they dont have the monopoly of information in internet.Oh , well... the digital world needs Darwin awards too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have profit from the printed version, even if the cost that the user pay includes the cost of paper/ink/infrastructure to make it, plus all the costs around distribution (that is a big percent of the total).
The digital version and distribution have its costs too, but are close to nil for each reader.
and the distribution goes really global and on time.
And that, without taking into account the income of ads.
Is a field where they have more potential readers, but more competition too.
But still,they choose to raise their profits several times selling the digital version at a price comparable to the print version one, a move that could have some margin be done if you have the monopoly of something, but they dont have the monopoly of information in internet.Oh, well... the digital world needs Darwin awards too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201262</id>
	<title>New business model?</title>
	<author>dorre</author>
	<datestamp>1266604020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a crazy idea:</p><p>What if the news papers started give their readers a choice in how they want news. Have a basic fee for the content, say 15$/month. Then add a certain sum for each medium you want to use. Say 8$/month for paper distribution, 1$/month for digital edition distribution. 1300$/month for the version were Pamela Anderson comes to your house and reads you the newspaper.</p><p>Then there would be no discussion on how to charge. Each medium would be priced accordingly to costs of delivery and demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a crazy idea : What if the news papers started give their readers a choice in how they want news .
Have a basic fee for the content , say 15 $ /month .
Then add a certain sum for each medium you want to use .
Say 8 $ /month for paper distribution , 1 $ /month for digital edition distribution .
1300 $ /month for the version were Pamela Anderson comes to your house and reads you the newspaper.Then there would be no discussion on how to charge .
Each medium would be priced accordingly to costs of delivery and demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a crazy idea:What if the news papers started give their readers a choice in how they want news.
Have a basic fee for the content, say 15$/month.
Then add a certain sum for each medium you want to use.
Say 8$/month for paper distribution, 1$/month for digital edition distribution.
1300$/month for the version were Pamela Anderson comes to your house and reads you the newspaper.Then there would be no discussion on how to charge.
Each medium would be priced accordingly to costs of delivery and demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198492</id>
	<title>What the hell?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1266591120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do the print guys have ANYTHING to say about what the digital version cost?  Just lower print circulation down to bare minimum (i.e. enough for politicians and news stands), cut out home delivery, and go almost all digital, and then in 10-30 years cut out print circulation completely.  It will lower their costs and increase their profit.</p><p>Why are newspapers so scared about giving up the most expensive part of their business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do the print guys have ANYTHING to say about what the digital version cost ?
Just lower print circulation down to bare minimum ( i.e .
enough for politicians and news stands ) , cut out home delivery , and go almost all digital , and then in 10-30 years cut out print circulation completely .
It will lower their costs and increase their profit.Why are newspapers so scared about giving up the most expensive part of their business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do the print guys have ANYTHING to say about what the digital version cost?
Just lower print circulation down to bare minimum (i.e.
enough for politicians and news stands), cut out home delivery, and go almost all digital, and then in 10-30 years cut out print circulation completely.
It will lower their costs and increase their profit.Why are newspapers so scared about giving up the most expensive part of their business?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198920</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1266593520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We are well beyond the need to save ink. </i></p><p>Yes, because the purpose of contractions is solely to save ink, thus elegantly explaining their ubiquity in spoken language...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are well beyond the need to save ink .
Yes , because the purpose of contractions is solely to save ink , thus elegantly explaining their ubiquity in spoken language.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are well beyond the need to save ink.
Yes, because the purpose of contractions is solely to save ink, thus elegantly explaining their ubiquity in spoken language...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199516</id>
	<title>This is Slashdot</title>
	<author>Infiniti2000</author>
	<datestamp>1266596400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one here RTFA anyway, so what do we care about more articles on-line?  They could charge $0 or $1000, but it's irrelevant for us!  Not only do they want us to RTFA, they want to charge us, too!?  STFU!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one here RTFA anyway , so what do we care about more articles on-line ?
They could charge $ 0 or $ 1000 , but it 's irrelevant for us !
Not only do they want us to RTFA , they want to charge us , too ! ?
STFU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one here RTFA anyway, so what do we care about more articles on-line?
They could charge $0 or $1000, but it's irrelevant for us!
Not only do they want us to RTFA, they want to charge us, too!?
STFU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200446</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1266600420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I adapt the meaning of "non sequitur" to apply to something other than a logical conclusion, then your statement can not be both "non sequitur" and "prompted" by something; those two properties are fundamentally at odds. Maybe you meant "irrelevant", "unrelated" or "incidental"?
<br> <br>
Even more off topic, and also not a flame. I don't care about language evolving, except in the cases where the unique, precise meaning of a word is completely eliminated from our language because of its appropriation into generic vernacular.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I adapt the meaning of " non sequitur " to apply to something other than a logical conclusion , then your statement can not be both " non sequitur " and " prompted " by something ; those two properties are fundamentally at odds .
Maybe you meant " irrelevant " , " unrelated " or " incidental " ?
Even more off topic , and also not a flame .
I do n't care about language evolving , except in the cases where the unique , precise meaning of a word is completely eliminated from our language because of its appropriation into generic vernacular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I adapt the meaning of "non sequitur" to apply to something other than a logical conclusion, then your statement can not be both "non sequitur" and "prompted" by something; those two properties are fundamentally at odds.
Maybe you meant "irrelevant", "unrelated" or "incidental"?
Even more off topic, and also not a flame.
I don't care about language evolving, except in the cases where the unique, precise meaning of a word is completely eliminated from our language because of its appropriation into generic vernacular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198114</id>
	<title>Egon said it best</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1266588000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Print is dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Print is dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Print is dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202466</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266610620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>WSJ has a tremendous volume of financial and business content, plus provocative commentary, active talk-backs, and broad news coverage.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>the WSJ, which is truly a national/international content provider</p></div></blockquote><p>We must be talking about a different WSJ.  My experience of the writing in the WSJ is a pseudo-conservative rag that opposes real reform (be it tax, health, etc.) in the government.</p><p>I wouldn't pay $155/year (I'm optimistic that you meant annually, though you failed to specify) to someone that advocates the continued weakening of the American institution.  I have more self-respect than that.</p><p>If you don't believe me... allow me to simply hit their commentary section at random and see what we find (you'll have to excuse my selection as I don't have access to the full set of choices):</p><blockquote><div><p>Conservatives all my adulthood have said the American people were, on the issue of spending, the frog in the pot of water: The rising heat lulled him, and when the water came full boil, he wouldn't be able to jump out.</p><p>But that is the great achievement, if you will, of the past few years. The frog is coming awake at just the last moment. He is jumping out of the water.</p></div></blockquote><p>(From <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315004575073793778656392.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">Can Washington Meet the Demand to Cut Spending? by Peggy Noonan</a> [wsj.com])</p><p>Yes.  Music to my ears!  The old hat about a frog in a pot is a myth.  Yet it makes such a useful analogy that they run it anyway.  Talk about good writing!</p><p>Second, the Conservatives all of the author's adulthood have been driving up the deficits just as much as the Liberals.  Is the author claiming both parties want to cook us alive?  Why not just say so?</p><p>No, this would not deserve even a $100/year fee.  This is ridiculous and flies in the face of reality.  It's unfortunate for you to try to defend a paper that publishes this sort of nonsense.  You are championing an enemy of science and progress.</p><p>Can't resist one more quote from that piece:</p><blockquote><div><p>Second the Republicans should tread delicately while moving forward seriously. Voters are feeling as never before in recent political history the vulnerability of their individual positions. There is no reason to believe they are interested in highly complicated and technical reforms, the kind that go under the heading "homework." As in: "I know my future security depends on understanding this thing and having a responsible view, but I cannot make it out. My whole life is homework. I cannot do more."</p><p>We are not a nation of accountants, however much our government tries to turn us into one.</p></div></blockquote><p>The author advocates against "highly complicated and technical reforms" <strong>even if they are best</strong>.  Let's see... Condorcet voting?  Instant runoff?  Both are too complicated, we'll stick with simple majority.  Should we actually metricate?  No, people have enough homework already.  And so on.  Anti-intellectualism!  Gods bless America, land of the too-busy and home of the not brave enough for homework?!</p><p>Give me a break.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WSJ has a tremendous volume of financial and business content , plus provocative commentary , active talk-backs , and broad news coverage.the WSJ , which is truly a national/international content providerWe must be talking about a different WSJ .
My experience of the writing in the WSJ is a pseudo-conservative rag that opposes real reform ( be it tax , health , etc .
) in the government.I would n't pay $ 155/year ( I 'm optimistic that you meant annually , though you failed to specify ) to someone that advocates the continued weakening of the American institution .
I have more self-respect than that.If you do n't believe me... allow me to simply hit their commentary section at random and see what we find ( you 'll have to excuse my selection as I do n't have access to the full set of choices ) : Conservatives all my adulthood have said the American people were , on the issue of spending , the frog in the pot of water : The rising heat lulled him , and when the water came full boil , he would n't be able to jump out.But that is the great achievement , if you will , of the past few years .
The frog is coming awake at just the last moment .
He is jumping out of the water .
( From Can Washington Meet the Demand to Cut Spending ?
by Peggy Noonan [ wsj.com ] ) Yes .
Music to my ears !
The old hat about a frog in a pot is a myth .
Yet it makes such a useful analogy that they run it anyway .
Talk about good writing ! Second , the Conservatives all of the author 's adulthood have been driving up the deficits just as much as the Liberals .
Is the author claiming both parties want to cook us alive ?
Why not just say so ? No , this would not deserve even a $ 100/year fee .
This is ridiculous and flies in the face of reality .
It 's unfortunate for you to try to defend a paper that publishes this sort of nonsense .
You are championing an enemy of science and progress.Ca n't resist one more quote from that piece : Second the Republicans should tread delicately while moving forward seriously .
Voters are feeling as never before in recent political history the vulnerability of their individual positions .
There is no reason to believe they are interested in highly complicated and technical reforms , the kind that go under the heading " homework .
" As in : " I know my future security depends on understanding this thing and having a responsible view , but I can not make it out .
My whole life is homework .
I can not do more .
" We are not a nation of accountants , however much our government tries to turn us into one.The author advocates against " highly complicated and technical reforms " even if they are best .
Let 's see... Condorcet voting ?
Instant runoff ?
Both are too complicated , we 'll stick with simple majority .
Should we actually metricate ?
No , people have enough homework already .
And so on .
Anti-intellectualism ! Gods bless America , land of the too-busy and home of the not brave enough for homework ?
! Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WSJ has a tremendous volume of financial and business content, plus provocative commentary, active talk-backs, and broad news coverage.the WSJ, which is truly a national/international content providerWe must be talking about a different WSJ.
My experience of the writing in the WSJ is a pseudo-conservative rag that opposes real reform (be it tax, health, etc.
) in the government.I wouldn't pay $155/year (I'm optimistic that you meant annually, though you failed to specify) to someone that advocates the continued weakening of the American institution.
I have more self-respect than that.If you don't believe me... allow me to simply hit their commentary section at random and see what we find (you'll have to excuse my selection as I don't have access to the full set of choices):Conservatives all my adulthood have said the American people were, on the issue of spending, the frog in the pot of water: The rising heat lulled him, and when the water came full boil, he wouldn't be able to jump out.But that is the great achievement, if you will, of the past few years.
The frog is coming awake at just the last moment.
He is jumping out of the water.
(From Can Washington Meet the Demand to Cut Spending?
by Peggy Noonan [wsj.com])Yes.
Music to my ears!
The old hat about a frog in a pot is a myth.
Yet it makes such a useful analogy that they run it anyway.
Talk about good writing!Second, the Conservatives all of the author's adulthood have been driving up the deficits just as much as the Liberals.
Is the author claiming both parties want to cook us alive?
Why not just say so?No, this would not deserve even a $100/year fee.
This is ridiculous and flies in the face of reality.
It's unfortunate for you to try to defend a paper that publishes this sort of nonsense.
You are championing an enemy of science and progress.Can't resist one more quote from that piece:Second the Republicans should tread delicately while moving forward seriously.
Voters are feeling as never before in recent political history the vulnerability of their individual positions.
There is no reason to believe they are interested in highly complicated and technical reforms, the kind that go under the heading "homework.
" As in: "I know my future security depends on understanding this thing and having a responsible view, but I cannot make it out.
My whole life is homework.
I cannot do more.
"We are not a nation of accountants, however much our government tries to turn us into one.The author advocates against "highly complicated and technical reforms" even if they are best.
Let's see... Condorcet voting?
Instant runoff?
Both are too complicated, we'll stick with simple majority.
Should we actually metricate?
No, people have enough homework already.
And so on.
Anti-intellectualism!  Gods bless America, land of the too-busy and home of the not brave enough for homework?
!Give me a break.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198136</id>
	<title>Economics 102</title>
	<author>Mononoke</author>
	<datestamp>1266588180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Who Will Control the Cost of the NYT On Digital Readers?</p></div></blockquote><p>The consumer will. The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who Will Control the Cost of the NYT On Digital Readers ? The consumer will .
The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Who Will Control the Cost of the NYT On Digital Readers?The consumer will.
The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198512</id>
	<title>Stop letting fear drive decisions.</title>
	<author>phormalitize</author>
	<datestamp>1266591180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NYT is a great newspaper, but they are really shooting themselves in the foot here.  They should be trying to come up with innovative ways to change their business model, like letting more writers work from home and reducing the office space they pay for (leasing out other parts they own, perhaps).

<br> <br>And I can't believe people have to point this out to a business, but seriously?  Figure out your budget, determine how much money you need to keep yourselves afloat, and use that to determine the prices of digital subscriptions and other content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NYT is a great newspaper , but they are really shooting themselves in the foot here .
They should be trying to come up with innovative ways to change their business model , like letting more writers work from home and reducing the office space they pay for ( leasing out other parts they own , perhaps ) .
And I ca n't believe people have to point this out to a business , but seriously ?
Figure out your budget , determine how much money you need to keep yourselves afloat , and use that to determine the prices of digital subscriptions and other content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NYT is a great newspaper, but they are really shooting themselves in the foot here.
They should be trying to come up with innovative ways to change their business model, like letting more writers work from home and reducing the office space they pay for (leasing out other parts they own, perhaps).
And I can't believe people have to point this out to a business, but seriously?
Figure out your budget, determine how much money you need to keep yourselves afloat, and use that to determine the prices of digital subscriptions and other content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198270</id>
	<title>Realistic pricing</title>
	<author>Kabloink</author>
	<datestamp>1266589560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need to be realistic about the price.

The majority of Americans won't be willing to pay..... oh, it's for the iPad.  Double the price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to be realistic about the price .
The majority of Americans wo n't be willing to pay..... oh , it 's for the iPad .
Double the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to be realistic about the price.
The majority of Americans won't be willing to pay..... oh, it's for the iPad.
Double the price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200850</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1266602160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing the relative qualities of NYT -v- WSJ will tell us more about the comparer's own bias than anything, and can obscure the discussion. The NYT is recognized as a truly national/international content provider, despite your implication to the contrary.</p><p>I agree that the WSJ economic coverage is excellent. But characterizing the NYT as a regional, liberal, middle/upper class NY paper is inaccurate. The NYT has a social, humanities element to its coverage that the WSJ has consistently lacked, and this appeals to a broader demographic than the one you've described.</p><p>I hope that I'm not the only one uncomfortable with the WSJ's ownership. Rev. Moon, leader of the WSJ's owner, the Unification Church, has declared himself the center of the spirit world. He has compared himself to Jesus, and apparently believes he is in fact a reincarnation of Jesus. His followers treat him and worship him as a god. The recent family dispute between two of his sons who were vying for position took place in and about the WSJ, and is a great example as to why one would treat such a news source as a dubious one. The NYT owners have their own problems of course, but the NYT's institutional bias seems much more apparent on the surface than the WSJ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing the relative qualities of NYT -v- WSJ will tell us more about the comparer 's own bias than anything , and can obscure the discussion .
The NYT is recognized as a truly national/international content provider , despite your implication to the contrary.I agree that the WSJ economic coverage is excellent .
But characterizing the NYT as a regional , liberal , middle/upper class NY paper is inaccurate .
The NYT has a social , humanities element to its coverage that the WSJ has consistently lacked , and this appeals to a broader demographic than the one you 've described.I hope that I 'm not the only one uncomfortable with the WSJ 's ownership .
Rev. Moon , leader of the WSJ 's owner , the Unification Church , has declared himself the center of the spirit world .
He has compared himself to Jesus , and apparently believes he is in fact a reincarnation of Jesus .
His followers treat him and worship him as a god .
The recent family dispute between two of his sons who were vying for position took place in and about the WSJ , and is a great example as to why one would treat such a news source as a dubious one .
The NYT owners have their own problems of course , but the NYT 's institutional bias seems much more apparent on the surface than the WSJ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing the relative qualities of NYT -v- WSJ will tell us more about the comparer's own bias than anything, and can obscure the discussion.
The NYT is recognized as a truly national/international content provider, despite your implication to the contrary.I agree that the WSJ economic coverage is excellent.
But characterizing the NYT as a regional, liberal, middle/upper class NY paper is inaccurate.
The NYT has a social, humanities element to its coverage that the WSJ has consistently lacked, and this appeals to a broader demographic than the one you've described.I hope that I'm not the only one uncomfortable with the WSJ's ownership.
Rev. Moon, leader of the WSJ's owner, the Unification Church, has declared himself the center of the spirit world.
He has compared himself to Jesus, and apparently believes he is in fact a reincarnation of Jesus.
His followers treat him and worship him as a god.
The recent family dispute between two of his sons who were vying for position took place in and about the WSJ, and is a great example as to why one would treat such a news source as a dubious one.
The NYT owners have their own problems of course, but the NYT's institutional bias seems much more apparent on the surface than the WSJ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198438</id>
	<title>I know what it won't be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266590700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supply and demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supply and demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supply and demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198084</id>
	<title>Printed newspapers is a shrinking segment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether the digital edition affects sales of the print edition is beside the point.  Online news is going to affect the sales of the print edition anyway.  the question is whether the NYT wants a segment of that or not.
<br> <br>
Digital media is distruptive technology.  If the NYT doesn't clobber their print sales someone else is going to do the job for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the digital edition affects sales of the print edition is beside the point .
Online news is going to affect the sales of the print edition anyway .
the question is whether the NYT wants a segment of that or not .
Digital media is distruptive technology .
If the NYT does n't clobber their print sales someone else is going to do the job for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether the digital edition affects sales of the print edition is beside the point.
Online news is going to affect the sales of the print edition anyway.
the question is whether the NYT wants a segment of that or not.
Digital media is distruptive technology.
If the NYT doesn't clobber their print sales someone else is going to do the job for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200048</id>
	<title>Re:$10 for crap, or $20-$30 for crap? Does it matt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266598740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's funny, I feel that the organisations that pushed for cheap loans to poor people and developing nations and now later turn around and complain that checks were inadequate should be torn new assholes for hypocrisy, and consider newspapers that don't mention this to have a leftwing tinge. Obama hasn't gotten much shitck for in principle breaking the law about giving labour unions more of the GM pot than the legally strongest claimants had a right ot, and threatening the company if they tried to block it. But each to our own I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny , I feel that the organisations that pushed for cheap loans to poor people and developing nations and now later turn around and complain that checks were inadequate should be torn new assholes for hypocrisy , and consider newspapers that do n't mention this to have a leftwing tinge .
Obama has n't gotten much shitck for in principle breaking the law about giving labour unions more of the GM pot than the legally strongest claimants had a right ot , and threatening the company if they tried to block it .
But each to our own I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny, I feel that the organisations that pushed for cheap loans to poor people and developing nations and now later turn around and complain that checks were inadequate should be torn new assholes for hypocrisy, and consider newspapers that don't mention this to have a leftwing tinge.
Obama hasn't gotten much shitck for in principle breaking the law about giving labour unions more of the GM pot than the legally strongest claimants had a right ot, and threatening the company if they tried to block it.
But each to our own I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198112</id>
	<title>Let the NYT go out of business</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1266588000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "newspaper of record"? What bs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " newspaper of record " ?
What bs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "newspaper of record"?
What bs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198234</id>
	<title>How quaint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266589260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The marketing department would like to have a word with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The marketing department would like to have a word with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The marketing department would like to have a word with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200712</id>
	<title>Who will control the cost?</title>
	<author>Caste11an</author>
	<datestamp>1266601560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer to the submission's query is so simple that it's mind-boggling that folks at the NYT and elsewhere haven't even considered it. Who will control the cost of the NYT on digital readers? <strong>The Consumer.</strong> </p><p>If iPad/Nook/Kindle/netbook/etc users aren't willing to pay the price for the product, the Times will have to bring the price down until enough people are willing to pay.</p><p>This is an ongoing problem with print media. They think they're still playing in the arena they've been in for the last 100 years. It ain't so, and the awakening will be a rude one for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to the submission 's query is so simple that it 's mind-boggling that folks at the NYT and elsewhere have n't even considered it .
Who will control the cost of the NYT on digital readers ?
The Consumer .
If iPad/Nook/Kindle/netbook/etc users are n't willing to pay the price for the product , the Times will have to bring the price down until enough people are willing to pay.This is an ongoing problem with print media .
They think they 're still playing in the arena they 've been in for the last 100 years .
It ai n't so , and the awakening will be a rude one for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to the submission's query is so simple that it's mind-boggling that folks at the NYT and elsewhere haven't even considered it.
Who will control the cost of the NYT on digital readers?
The Consumer.
If iPad/Nook/Kindle/netbook/etc users aren't willing to pay the price for the product, the Times will have to bring the price down until enough people are willing to pay.This is an ongoing problem with print media.
They think they're still playing in the arena they've been in for the last 100 years.
It ain't so, and the awakening will be a rude one for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199350</id>
	<title>Clicked the wrong mod button.</title>
	<author>Adaeniel</author>
	<datestamp>1266595500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please ignore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please ignore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198082</id>
	<title>I will</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1266587700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if they keep failing to deliver my dead tree version the price will be <b>zero</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they keep failing to deliver my dead tree version the price will be zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they keep failing to deliver my dead tree version the price will be zero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200066</id>
	<title>Newspapers Miss Yet Another Boat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266598800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspaper corporations are expert at missing the boat on media changes. Newspapers could easily have gone into radio when it became a mass medium in the 1920s-1930s. Either running an entire station that just read the paper over the air, maybe with extra features inserted, in between the ads, or just syndicating readings to other stations. They could have done the same when TV came around. Both times they let their hugely popular, powerful and profitable industry get knocked down by newcomers in the new medium. By the time the Internet arrived in prime time, they were already pros at missing the boat, and this time missed the perfect medium for them to dominate.</p><p>Now they'll screw up mobile readers, because they are locked in a late 1800s mentality. They hate interactivity, customization by readers, sharing, or anything else that's different from being the voice of a central authority on facts increasingly out of touch with the reality they say they cover.</p><p>The only new medium newspapers ever tried to adopt was movies, with newsreels. A terrible way to present anything but the most sensationalistic and trivial news, but an effective propaganda tool. That is what the newspaper industry reduces itself to by treating its consumers with contempt, instead of embracing opportunities to communicate more effectively: a manipulative entertainment tool.</p><p>No wonder nobody even wraps fish with them anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspaper corporations are expert at missing the boat on media changes .
Newspapers could easily have gone into radio when it became a mass medium in the 1920s-1930s .
Either running an entire station that just read the paper over the air , maybe with extra features inserted , in between the ads , or just syndicating readings to other stations .
They could have done the same when TV came around .
Both times they let their hugely popular , powerful and profitable industry get knocked down by newcomers in the new medium .
By the time the Internet arrived in prime time , they were already pros at missing the boat , and this time missed the perfect medium for them to dominate.Now they 'll screw up mobile readers , because they are locked in a late 1800s mentality .
They hate interactivity , customization by readers , sharing , or anything else that 's different from being the voice of a central authority on facts increasingly out of touch with the reality they say they cover.The only new medium newspapers ever tried to adopt was movies , with newsreels .
A terrible way to present anything but the most sensationalistic and trivial news , but an effective propaganda tool .
That is what the newspaper industry reduces itself to by treating its consumers with contempt , instead of embracing opportunities to communicate more effectively : a manipulative entertainment tool.No wonder nobody even wraps fish with them anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspaper corporations are expert at missing the boat on media changes.
Newspapers could easily have gone into radio when it became a mass medium in the 1920s-1930s.
Either running an entire station that just read the paper over the air, maybe with extra features inserted, in between the ads, or just syndicating readings to other stations.
They could have done the same when TV came around.
Both times they let their hugely popular, powerful and profitable industry get knocked down by newcomers in the new medium.
By the time the Internet arrived in prime time, they were already pros at missing the boat, and this time missed the perfect medium for them to dominate.Now they'll screw up mobile readers, because they are locked in a late 1800s mentality.
They hate interactivity, customization by readers, sharing, or anything else that's different from being the voice of a central authority on facts increasingly out of touch with the reality they say they cover.The only new medium newspapers ever tried to adopt was movies, with newsreels.
A terrible way to present anything but the most sensationalistic and trivial news, but an effective propaganda tool.
That is what the newspaper industry reduces itself to by treating its consumers with contempt, instead of embracing opportunities to communicate more effectively: a manipulative entertainment tool.No wonder nobody even wraps fish with them anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200354</id>
	<title>Naysayers Unite</title>
	<author>lackofsleep</author>
	<datestamp>1266600180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you're dead right in this case.</p><p>People are not stupid. They're not going to pay that much for a subscription to the mishmash that the paper edition has to be. This newspapers and others have stars in the eyes. This former journalist makes a good argument <a href="http://www.barryschiffman.com/thelastround/articles/nytfate.html" title="barryschiffman.com" rel="nofollow"> here</a> [barryschiffman.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you 're dead right in this case.People are not stupid .
They 're not going to pay that much for a subscription to the mishmash that the paper edition has to be .
This newspapers and others have stars in the eyes .
This former journalist makes a good argument here [ barryschiffman.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you're dead right in this case.People are not stupid.
They're not going to pay that much for a subscription to the mishmash that the paper edition has to be.
This newspapers and others have stars in the eyes.
This former journalist makes a good argument  here [barryschiffman.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198718</id>
	<title>You mean the NYT has a reader?</title>
	<author>xfea</author>
	<datestamp>1266592440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why waist tike figuring out the price point for a subscription, you need demand first, and the NYT has NONE.</p><p>The NYT is near bankruptcy because nobody reads it any more.<br>It is biased liberal clap.</p><p>Just like the rest of the Obama praising &lsquo;main stream&rsquo; liberal media.</p><p>Speaking of which, did you catch the CNN PRIME TIME RATINGS?</p><p>Friday night, 8-11 pm, CNN averaged 85,000 total viewers.<br>85,000 !</p><p>More people watch a test pattern at 3:00 AM on a local station in Duluth.</p><p>Let&rsquo;s see, Fox News averages over 3,000,000 viewers?<br>LOL.</p><p>Bye Bye biased liberal media..<br>Bye Bye Obama.</p><p>Oh -</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why waist tike figuring out the price point for a subscription , you need demand first , and the NYT has NONE.The NYT is near bankruptcy because nobody reads it any more.It is biased liberal clap.Just like the rest of the Obama praising    main stream    liberal media.Speaking of which , did you catch the CNN PRIME TIME RATINGS ? Friday night , 8-11 pm , CNN averaged 85,000 total viewers.85,000 ! More people watch a test pattern at 3 : 00 AM on a local station in Duluth.Let    s see , Fox News averages over 3,000,000 viewers ? LOL.Bye Bye biased liberal media..Bye Bye Obama.Oh -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why waist tike figuring out the price point for a subscription, you need demand first, and the NYT has NONE.The NYT is near bankruptcy because nobody reads it any more.It is biased liberal clap.Just like the rest of the Obama praising ‘main stream’ liberal media.Speaking of which, did you catch the CNN PRIME TIME RATINGS?Friday night, 8-11 pm, CNN averaged 85,000 total viewers.85,000 !More people watch a test pattern at 3:00 AM on a local station in Duluth.Let’s see, Fox News averages over 3,000,000 viewers?LOL.Bye Bye biased liberal media..Bye Bye Obama.Oh -</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202210</id>
	<title>newspapers are ignoring the lesson of iTune</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1266609000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you make it cheap and convenient enough, your market will expand.  Anything above $5 a month is too much in my opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make it cheap and convenient enough , your market will expand .
Anything above $ 5 a month is too much in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make it cheap and convenient enough, your market will expand.
Anything above $5 a month is too much in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198402</id>
	<title>Gray Lady?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266590520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me old fashioned but I prefer my ladies to be flesh coloured. Gray? WTF is ths - necrophilia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me old fashioned but I prefer my ladies to be flesh coloured .
Gray ? WTF is ths - necrophilia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me old fashioned but I prefer my ladies to be flesh coloured.
Gray? WTF is ths - necrophilia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198302</id>
	<title>Re:Business model fundamentally broken</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1266589740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Newspapers are great to have because they offer better-researched, more compressive, and less biased news and commentary than random blogs.</p></div><p>You haven't read the NY Times lately, have you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers are great to have because they offer better-researched , more compressive , and less biased news and commentary than random blogs.You have n't read the NY Times lately , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers are great to have because they offer better-researched, more compressive, and less biased news and commentary than random blogs.You haven't read the NY Times lately, have you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</id>
	<title>Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>yog</author>
	<datestamp>1266587280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the real question should be, how much should a paid subscription cost?<br> <br>

As a long time subscriber to online.wsj.com, the online version of the Wall Street Journal, I have watched my online subscription cost float up from around $75 promotional price to $155 on the latest bill.  (I have a query in to customer support to find out why they were advertising a combined print + online deal for only $135 a month or two ago, yet they're sticking it to me.)  Thus far, I have tolerated this annual fee in exchange for excellent content.<br> <br>

Once an online subscription exceeds about $25/year, you would expect it to have some substantial and unique value that compels you to pay.  The WSJ has a tremendous volume of financial and business content, plus provocative commentary, active talk-backs, and broad news coverage.  I can't get through it in a day, certainly not in 30 minutes over coffee at 7am, and tend to cherry-pick the interesting titles during little breaks throughout the day (and, now, on the bus/bathroom/in bed using a Nexus One android phone).<br> <br>

Unlike the WSJ, which is truly a national/international content provider, the NY Times has a regional quality to it that reflects its liberal, middle-to-upper class urban New York readership.  Furthermore, all of the national and international news can be obtained from AP, Reuters, and BBC websites for free.  Will someone in Boston, Toronto, Fresno, or Omaha feel as compelled to spend $25/month (i.e., $300/year) for such content?<br> <br>

My recommendation to the New York Times is to keep the price low initially, then start to add premium features (more video, interactive stuff, discounted 3rd party deals, etc.) for subscribers only and try to build up your paid online readership.  If you start out by gouging people who are used to a free NY Times online, most of them will simply jump ship to one of the dozens of other, free news services available.  Hubris will get you nowhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real question should be , how much should a paid subscription cost ?
As a long time subscriber to online.wsj.com , the online version of the Wall Street Journal , I have watched my online subscription cost float up from around $ 75 promotional price to $ 155 on the latest bill .
( I have a query in to customer support to find out why they were advertising a combined print + online deal for only $ 135 a month or two ago , yet they 're sticking it to me .
) Thus far , I have tolerated this annual fee in exchange for excellent content .
Once an online subscription exceeds about $ 25/year , you would expect it to have some substantial and unique value that compels you to pay .
The WSJ has a tremendous volume of financial and business content , plus provocative commentary , active talk-backs , and broad news coverage .
I ca n't get through it in a day , certainly not in 30 minutes over coffee at 7am , and tend to cherry-pick the interesting titles during little breaks throughout the day ( and , now , on the bus/bathroom/in bed using a Nexus One android phone ) .
Unlike the WSJ , which is truly a national/international content provider , the NY Times has a regional quality to it that reflects its liberal , middle-to-upper class urban New York readership .
Furthermore , all of the national and international news can be obtained from AP , Reuters , and BBC websites for free .
Will someone in Boston , Toronto , Fresno , or Omaha feel as compelled to spend $ 25/month ( i.e. , $ 300/year ) for such content ?
My recommendation to the New York Times is to keep the price low initially , then start to add premium features ( more video , interactive stuff , discounted 3rd party deals , etc .
) for subscribers only and try to build up your paid online readership .
If you start out by gouging people who are used to a free NY Times online , most of them will simply jump ship to one of the dozens of other , free news services available .
Hubris will get you nowhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real question should be, how much should a paid subscription cost?
As a long time subscriber to online.wsj.com, the online version of the Wall Street Journal, I have watched my online subscription cost float up from around $75 promotional price to $155 on the latest bill.
(I have a query in to customer support to find out why they were advertising a combined print + online deal for only $135 a month or two ago, yet they're sticking it to me.
)  Thus far, I have tolerated this annual fee in exchange for excellent content.
Once an online subscription exceeds about $25/year, you would expect it to have some substantial and unique value that compels you to pay.
The WSJ has a tremendous volume of financial and business content, plus provocative commentary, active talk-backs, and broad news coverage.
I can't get through it in a day, certainly not in 30 minutes over coffee at 7am, and tend to cherry-pick the interesting titles during little breaks throughout the day (and, now, on the bus/bathroom/in bed using a Nexus One android phone).
Unlike the WSJ, which is truly a national/international content provider, the NY Times has a regional quality to it that reflects its liberal, middle-to-upper class urban New York readership.
Furthermore, all of the national and international news can be obtained from AP, Reuters, and BBC websites for free.
Will someone in Boston, Toronto, Fresno, or Omaha feel as compelled to spend $25/month (i.e., $300/year) for such content?
My recommendation to the New York Times is to keep the price low initially, then start to add premium features (more video, interactive stuff, discounted 3rd party deals, etc.
) for subscribers only and try to build up your paid online readership.
If you start out by gouging people who are used to a free NY Times online, most of them will simply jump ship to one of the dozens of other, free news services available.
Hubris will get you nowhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199520</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1266596400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When you write, just write "they are", "it is", and "we are" and save the apostrophes for things like "it is Bill's cat."</i></p><p>Well, "they're" is quicker to type than "they are", uses less bandwidth and storage space, etc.</p><p><i>Especially if you can't ever seem to get it right.</i></p><p>I cannot believe you said "can't".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you write , just write " they are " , " it is " , and " we are " and save the apostrophes for things like " it is Bill 's cat .
" Well , " they 're " is quicker to type than " they are " , uses less bandwidth and storage space , etc.Especially if you ca n't ever seem to get it right.I can not believe you said " ca n't " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you write, just write "they are", "it is", and "we are" and save the apostrophes for things like "it is Bill's cat.
"Well, "they're" is quicker to type than "they are", uses less bandwidth and storage space, etc.Especially if you can't ever seem to get it right.I cannot believe you said "can't".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201682</id>
	<title>Let the NYT Rot</title>
	<author>DakotaSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1266605940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's not a single newspaper in the United States worth paying for.  Period.  And that absolutely includes the New York <i>Times</i>.</p><p>The argument they're having is pointless.  As long as the press continues to distort reality the way it has ever since my first experience with it over 20 years ago, it's not worth a dime.  They can make up any kind of "fair" price they want, but the market has spoken:  journalism is dead, and everyone knows it.</p><p>In 45 years on planet Earth, there has been no story with which I've been personally involved that was accurately reported.  I assume that if they can't get it right with me once a year or so, they're probably <i>never</i> getting it right.</p><p>There's only one way for the American press to save itself, and that's by stringently limiting its reporting to verifiable <i>facts</i>.  No editorializing, no emotionally loaded language, no half-truths or only telling one side of the story.  No angles, no viewpoints.  Just the facts, ma'am.</p><p>As long as I can report the facts more accurately than the press, the press is doomed.  And that's a damned good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's not a single newspaper in the United States worth paying for .
Period. And that absolutely includes the New York Times.The argument they 're having is pointless .
As long as the press continues to distort reality the way it has ever since my first experience with it over 20 years ago , it 's not worth a dime .
They can make up any kind of " fair " price they want , but the market has spoken : journalism is dead , and everyone knows it.In 45 years on planet Earth , there has been no story with which I 've been personally involved that was accurately reported .
I assume that if they ca n't get it right with me once a year or so , they 're probably never getting it right.There 's only one way for the American press to save itself , and that 's by stringently limiting its reporting to verifiable facts .
No editorializing , no emotionally loaded language , no half-truths or only telling one side of the story .
No angles , no viewpoints .
Just the facts , ma'am.As long as I can report the facts more accurately than the press , the press is doomed .
And that 's a damned good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's not a single newspaper in the United States worth paying for.
Period.  And that absolutely includes the New York Times.The argument they're having is pointless.
As long as the press continues to distort reality the way it has ever since my first experience with it over 20 years ago, it's not worth a dime.
They can make up any kind of "fair" price they want, but the market has spoken:  journalism is dead, and everyone knows it.In 45 years on planet Earth, there has been no story with which I've been personally involved that was accurately reported.
I assume that if they can't get it right with me once a year or so, they're probably never getting it right.There's only one way for the American press to save itself, and that's by stringently limiting its reporting to verifiable facts.
No editorializing, no emotionally loaded language, no half-truths or only telling one side of the story.
No angles, no viewpoints.
Just the facts, ma'am.As long as I can report the facts more accurately than the press, the press is doomed.
And that's a damned good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198866</id>
	<title>Re:Business model fundamentally broken</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266593280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Endowments would enhance newspapers autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down.</p></div><p>  And by "endowments" he really means government handouts by the Congress.  I call "shenanigans" on that.   I no more want to support your "hobby" of reading the paper than you want to  pay an extra $100 in taxes to support my modeling hobby.  I am sick-and-tired of people thinking they have a right to suck dollars out of MY paycheck, and just as I fund my modeling hobby with my OWN money, so too should you fund your newspaper hobby with YOUR own money.</p><p>As for the Jefferson quote, if it were updated to the present, he'd likely say that newspapers are as obsolete as concept as Kings or Nobility.  He'd say that newspapers have been replaced with newer, better technologies called audio and video.</p><p>Jefferson would also comment, "I can lay my hand on no part of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to give the People's money to a private business."  On the contrary, the 10th Amendment specifically reserves such power to the individual State legislatures.</p><p>I'm sorry if this post sounded... um... aggressive.  But I think it's time for this country to wakeup and realize we can no longer continue down this path of spend, spend, spend.  See my signature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Endowments would enhance newspapers autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down .
And by " endowments " he really means government handouts by the Congress .
I call " shenanigans " on that .
I no more want to support your " hobby " of reading the paper than you want to pay an extra $ 100 in taxes to support my modeling hobby .
I am sick-and-tired of people thinking they have a right to suck dollars out of MY paycheck , and just as I fund my modeling hobby with my OWN money , so too should you fund your newspaper hobby with YOUR own money.As for the Jefferson quote , if it were updated to the present , he 'd likely say that newspapers are as obsolete as concept as Kings or Nobility .
He 'd say that newspapers have been replaced with newer , better technologies called audio and video.Jefferson would also comment , " I can lay my hand on no part of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to give the People 's money to a private business .
" On the contrary , the 10th Amendment specifically reserves such power to the individual State legislatures.I 'm sorry if this post sounded... um... aggressive .
But I think it 's time for this country to wakeup and realize we can no longer continue down this path of spend , spend , spend .
See my signature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Endowments would enhance newspapers autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down.
And by "endowments" he really means government handouts by the Congress.
I call "shenanigans" on that.
I no more want to support your "hobby" of reading the paper than you want to  pay an extra $100 in taxes to support my modeling hobby.
I am sick-and-tired of people thinking they have a right to suck dollars out of MY paycheck, and just as I fund my modeling hobby with my OWN money, so too should you fund your newspaper hobby with YOUR own money.As for the Jefferson quote, if it were updated to the present, he'd likely say that newspapers are as obsolete as concept as Kings or Nobility.
He'd say that newspapers have been replaced with newer, better technologies called audio and video.Jefferson would also comment, "I can lay my hand on no part of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to give the People's money to a private business.
"  On the contrary, the 10th Amendment specifically reserves such power to the individual State legislatures.I'm sorry if this post sounded... um... aggressive.
But I think it's time for this country to wakeup and realize we can no longer continue down this path of spend, spend, spend.
See my signature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198264</id>
	<title>Re:Economics 102</title>
	<author>Albanach</author>
	<datestamp>1266589500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure they will, because corporations would never engage in anti-competitive actions to the detriment of the consumer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold.Sure they will , because corporations would never engage in anti-competitive actions to the detriment of the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold.Sure they will, because corporations would never engage in anti-competitive actions to the detriment of the consumer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200456</id>
	<title>Split the Company</title>
	<author>jj00</author>
	<datestamp>1266600480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to admit that I know nothing about the newspaper industry, and if this was so easy to solve that it would have been done already.  However, I can&rsquo;t resist thinking that most of these companies will need to fail in order to allow other models that can be profitable to rise out of the ashes.
<br> <br>
Maybe it's time for the company to split into 2 parts - one for content, one for printing.  In other words, completely outsource the printing/delivery of the paper into a separate company.  I know they do this on some level now.  They could change their model to where they could charge a price for the content, and add on a "delivery" charge for receiving it (which would be from the print company).  If you are using their online reader the charge would be free, but physically printing it and sending it would incur an additional charge.
<br> <br>
The print division can then focus towards getting their costs under control and adding features.  Maybe they would be inclined to make themselves more efficient like using on-demand printing, other paper sources, customized sections (only receive only sections you desire), etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to admit that I know nothing about the newspaper industry , and if this was so easy to solve that it would have been done already .
However , I can    t resist thinking that most of these companies will need to fail in order to allow other models that can be profitable to rise out of the ashes .
Maybe it 's time for the company to split into 2 parts - one for content , one for printing .
In other words , completely outsource the printing/delivery of the paper into a separate company .
I know they do this on some level now .
They could change their model to where they could charge a price for the content , and add on a " delivery " charge for receiving it ( which would be from the print company ) .
If you are using their online reader the charge would be free , but physically printing it and sending it would incur an additional charge .
The print division can then focus towards getting their costs under control and adding features .
Maybe they would be inclined to make themselves more efficient like using on-demand printing , other paper sources , customized sections ( only receive only sections you desire ) , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to admit that I know nothing about the newspaper industry, and if this was so easy to solve that it would have been done already.
However, I can’t resist thinking that most of these companies will need to fail in order to allow other models that can be profitable to rise out of the ashes.
Maybe it's time for the company to split into 2 parts - one for content, one for printing.
In other words, completely outsource the printing/delivery of the paper into a separate company.
I know they do this on some level now.
They could change their model to where they could charge a price for the content, and add on a "delivery" charge for receiving it (which would be from the print company).
If you are using their online reader the charge would be free, but physically printing it and sending it would incur an additional charge.
The print division can then focus towards getting their costs under control and adding features.
Maybe they would be inclined to make themselves more efficient like using on-demand printing, other paper sources, customized sections (only receive only sections you desire), etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1266588780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.</p></div><p>I can appreciate that when we wrote with feather quills, bottles of ink, and blotting paper -- a rather laborious process -- any reason for putting less ink on the page was a good one.</p><p>You might hear yourself saying "they're", "it's", and "we're" when you are saying "they are","it is", and "we are"; but spoken language != written language.</p><p>We are well beyond the need to save ink. When you write, just write "they are", "it is", and "we are" and save the apostrophes for things like "it is Bill's cat." Especially if you can't ever seem to get it right.</p><p>Yes, it's off topic. No, it's not a flame. Just a non sequitur response prompted by his sig. Mod me down if you must.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's = " it is " ; its = possessive .
E.g. , it 's flapping its wings.I can appreciate that when we wrote with feather quills , bottles of ink , and blotting paper -- a rather laborious process -- any reason for putting less ink on the page was a good one.You might hear yourself saying " they 're " , " it 's " , and " we 're " when you are saying " they are " , " it is " , and " we are " ; but spoken language ! = written language.We are well beyond the need to save ink .
When you write , just write " they are " , " it is " , and " we are " and save the apostrophes for things like " it is Bill 's cat .
" Especially if you ca n't ever seem to get it right.Yes , it 's off topic .
No , it 's not a flame .
Just a non sequitur response prompted by his sig .
Mod me down if you must .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's = "it is"; its = possessive.
E.g., it's flapping its wings.I can appreciate that when we wrote with feather quills, bottles of ink, and blotting paper -- a rather laborious process -- any reason for putting less ink on the page was a good one.You might hear yourself saying "they're", "it's", and "we're" when you are saying "they are","it is", and "we are"; but spoken language != written language.We are well beyond the need to save ink.
When you write, just write "they are", "it is", and "we are" and save the apostrophes for things like "it is Bill's cat.
" Especially if you can't ever seem to get it right.Yes, it's off topic.
No, it's not a flame.
Just a non sequitur response prompted by his sig.
Mod me down if you must.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200222</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1266599580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think the real question should be, how much should a paid subscription cost?</i></p><p>Excellent phrasing of the issue.  Unfortunately, the most elegant phrasing of the answer is something that the many armchair economists here rarely mention:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>Whatever the market will bear.</b></p><p>I say "unfortunately" partly because this answer, while accurate, contains no clue about how you determine the price.  The answer to that is "trial and error" (or "market research" if you prefer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).  If you just ask people, you'll get as many answers as people asked, and few will have any relation to the actual number.  Nobody knows what the correct market price is for news now.  The old price included printing and distribution costs, and those have essentially disappeared.</p><p>The NYT and other such publishers will just have to experiment with prices, and see where the price point is that maximizes income.  And there are difficulties doing this.  If you highball the price, lots of people will never respond, and you'll never know that they would have become subscribers at a slightly lower price.  OTOH, if you lowball the starting price, you run across the opposite problem of people being offended by frequent price increases for something that they would have paid more for if that had been the starting price.</p><p>In any case, as others have pointed out, it's a fact of life for the "news" industry that the raw news is and probably will remain free now.  Profit is to be made by supplying organization, explanation, analysis, and commentary on the news.  The days are probably over when you can make a profit for just supplying the raw text from the commercial suppliers.  People can get that from news.google.com, among others, and you aren't likely to do a better job.</p><p>My wife has subscribed to nytimes.com for a while.  She recently dropped salon.com, and it'll be interesting to see the price point where she (and others) drop their nytimes.com subscriptions.  And whether such companies can get her and others back afterwards.</p><p>(As a computer geek and internet programmer from before the Internet existed, I've never subscribed to any MSM news sources.  I do subscribe to a few tech/scientific news sources which were once paper but are now electronic.  Like many people of my ilk, I have some of my own software for selecting from the online news sources.  And I also look around for useful aggregators, such as the one we're reading here.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real question should be , how much should a paid subscription cost ? Excellent phrasing of the issue .
Unfortunately , the most elegant phrasing of the answer is something that the many armchair economists here rarely mention :       Whatever the market will bear.I say " unfortunately " partly because this answer , while accurate , contains no clue about how you determine the price .
The answer to that is " trial and error " ( or " market research " if you prefer ; - ) .
If you just ask people , you 'll get as many answers as people asked , and few will have any relation to the actual number .
Nobody knows what the correct market price is for news now .
The old price included printing and distribution costs , and those have essentially disappeared.The NYT and other such publishers will just have to experiment with prices , and see where the price point is that maximizes income .
And there are difficulties doing this .
If you highball the price , lots of people will never respond , and you 'll never know that they would have become subscribers at a slightly lower price .
OTOH , if you lowball the starting price , you run across the opposite problem of people being offended by frequent price increases for something that they would have paid more for if that had been the starting price.In any case , as others have pointed out , it 's a fact of life for the " news " industry that the raw news is and probably will remain free now .
Profit is to be made by supplying organization , explanation , analysis , and commentary on the news .
The days are probably over when you can make a profit for just supplying the raw text from the commercial suppliers .
People can get that from news.google.com , among others , and you are n't likely to do a better job.My wife has subscribed to nytimes.com for a while .
She recently dropped salon.com , and it 'll be interesting to see the price point where she ( and others ) drop their nytimes.com subscriptions .
And whether such companies can get her and others back afterwards .
( As a computer geek and internet programmer from before the Internet existed , I 've never subscribed to any MSM news sources .
I do subscribe to a few tech/scientific news sources which were once paper but are now electronic .
Like many people of my ilk , I have some of my own software for selecting from the online news sources .
And I also look around for useful aggregators , such as the one we 're reading here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real question should be, how much should a paid subscription cost?Excellent phrasing of the issue.
Unfortunately, the most elegant phrasing of the answer is something that the many armchair economists here rarely mention:
      Whatever the market will bear.I say "unfortunately" partly because this answer, while accurate, contains no clue about how you determine the price.
The answer to that is "trial and error" (or "market research" if you prefer ;-).
If you just ask people, you'll get as many answers as people asked, and few will have any relation to the actual number.
Nobody knows what the correct market price is for news now.
The old price included printing and distribution costs, and those have essentially disappeared.The NYT and other such publishers will just have to experiment with prices, and see where the price point is that maximizes income.
And there are difficulties doing this.
If you highball the price, lots of people will never respond, and you'll never know that they would have become subscribers at a slightly lower price.
OTOH, if you lowball the starting price, you run across the opposite problem of people being offended by frequent price increases for something that they would have paid more for if that had been the starting price.In any case, as others have pointed out, it's a fact of life for the "news" industry that the raw news is and probably will remain free now.
Profit is to be made by supplying organization, explanation, analysis, and commentary on the news.
The days are probably over when you can make a profit for just supplying the raw text from the commercial suppliers.
People can get that from news.google.com, among others, and you aren't likely to do a better job.My wife has subscribed to nytimes.com for a while.
She recently dropped salon.com, and it'll be interesting to see the price point where she (and others) drop their nytimes.com subscriptions.
And whether such companies can get her and others back afterwards.
(As a computer geek and internet programmer from before the Internet existed, I've never subscribed to any MSM news sources.
I do subscribe to a few tech/scientific news sources which were once paper but are now electronic.
Like many people of my ilk, I have some of my own software for selecting from the online news sources.
And I also look around for useful aggregators, such as the one we're reading here.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198888</id>
	<title>offer a spread and see which one sells</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1266593400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have a range of offerings from a budget version to a gold-plated one. Set them at different prices (duh!) and see which is / are the most popular. Hardly rocket science. I don't see why they're so hung up on talking about *the* price for *the* publication.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a range of offerings from a budget version to a gold-plated one .
Set them at different prices ( duh !
) and see which is / are the most popular .
Hardly rocket science .
I do n't see why they 're so hung up on talking about * the * price for * the * publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a range of offerings from a budget version to a gold-plated one.
Set them at different prices (duh!
) and see which is / are the most popular.
Hardly rocket science.
I don't see why they're so hung up on talking about *the* price for *the* publication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198146</id>
	<title>Different Prices?</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1266588300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would different digital versions cost different amounts of money?<br>
What they should do is just charge $X for the stories, giving them all digital formats (as digital is relatively free to distribute). and then charge a little extra if they also want it in print, as that actually costs them money to print.<br> <br>
This way it looks like if you want NYT available to you in all formats you would need to fork over ($10-$30)+Free+$14.95+(whatever they charge for paper)= [lots of money]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would different digital versions cost different amounts of money ?
What they should do is just charge $ X for the stories , giving them all digital formats ( as digital is relatively free to distribute ) .
and then charge a little extra if they also want it in print , as that actually costs them money to print .
This way it looks like if you want NYT available to you in all formats you would need to fork over ( $ 10- $ 30 ) + Free + $ 14.95 + ( whatever they charge for paper ) = [ lots of money ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would different digital versions cost different amounts of money?
What they should do is just charge $X for the stories, giving them all digital formats (as digital is relatively free to distribute).
and then charge a little extra if they also want it in print, as that actually costs them money to print.
This way it looks like if you want NYT available to you in all formats you would need to fork over ($10-$30)+Free+$14.95+(whatever they charge for paper)= [lots of money]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182</id>
	<title>Business model fundamentally broken</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1266588600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear reader, consider </p><ol> <li>The newspapers business model is based on information scarcity, which is increasingly difficult to enforce today; yet</li><li>Newspapers are great to have because they offer better-researched, more compressive, and less biased news and commentary than random blogs. Compare the Huffington Post to the Washington Post.</li></ol><p>The New York Times has chosen to cling to the conventional business model as long as possible. But there is a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html" title="nytimes.com">better way</a> [nytimes.com]: recognize that newspapers are something special, and have worth in society as more than just another business. Endow them and let them self-finance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear reader , consider The newspapers business model is based on information scarcity , which is increasingly difficult to enforce today ; yetNewspapers are great to have because they offer better-researched , more compressive , and less biased news and commentary than random blogs .
Compare the Huffington Post to the Washington Post.The New York Times has chosen to cling to the conventional business model as long as possible .
But there is a better way [ nytimes.com ] : recognize that newspapers are something special , and have worth in society as more than just another business .
Endow them and let them self-finance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear reader, consider  The newspapers business model is based on information scarcity, which is increasingly difficult to enforce today; yetNewspapers are great to have because they offer better-researched, more compressive, and less biased news and commentary than random blogs.
Compare the Huffington Post to the Washington Post.The New York Times has chosen to cling to the conventional business model as long as possible.
But there is a better way [nytimes.com]: recognize that newspapers are something special, and have worth in society as more than just another business.
Endow them and let them self-finance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198936</id>
	<title>Re:Business model fundamentally broken</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1266593640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Endowment with public funds? No way for me. The NYT might not be able to cope without public funds, but I can cope without the NYT.<br> <br>

Aside from squandering money on yet another useless cause, let us keep in mind that public endowments would allow government greater control over news sources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Endowment with public funds ?
No way for me .
The NYT might not be able to cope without public funds , but I can cope without the NYT .
Aside from squandering money on yet another useless cause , let us keep in mind that public endowments would allow government greater control over news sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Endowment with public funds?
No way for me.
The NYT might not be able to cope without public funds, but I can cope without the NYT.
Aside from squandering money on yet another useless cause, let us keep in mind that public endowments would allow government greater control over news sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198684</id>
	<title>Re:Business model fundamentally broken</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1266592260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Compare the Huffington Post to the Washington Post.</p></div></blockquote><p>One's a source of slanted news and shallow analysis which toes the Democratic Party line, and the other's a blog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare the Huffington Post to the Washington Post.One 's a source of slanted news and shallow analysis which toes the Democratic Party line , and the other 's a blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare the Huffington Post to the Washington Post.One's a source of slanted news and shallow analysis which toes the Democratic Party line, and the other's a blog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199476</id>
	<title>victorf</title>
	<author>victorf</author>
	<datestamp>1266596160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Beyond News, newspapers are delivery vehicles for advertisements. When you subscribe to any newspaper you are merely granting permission for the paper to send you their paid advertisements and possibly some new items. All newspapers should be free and the operating cost paid by the advertisers. Will the newspapers delivered to your Kindle be ad-free? Perhaps this sort of content should be treated in the same manner as your RSS feeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beyond News , newspapers are delivery vehicles for advertisements .
When you subscribe to any newspaper you are merely granting permission for the paper to send you their paid advertisements and possibly some new items .
All newspapers should be free and the operating cost paid by the advertisers .
Will the newspapers delivered to your Kindle be ad-free ?
Perhaps this sort of content should be treated in the same manner as your RSS feeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beyond News, newspapers are delivery vehicles for advertisements.
When you subscribe to any newspaper you are merely granting permission for the paper to send you their paid advertisements and possibly some new items.
All newspapers should be free and the operating cost paid by the advertisers.
Will the newspapers delivered to your Kindle be ad-free?
Perhaps this sort of content should be treated in the same manner as your RSS feeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198080</id>
	<title>$10 for crap, or $20-$30 for crap? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it really matter? The price doesn't change the fact that the NYT's journalism is basically shit most of the time, even though they are one of the most "respect" papers in the US.</p><p>Their coverage of the run-up to the Iraqi War was abysmal, for instance. It was pretty clear then that they should have done their journalistic duty and printed much more about how those pushing for war were just plain wrong. And now we know that they basically just repeated the lies and bullshit spewed by various Republican and Democrat politicians during that time period.</p><p>It's not a "Democrats vs. Republicans" or "left vs. right" situation, either. They should be tearing Obama and the Democrats several new assholes for their handling of Wall Street, Afghanistan and other issues. But for whatever reason, they don't, or if they try to it's quite feebly done.</p><p>The NYT, were it actually concerned with journalism, would themselves be ripping into Wall Street and corporate America. But then again, I suppose they can't, because they seem more concerned with advertising revenue over realistic and quality reporting.</p><p>Regardless of what they charge, I'm not going to pay any money for their content when they don't ask the hard-hitting questions of politicians and corporations, and do the real investigative journalism that's worthy of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really matter ?
The price does n't change the fact that the NYT 's journalism is basically shit most of the time , even though they are one of the most " respect " papers in the US.Their coverage of the run-up to the Iraqi War was abysmal , for instance .
It was pretty clear then that they should have done their journalistic duty and printed much more about how those pushing for war were just plain wrong .
And now we know that they basically just repeated the lies and bullshit spewed by various Republican and Democrat politicians during that time period.It 's not a " Democrats vs. Republicans " or " left vs. right " situation , either .
They should be tearing Obama and the Democrats several new assholes for their handling of Wall Street , Afghanistan and other issues .
But for whatever reason , they do n't , or if they try to it 's quite feebly done.The NYT , were it actually concerned with journalism , would themselves be ripping into Wall Street and corporate America .
But then again , I suppose they ca n't , because they seem more concerned with advertising revenue over realistic and quality reporting.Regardless of what they charge , I 'm not going to pay any money for their content when they do n't ask the hard-hitting questions of politicians and corporations , and do the real investigative journalism that 's worthy of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really matter?
The price doesn't change the fact that the NYT's journalism is basically shit most of the time, even though they are one of the most "respect" papers in the US.Their coverage of the run-up to the Iraqi War was abysmal, for instance.
It was pretty clear then that they should have done their journalistic duty and printed much more about how those pushing for war were just plain wrong.
And now we know that they basically just repeated the lies and bullshit spewed by various Republican and Democrat politicians during that time period.It's not a "Democrats vs. Republicans" or "left vs. right" situation, either.
They should be tearing Obama and the Democrats several new assholes for their handling of Wall Street, Afghanistan and other issues.
But for whatever reason, they don't, or if they try to it's quite feebly done.The NYT, were it actually concerned with journalism, would themselves be ripping into Wall Street and corporate America.
But then again, I suppose they can't, because they seem more concerned with advertising revenue over realistic and quality reporting.Regardless of what they charge, I'm not going to pay any money for their content when they don't ask the hard-hitting questions of politicians and corporations, and do the real investigative journalism that's worthy of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199444</id>
	<title>A billion dollars!</title>
	<author>Col. Klink (retired)</author>
	<datestamp>1266595980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just charge a billion dollars?  That way, they'd only need to sell one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just charge a billion dollars ?
That way , they 'd only need to sell one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just charge a billion dollars?
That way, they'd only need to sell one...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199038</id>
	<title>Re:Business model fundamentally broken</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1266594000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only that were true - I don't know what the situation is in the US, but over here most of the newspapers switched from investigative journalism to barely informed gossip a couple of decades ago (facts are expensive, gossip is cheap, if you want to cut your costs you just boost the noise to signal ration some more). For them to now argue that they're better than blogs because of the high quality of their journalism is laughable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only that were true - I do n't know what the situation is in the US , but over here most of the newspapers switched from investigative journalism to barely informed gossip a couple of decades ago ( facts are expensive , gossip is cheap , if you want to cut your costs you just boost the noise to signal ration some more ) .
For them to now argue that they 're better than blogs because of the high quality of their journalism is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only that were true - I don't know what the situation is in the US, but over here most of the newspapers switched from investigative journalism to barely informed gossip a couple of decades ago (facts are expensive, gossip is cheap, if you want to cut your costs you just boost the noise to signal ration some more).
For them to now argue that they're better than blogs because of the high quality of their journalism is laughable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198178</id>
	<title>Walled gardens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266588540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't anybody remember Compuserve? AOL? Do we have to wait for the Asians to free us from the walled gardens this time? I will not buy a "digital reader" until it is nothing but a computer under my control, with access to all media <b>I</b> choose to load on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't anybody remember Compuserve ?
AOL ? Do we have to wait for the Asians to free us from the walled gardens this time ?
I will not buy a " digital reader " until it is nothing but a computer under my control , with access to all media I choose to load on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't anybody remember Compuserve?
AOL? Do we have to wait for the Asians to free us from the walled gardens this time?
I will not buy a "digital reader" until it is nothing but a computer under my control, with access to all media I choose to load on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201312</id>
	<title>Re:$10 for crap, or $20-$30 for crap? Does it matt</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1266604260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The value of the NYT and other large newspapers isn't and shouldn't be just spitting out the latest breaking news. It should be about finding facts and figures, making meaningful comparisons and correlations that us normal people wouldn't be able to find.</p><p>For example, it'd be great if they provided insight into the number of recent robberies in a particular neighborhood when reporting a robbery. Or the amount of time service delays cost subway passengers per month in an article about subway service cuts and changes.</p><p>They don't even have to generate this data. They just need to be able to aggregate it, filter the meaningful from the irrelevant, and present it in the story. The reader comes to his or her own conclusions about society based on the presented information.</p><p>The purpose of the newspaper is to report facts. Social commentary belongs to a section called Opinions, and for a very good reason. If you wanted social commentary, go read a blog or a tabloid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The value of the NYT and other large newspapers is n't and should n't be just spitting out the latest breaking news .
It should be about finding facts and figures , making meaningful comparisons and correlations that us normal people would n't be able to find.For example , it 'd be great if they provided insight into the number of recent robberies in a particular neighborhood when reporting a robbery .
Or the amount of time service delays cost subway passengers per month in an article about subway service cuts and changes.They do n't even have to generate this data .
They just need to be able to aggregate it , filter the meaningful from the irrelevant , and present it in the story .
The reader comes to his or her own conclusions about society based on the presented information.The purpose of the newspaper is to report facts .
Social commentary belongs to a section called Opinions , and for a very good reason .
If you wanted social commentary , go read a blog or a tabloid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value of the NYT and other large newspapers isn't and shouldn't be just spitting out the latest breaking news.
It should be about finding facts and figures, making meaningful comparisons and correlations that us normal people wouldn't be able to find.For example, it'd be great if they provided insight into the number of recent robberies in a particular neighborhood when reporting a robbery.
Or the amount of time service delays cost subway passengers per month in an article about subway service cuts and changes.They don't even have to generate this data.
They just need to be able to aggregate it, filter the meaningful from the irrelevant, and present it in the story.
The reader comes to his or her own conclusions about society based on the presented information.The purpose of the newspaper is to report facts.
Social commentary belongs to a section called Opinions, and for a very good reason.
If you wanted social commentary, go read a blog or a tabloid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198864</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1266593220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, none of your examples explain what to do in the case of the possessive "its", and since the point of the sig is to help people understand the different between "its" and "it's", that would seem to be a noteworthy omission. Instead of saying, "look at its flameworthy post", I guess you would have us say "look at the flameworthy post of it"? That doesn't (sorry, does not) exactly flow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , none of your examples explain what to do in the case of the possessive " its " , and since the point of the sig is to help people understand the different between " its " and " it 's " , that would seem to be a noteworthy omission .
Instead of saying , " look at its flameworthy post " , I guess you would have us say " look at the flameworthy post of it " ?
That does n't ( sorry , does not ) exactly flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, none of your examples explain what to do in the case of the possessive "its", and since the point of the sig is to help people understand the different between "its" and "it's", that would seem to be a noteworthy omission.
Instead of saying, "look at its flameworthy post", I guess you would have us say "look at the flameworthy post of it"?
That doesn't (sorry, does not) exactly flow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200478</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1266600540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unlike the WSJ, which is truly a national/international content provider, the NY Times has a regional quality to it that reflects its liberal, middle-to-upper class urban New York readership.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Ha ha!  Your post is mostly sensible, but if you don't think the WSJ is pandering to its readership (particularly its editorial page), then I beg to differ.
</p><p>
However I agree the WSJ is in a relatively strong position to charge for its contents, because the argument can be made it is an investment that will pay off, and its readership can afford it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike the WSJ , which is truly a national/international content provider , the NY Times has a regional quality to it that reflects its liberal , middle-to-upper class urban New York readership .
Ha ha !
Your post is mostly sensible , but if you do n't think the WSJ is pandering to its readership ( particularly its editorial page ) , then I beg to differ .
However I agree the WSJ is in a relatively strong position to charge for its contents , because the argument can be made it is an investment that will pay off , and its readership can afford it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike the WSJ, which is truly a national/international content provider, the NY Times has a regional quality to it that reflects its liberal, middle-to-upper class urban New York readership.
Ha ha!
Your post is mostly sensible, but if you don't think the WSJ is pandering to its readership (particularly its editorial page), then I beg to differ.
However I agree the WSJ is in a relatively strong position to charge for its contents, because the argument can be made it is an investment that will pay off, and its readership can afford it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199600</id>
	<title>That much per month??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they nuts? I honestly doubt whether I'll renew my local paper (The Denver Post) next year. I'm paying about $35/year for a Thursday-Sunday subscription, and even that seems like too much. The news is outdated and I've read it all online by the time the paper is delivered. The only thing I'm really still getting it for is local advertisements and coupons. The NY Times has none of those things, and I can read the same AP/Reuters articles anywhere. I could care less about their editorials and investigative stuff. If it is really important, it will show up all over the web in short order.</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they nuts ?
I honestly doubt whether I 'll renew my local paper ( The Denver Post ) next year .
I 'm paying about $ 35/year for a Thursday-Sunday subscription , and even that seems like too much .
The news is outdated and I 've read it all online by the time the paper is delivered .
The only thing I 'm really still getting it for is local advertisements and coupons .
The NY Times has none of those things , and I can read the same AP/Reuters articles anywhere .
I could care less about their editorials and investigative stuff .
If it is really important , it will show up all over the web in short order.Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they nuts?
I honestly doubt whether I'll renew my local paper (The Denver Post) next year.
I'm paying about $35/year for a Thursday-Sunday subscription, and even that seems like too much.
The news is outdated and I've read it all online by the time the paper is delivered.
The only thing I'm really still getting it for is local advertisements and coupons.
The NY Times has none of those things, and I can read the same AP/Reuters articles anywhere.
I could care less about their editorials and investigative stuff.
If it is really important, it will show up all over the web in short order.Necron69</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199344</id>
	<title>Re:Watch that price, NYT</title>
	<author>dcw3</author>
	<datestamp>1266595440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the real question should be, how much should a paid subscription cost?</p></div><p>...not necessarily directed at the NYTimes<br>Until they start publishing unopinionated news, I'd suggest free.  I can get all the talking heads, left and right, on the Sunday morning shows for that price now.</p><p>rant...<br>I'm tired of the constant bias, and the bullshit entertainment "news".  Seriously, if I wanted to see that, I'd tune into the entertainment channel...sorry, I don't give a shit about Tiger Woods flings, or any such nonsense.  Give us the real news, and put it into the proper perspective instead of hyping everything.  Haven't heard much about bird flu (263 deaths), SARS (774 deaths), or swine flu (14,286 deaths) lately, have we?  They all got the big scary "pandemic" word attached to them.  Now, I don't want to marginalize anyone's lost relatives here, only put it in perspective.  According to wikipedia, 1,200,000 people died in car accidents in 2004...nearly 84 times the fatalities resulting from the worst "pandemic".  Hell, we lose over 500,000 to cancer every year in the U.S.  Should people go get their shots?...certainly, but let's not cause a god damn panic.  The systemic problem with the media these days, is that they're all more concerned with their advertising revenue than they are with doing their jobs.<br>Off my soapbox</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real question should be , how much should a paid subscription cost ? ...not necessarily directed at the NYTimesUntil they start publishing unopinionated news , I 'd suggest free .
I can get all the talking heads , left and right , on the Sunday morning shows for that price now.rant...I 'm tired of the constant bias , and the bullshit entertainment " news " .
Seriously , if I wanted to see that , I 'd tune into the entertainment channel...sorry , I do n't give a shit about Tiger Woods flings , or any such nonsense .
Give us the real news , and put it into the proper perspective instead of hyping everything .
Have n't heard much about bird flu ( 263 deaths ) , SARS ( 774 deaths ) , or swine flu ( 14,286 deaths ) lately , have we ?
They all got the big scary " pandemic " word attached to them .
Now , I do n't want to marginalize anyone 's lost relatives here , only put it in perspective .
According to wikipedia , 1,200,000 people died in car accidents in 2004...nearly 84 times the fatalities resulting from the worst " pandemic " .
Hell , we lose over 500,000 to cancer every year in the U.S. Should people go get their shots ? ...certainly , but let 's not cause a god damn panic .
The systemic problem with the media these days , is that they 're all more concerned with their advertising revenue than they are with doing their jobs.Off my soapbox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real question should be, how much should a paid subscription cost?...not necessarily directed at the NYTimesUntil they start publishing unopinionated news, I'd suggest free.
I can get all the talking heads, left and right, on the Sunday morning shows for that price now.rant...I'm tired of the constant bias, and the bullshit entertainment "news".
Seriously, if I wanted to see that, I'd tune into the entertainment channel...sorry, I don't give a shit about Tiger Woods flings, or any such nonsense.
Give us the real news, and put it into the proper perspective instead of hyping everything.
Haven't heard much about bird flu (263 deaths), SARS (774 deaths), or swine flu (14,286 deaths) lately, have we?
They all got the big scary "pandemic" word attached to them.
Now, I don't want to marginalize anyone's lost relatives here, only put it in perspective.
According to wikipedia, 1,200,000 people died in car accidents in 2004...nearly 84 times the fatalities resulting from the worst "pandemic".
Hell, we lose over 500,000 to cancer every year in the U.S.  Should people go get their shots?...certainly, but let's not cause a god damn panic.
The systemic problem with the media these days, is that they're all more concerned with their advertising revenue than they are with doing their jobs.Off my soapbox
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198854</id>
	<title>If you have to pay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have to pay for news, how good can it possibly be?  The very act of the news agency profiting means they are driven to give you the news you want to hear in an effort to gain more subscriptions.</p><p>I'd much prefer to read news from free sources who are reporting with no vested interest in the story one way or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to pay for news , how good can it possibly be ?
The very act of the news agency profiting means they are driven to give you the news you want to hear in an effort to gain more subscriptions.I 'd much prefer to read news from free sources who are reporting with no vested interest in the story one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to pay for news, how good can it possibly be?
The very act of the news agency profiting means they are driven to give you the news you want to hear in an effort to gain more subscriptions.I'd much prefer to read news from free sources who are reporting with no vested interest in the story one way or the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202640</id>
	<title>I dont understand</title>
	<author>Ozric</author>
	<datestamp>1266611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The consumer and the market will control the price.  They are fee to ask whatever they want, let them see what the market will bare or they price themselves out of the market.</p><p>Am I missing something here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The consumer and the market will control the price .
They are fee to ask whatever they want , let them see what the market will bare or they price themselves out of the market.Am I missing something here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The consumer and the market will control the price.
They are fee to ask whatever they want, let them see what the market will bare or they price themselves out of the market.Am I missing something here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31265708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0516248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31265708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31202162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31200048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31201312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0516248.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31198348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0516248.31199356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
