<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_1346227</id>
	<title>Google To Restart Talks With China</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266935460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Following the infamous attacks allegedly carried out by the Chinese government, Google sent a strongly worded message to China.  However, despite the show of plumage, Google.cn continues to operate filtered.  While both parties are silent about any resolution, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g0joFNVB1ffyuSp3IZhzcw58ELng">Google and China have planned to restart talks and negotiations</a> over Google operating unfiltered in China.  (If you have a subscription, you can read about <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703494404575082131203236318.html">the story from its original source</a>, the Wall Street Journal.)  The print edition of the WSJ names Google policy executive Ross LaJeunesse as their representative meeting with Chinese officials. Meanwhile, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61M2FM20100223">officially rejected the claim</a> that the attacks were sanctioned by the Chinese government. He said, 'Google's statement from January 12 is groundless, and we are firmly opposed to it. China administers its internet according to law, and this position will not change. China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to law.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Following the infamous attacks allegedly carried out by the Chinese government , Google sent a strongly worded message to China .
However , despite the show of plumage , Google.cn continues to operate filtered .
While both parties are silent about any resolution , Google and China have planned to restart talks and negotiations over Google operating unfiltered in China .
( If you have a subscription , you can read about the story from its original source , the Wall Street Journal .
) The print edition of the WSJ names Google policy executive Ross LaJeunesse as their representative meeting with Chinese officials .
Meanwhile , China 's Foreign Ministry spokesman , Qin Gang , has officially rejected the claim that the attacks were sanctioned by the Chinese government .
He said , 'Google 's statement from January 12 is groundless , and we are firmly opposed to it .
China administers its internet according to law , and this position will not change .
China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to law .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Following the infamous attacks allegedly carried out by the Chinese government, Google sent a strongly worded message to China.
However, despite the show of plumage, Google.cn continues to operate filtered.
While both parties are silent about any resolution, Google and China have planned to restart talks and negotiations over Google operating unfiltered in China.
(If you have a subscription, you can read about the story from its original source, the Wall Street Journal.
)  The print edition of the WSJ names Google policy executive Ross LaJeunesse as their representative meeting with Chinese officials.
Meanwhile, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, has officially rejected the claim that the attacks were sanctioned by the Chinese government.
He said, 'Google's statement from January 12 is groundless, and we are firmly opposed to it.
China administers its internet according to law, and this position will not change.
China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to law.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246092</id>
	<title>Re:Show some backbone</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1266948000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Indeed, should our governments "show a little spine"? Get into the real world.</p></div><p>They won't just like the Chinese government <em>couldn't</em> do anything when the US bombed their embassy in Kosov and blamined on "bad maps". Why? Here are some reasons:
</p><ul>
<li>No spy agency is going to reveal what they have done.</li>
<li>Everyone of them is doing the same to others; and they will continue to do so -- online or traditional</li>
<li>There are many other people, from the bored ones to the professionals, do the same hackings. The more noises out there, the better for the governments.</li>
<li>If they have any real evidence against others, they wouldn't reveal it, because it then revealed their own spying sources</li>
<li>governments are politically smart unlike average Joe's such as yourself; they understand the consequence of pushing too hard.</li>
</ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , should our governments " show a little spine " ?
Get into the real world.They wo n't just like the Chinese government could n't do anything when the US bombed their embassy in Kosov and blamined on " bad maps " .
Why ? Here are some reasons : No spy agency is going to reveal what they have done .
Everyone of them is doing the same to others ; and they will continue to do so -- online or traditional There are many other people , from the bored ones to the professionals , do the same hackings .
The more noises out there , the better for the governments .
If they have any real evidence against others , they would n't reveal it , because it then revealed their own spying sources governments are politically smart unlike average Joe 's such as yourself ; they understand the consequence of pushing too hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, should our governments "show a little spine"?
Get into the real world.They won't just like the Chinese government couldn't do anything when the US bombed their embassy in Kosov and blamined on "bad maps".
Why? Here are some reasons:

No spy agency is going to reveal what they have done.
Everyone of them is doing the same to others; and they will continue to do so -- online or traditional
There are many other people, from the bored ones to the professionals, do the same hackings.
The more noises out there, the better for the governments.
If they have any real evidence against others, they wouldn't reveal it, because it then revealed their own spying sources
governments are politically smart unlike average Joe's such as yourself; they understand the consequence of pushing too hard.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244284</id>
	<title>of course...</title>
	<author>kaaposc</author>
	<datestamp>1266939480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it is a lot better to get a lunch after hunger strike than to die of starvation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it is a lot better to get a lunch after hunger strike than to die of starvation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it is a lot better to get a lunch after hunger strike than to die of starvation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244260</id>
	<title>Pussies.</title>
	<author>the\_macman</author>
	<datestamp>1266939360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just couldn't do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just could n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just couldn't do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31247090</id>
	<title>China bubble / spindly-legged kid ready to fall</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure.  My company has recently moved all its tech manufacturing out of China due to quality control issues, general intellectual property lawlessness, and shipping costs/time.  With automation a lot of manufacturing can now be done locally in the US, and in any case for US companies it often makes more sense to manufacture in Mexico due to NAFTA and improving infrastructure there.  Half our company already speaks Spanish.</p><p>There are a lot of other newer and better alternatives in Asia, as well, like Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia.  Thailand, in particular, looks very promising.  Costs relative to China are at parity or better, the weather is nicer (if you can avoid Tsunamis), and the people are famous for their hospitality and generosity.</p><p>I think manufacturing / export has driven a bubble in China, which is now like a big strong kid whose upper body (growing economic infrastructure, global presence) has grown too fast for his little spindly legs (diversity of economic base).  One good pop to the chin like a more drastic shift in manufacturing elsewhere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure .
My company has recently moved all its tech manufacturing out of China due to quality control issues , general intellectual property lawlessness , and shipping costs/time .
With automation a lot of manufacturing can now be done locally in the US , and in any case for US companies it often makes more sense to manufacture in Mexico due to NAFTA and improving infrastructure there .
Half our company already speaks Spanish.There are a lot of other newer and better alternatives in Asia , as well , like Taiwan , Thailand , Indonesia .
Thailand , in particular , looks very promising .
Costs relative to China are at parity or better , the weather is nicer ( if you can avoid Tsunamis ) , and the people are famous for their hospitality and generosity.I think manufacturing / export has driven a bubble in China , which is now like a big strong kid whose upper body ( growing economic infrastructure , global presence ) has grown too fast for his little spindly legs ( diversity of economic base ) .
One good pop to the chin like a more drastic shift in manufacturing elsewhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure.
My company has recently moved all its tech manufacturing out of China due to quality control issues, general intellectual property lawlessness, and shipping costs/time.
With automation a lot of manufacturing can now be done locally in the US, and in any case for US companies it often makes more sense to manufacture in Mexico due to NAFTA and improving infrastructure there.
Half our company already speaks Spanish.There are a lot of other newer and better alternatives in Asia, as well, like Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia.
Thailand, in particular, looks very promising.
Costs relative to China are at parity or better, the weather is nicer (if you can avoid Tsunamis), and the people are famous for their hospitality and generosity.I think manufacturing / export has driven a bubble in China, which is now like a big strong kid whose upper body (growing economic infrastructure, global presence) has grown too fast for his little spindly legs (diversity of economic base).
One good pop to the chin like a more drastic shift in manufacturing elsewhere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244452</id>
	<title>why should China bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266940320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China doesn't need google.  Why should they bother?  They have Baidu and it's in their best interest for this market in China to be owned by a Chinese company.</p><p>I'm just not seeing how Google has any kind of negotiating position here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China does n't need google .
Why should they bother ?
They have Baidu and it 's in their best interest for this market in China to be owned by a Chinese company.I 'm just not seeing how Google has any kind of negotiating position here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China doesn't need google.
Why should they bother?
They have Baidu and it's in their best interest for this market in China to be owned by a Chinese company.I'm just not seeing how Google has any kind of negotiating position here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244764</id>
	<title>Re:Ask yourself, do you want to support China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266942060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the path that the US has taken lately, I don't see that much of a difference between the US and China. To me, the biggest difference is that I don't understand Chinese. The US tortures, overthrows other countries' governments, has capital punishment, is the number one polluter in sum and per capita, has the most expensive and biggest military and has a failing political system with two almost indistinguishable parties which mostly serve corporate interests. If you are in the US, you want the US to come out ahead. That's only natural. To anyone outside, it is not nearly as clear-cut. Get your act together, maybe the world can get behind you again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the path that the US has taken lately , I do n't see that much of a difference between the US and China .
To me , the biggest difference is that I do n't understand Chinese .
The US tortures , overthrows other countries ' governments , has capital punishment , is the number one polluter in sum and per capita , has the most expensive and biggest military and has a failing political system with two almost indistinguishable parties which mostly serve corporate interests .
If you are in the US , you want the US to come out ahead .
That 's only natural .
To anyone outside , it is not nearly as clear-cut .
Get your act together , maybe the world can get behind you again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the path that the US has taken lately, I don't see that much of a difference between the US and China.
To me, the biggest difference is that I don't understand Chinese.
The US tortures, overthrows other countries' governments, has capital punishment, is the number one polluter in sum and per capita, has the most expensive and biggest military and has a failing political system with two almost indistinguishable parties which mostly serve corporate interests.
If you are in the US, you want the US to come out ahead.
That's only natural.
To anyone outside, it is not nearly as clear-cut.
Get your act together, maybe the world can get behind you again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244352</id>
	<title>Re:"Talks and Negotiations"?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1266939840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is Google a country? Did I miss something?</p></div><p>Two entities discussing don't have to be of the same type. US can buy GM, MS can be sued by EU, etc...<br> <br>
The law Google was breaking was the law repressing some kind of political content on internet. Bad law, but law nonetheless</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google a country ?
Did I miss something ? Two entities discussing do n't have to be of the same type .
US can buy GM , MS can be sued by EU , etc.. . The law Google was breaking was the law repressing some kind of political content on internet .
Bad law , but law nonetheless</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google a country?
Did I miss something?Two entities discussing don't have to be of the same type.
US can buy GM, MS can be sued by EU, etc... 
The law Google was breaking was the law repressing some kind of political content on internet.
Bad law, but law nonetheless
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246604</id>
	<title>Google the Good Guy</title>
	<author>DVD9</author>
	<datestamp>1266949920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you ever Googled "google, NSA" (without the quotes)? It is not a pretty sight. I would be shocked at this point to discover that Google was not working hand-in-glove with the CIA, Pentagon and FBI. Same with Microsoft. Surely the CIA, Pentagon and FBI can enter a Windows computer (and OSX) at will through a supplied back door. The only people capable of discovering something like this would also wish to exploit their knowledge, so would never reveal it. Google and Microsoft claim it is against the law to reveal their relationships and activities with the Federal government. That tells you all you need to know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever Googled " google , NSA " ( without the quotes ) ?
It is not a pretty sight .
I would be shocked at this point to discover that Google was not working hand-in-glove with the CIA , Pentagon and FBI .
Same with Microsoft .
Surely the CIA , Pentagon and FBI can enter a Windows computer ( and OSX ) at will through a supplied back door .
The only people capable of discovering something like this would also wish to exploit their knowledge , so would never reveal it .
Google and Microsoft claim it is against the law to reveal their relationships and activities with the Federal government .
That tells you all you need to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever Googled "google, NSA" (without the quotes)?
It is not a pretty sight.
I would be shocked at this point to discover that Google was not working hand-in-glove with the CIA, Pentagon and FBI.
Same with Microsoft.
Surely the CIA, Pentagon and FBI can enter a Windows computer (and OSX) at will through a supplied back door.
The only people capable of discovering something like this would also wish to exploit their knowledge, so would never reveal it.
Google and Microsoft claim it is against the law to reveal their relationships and activities with the Federal government.
That tells you all you need to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31254014</id>
	<title>China's population growth spells trouble</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1266935520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is having too many males and theres no way they'll have enough jobs or resources. It's a disaster waiting to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is having too many males and theres no way they 'll have enough jobs or resources .
It 's a disaster waiting to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is having too many males and theres no way they'll have enough jobs or resources.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244592</id>
	<title>Free Access to WSJ Article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to read the article, and don't have a Wall Street Journal membership, you can simply enter the article name in Google, and Wall Street Journal will let you use Google as a referrer to read the article through the paywall.
<br> <br>
Here's the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Google-China+Talks+to+Resume&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com">link</a> [google.com] to the Google search for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to read the article , and do n't have a Wall Street Journal membership , you can simply enter the article name in Google , and Wall Street Journal will let you use Google as a referrer to read the article through the paywall .
Here 's the link [ google.com ] to the Google search for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to read the article, and don't have a Wall Street Journal membership, you can simply enter the article name in Google, and Wall Street Journal will let you use Google as a referrer to read the article through the paywall.
Here's the link [google.com] to the Google search for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</id>
	<title>Ask yourself, do you want to support China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266940380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, let's face it, China is THE rising power this century.  Thanks to the mistakes of a previous administration, the U.S. will be surpassed sometime in the 2020s (not the 2050s as was previously predicted).  If you're Republican you can pick Clinton, if you're Democrat you can pick Bush.  (On the other hand, if you believe in reality, I think the choice is obvious).</p><p>But I digress.  Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and been blamed for, I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be.  Consider Tibet, North Korea, Ulighars, Global Warming, dissidents, Iran, Africa etc. etc.  Let's face it, China only cares about itself and only about keeping the ruling party in power (and rich).  They may not be actively supporting "evil" in the world but they sure don't go out of their way to fight against it.</p><p>Frankly, there's not too much that'll stop this from happening.  But it's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.  So, please, ask yourself when you have a choice, do you want to support China?  If there is another product that's just a little more expensive from another country, please consider buying it.  If you can get a return on investment that's just a little less than investing in China consider changing your investments (I did a couple of years ago).</p><p>You'll sleep better because of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , let 's face it , China is THE rising power this century .
Thanks to the mistakes of a previous administration , the U.S. will be surpassed sometime in the 2020s ( not the 2050s as was previously predicted ) .
If you 're Republican you can pick Clinton , if you 're Democrat you can pick Bush .
( On the other hand , if you believe in reality , I think the choice is obvious ) .But I digress .
Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and been blamed for , I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be .
Consider Tibet , North Korea , Ulighars , Global Warming , dissidents , Iran , Africa etc .
etc. Let 's face it , China only cares about itself and only about keeping the ruling party in power ( and rich ) .
They may not be actively supporting " evil " in the world but they sure do n't go out of their way to fight against it.Frankly , there 's not too much that 'll stop this from happening .
But it 's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness .
So , please , ask yourself when you have a choice , do you want to support China ?
If there is another product that 's just a little more expensive from another country , please consider buying it .
If you can get a return on investment that 's just a little less than investing in China consider changing your investments ( I did a couple of years ago ) .You 'll sleep better because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, let's face it, China is THE rising power this century.
Thanks to the mistakes of a previous administration, the U.S. will be surpassed sometime in the 2020s (not the 2050s as was previously predicted).
If you're Republican you can pick Clinton, if you're Democrat you can pick Bush.
(On the other hand, if you believe in reality, I think the choice is obvious).But I digress.
Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and been blamed for, I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be.
Consider Tibet, North Korea, Ulighars, Global Warming, dissidents, Iran, Africa etc.
etc.  Let's face it, China only cares about itself and only about keeping the ruling party in power (and rich).
They may not be actively supporting "evil" in the world but they sure don't go out of their way to fight against it.Frankly, there's not too much that'll stop this from happening.
But it's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
So, please, ask yourself when you have a choice, do you want to support China?
If there is another product that's just a little more expensive from another country, please consider buying it.
If you can get a return on investment that's just a little less than investing in China consider changing your investments (I did a couple of years ago).You'll sleep better because of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31249498</id>
	<title>Re:Ask yourself, do you want to support China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266916260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh. Even if you DO blindly project China's peak growth rate onward forever, and blindly project the US's current recession onward forever, China wouldn't catch up to the US in a mere ten years.</p><p>If you retry and tentatively project China's growth forward, with an understanding of what forces are behind its current growth, you'll see that China's growth is going to start leveling off soon. China's growth is still based entirely on copying and being cheap, and it doesn't have the necessary transition levels in place to go from "follower" to "leader". That means that as its economy catches up to the rest of the world, its cheapness advantage evaporates, as does the pool of tech that is older and easy to copy.</p><p>Note the in historical "x-is-going-to-demolish-us" parallel with Japan, Japan caught up in many aspects in the 70s, and the Japan-will-own-us thing peaked more in the late 80s and early 90s? The current China-will-own-us scenario has no equivalent basis in reality. As long as China is following its current track, it won't be able to get more than, say, 60-75\% caught up, because every time it approaches that threshold it'll have lost enough of its cheap labor advantage for business to go elsewhere. The only route out of this would be to transition from cheapness to quality (and then from quality to leading edge tech), but the quality stage has been endlessly delayed because it would raise prices and cancel out the cheapness advantage.</p><p>Another thing China would have to do (but isn't doing) is to increase its own local markets. China's current increase in wealth is nowhere near evenly distributed. It's going to the old elite, who're buying luxury stuff from elsewhere (since China doesn't produce that stuff locally yet). There's a relatively small middle class riding just under the elite, and the bulk of the country (80\%ish? Hard to find exact numbers really) are effectively still peasants, whether of the farming sort or the industrial sort. Factory works only make a high salary in comparison to the breakeven salary of farmers; it's enough to bolster their family financial woes but not enough to pull ahead. Or to reword this differently, their economy looks more like the US's 1900-1920s, maybe earlier since they don't really have the same labor protections yet. They'll need to do a lot more than 10 years worth of catching up. Currently the citizens of China mostly can't afford to buy the exports of China, which means they're not getting the economic positive feedback loop that the older industrialized countries got.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
Even if you DO blindly project China 's peak growth rate onward forever , and blindly project the US 's current recession onward forever , China would n't catch up to the US in a mere ten years.If you retry and tentatively project China 's growth forward , with an understanding of what forces are behind its current growth , you 'll see that China 's growth is going to start leveling off soon .
China 's growth is still based entirely on copying and being cheap , and it does n't have the necessary transition levels in place to go from " follower " to " leader " .
That means that as its economy catches up to the rest of the world , its cheapness advantage evaporates , as does the pool of tech that is older and easy to copy.Note the in historical " x-is-going-to-demolish-us " parallel with Japan , Japan caught up in many aspects in the 70s , and the Japan-will-own-us thing peaked more in the late 80s and early 90s ?
The current China-will-own-us scenario has no equivalent basis in reality .
As long as China is following its current track , it wo n't be able to get more than , say , 60-75 \ % caught up , because every time it approaches that threshold it 'll have lost enough of its cheap labor advantage for business to go elsewhere .
The only route out of this would be to transition from cheapness to quality ( and then from quality to leading edge tech ) , but the quality stage has been endlessly delayed because it would raise prices and cancel out the cheapness advantage.Another thing China would have to do ( but is n't doing ) is to increase its own local markets .
China 's current increase in wealth is nowhere near evenly distributed .
It 's going to the old elite , who 're buying luxury stuff from elsewhere ( since China does n't produce that stuff locally yet ) .
There 's a relatively small middle class riding just under the elite , and the bulk of the country ( 80 \ % ish ?
Hard to find exact numbers really ) are effectively still peasants , whether of the farming sort or the industrial sort .
Factory works only make a high salary in comparison to the breakeven salary of farmers ; it 's enough to bolster their family financial woes but not enough to pull ahead .
Or to reword this differently , their economy looks more like the US 's 1900-1920s , maybe earlier since they do n't really have the same labor protections yet .
They 'll need to do a lot more than 10 years worth of catching up .
Currently the citizens of China mostly ca n't afford to buy the exports of China , which means they 're not getting the economic positive feedback loop that the older industrialized countries got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
Even if you DO blindly project China's peak growth rate onward forever, and blindly project the US's current recession onward forever, China wouldn't catch up to the US in a mere ten years.If you retry and tentatively project China's growth forward, with an understanding of what forces are behind its current growth, you'll see that China's growth is going to start leveling off soon.
China's growth is still based entirely on copying and being cheap, and it doesn't have the necessary transition levels in place to go from "follower" to "leader".
That means that as its economy catches up to the rest of the world, its cheapness advantage evaporates, as does the pool of tech that is older and easy to copy.Note the in historical "x-is-going-to-demolish-us" parallel with Japan, Japan caught up in many aspects in the 70s, and the Japan-will-own-us thing peaked more in the late 80s and early 90s?
The current China-will-own-us scenario has no equivalent basis in reality.
As long as China is following its current track, it won't be able to get more than, say, 60-75\% caught up, because every time it approaches that threshold it'll have lost enough of its cheap labor advantage for business to go elsewhere.
The only route out of this would be to transition from cheapness to quality (and then from quality to leading edge tech), but the quality stage has been endlessly delayed because it would raise prices and cancel out the cheapness advantage.Another thing China would have to do (but isn't doing) is to increase its own local markets.
China's current increase in wealth is nowhere near evenly distributed.
It's going to the old elite, who're buying luxury stuff from elsewhere (since China doesn't produce that stuff locally yet).
There's a relatively small middle class riding just under the elite, and the bulk of the country (80\%ish?
Hard to find exact numbers really) are effectively still peasants, whether of the farming sort or the industrial sort.
Factory works only make a high salary in comparison to the breakeven salary of farmers; it's enough to bolster their family financial woes but not enough to pull ahead.
Or to reword this differently, their economy looks more like the US's 1900-1920s, maybe earlier since they don't really have the same labor protections yet.
They'll need to do a lot more than 10 years worth of catching up.
Currently the citizens of China mostly can't afford to buy the exports of China, which means they're not getting the economic positive feedback loop that the older industrialized countries got.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244596</id>
	<title>Governments Sanction?</title>
	<author>buravirgil</author>
	<datestamp>1266941040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought governments lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought governments lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought governments lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31254532</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1266939000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You mean like how the US government censors war reporters.  Or how the US government doesn't allow the caskets of soldiers to be photographed?It's not just dictatorships that cover their citizens eyes.  In some aspects, you can say that the US government is worse because we are governed "by the people" but the people aren't allowed the vital information needed to make important governmental decisions.  At least, in a dictatorship, you expect this kind of thing.-1 offtopic, -1 flamebait</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like how the US government censors war reporters .
Or how the US government does n't allow the caskets of soldiers to be photographed ? It 's not just dictatorships that cover their citizens eyes .
In some aspects , you can say that the US government is worse because we are governed " by the people " but the people are n't allowed the vital information needed to make important governmental decisions .
At least , in a dictatorship , you expect this kind of thing.-1 offtopic , -1 flamebait</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like how the US government censors war reporters.
Or how the US government doesn't allow the caskets of soldiers to be photographed?It's not just dictatorships that cover their citizens eyes.
In some aspects, you can say that the US government is worse because we are governed "by the people" but the people aren't allowed the vital information needed to make important governmental decisions.
At least, in a dictatorship, you expect this kind of thing.-1 offtopic, -1 flamebait</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31253996</id>
	<title>Every business should stand up for human rights.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1266935400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would we even have to ask if Google should do the right thing?<br>China is bad for human rights, so China must be confronted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would we even have to ask if Google should do the right thing ? China is bad for human rights , so China must be confronted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would we even have to ask if Google should do the right thing?China is bad for human rights, so China must be confronted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244844</id>
	<title>According to Law???</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1266942480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China administers its internet <b>according to law</b>, and this position will not change.</p></div><p>Like there's anybody out there reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. or the WSJ for that matter that is fluent in Chinese Law.  This is their perfect 'get out of jail free card.'  They can play the PR game all day long and hide behind whatever laws are defined.  Any government would do the same thing, this isn't exclusive to the Chinese.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China administers its internet according to law , and this position will not change.Like there 's anybody out there reading / .
or the WSJ for that matter that is fluent in Chinese Law .
This is their perfect 'get out of jail free card .
' They can play the PR game all day long and hide behind whatever laws are defined .
Any government would do the same thing , this is n't exclusive to the Chinese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China administers its internet according to law, and this position will not change.Like there's anybody out there reading /.
or the WSJ for that matter that is fluent in Chinese Law.
This is their perfect 'get out of jail free card.
'  They can play the PR game all day long and hide behind whatever laws are defined.
Any government would do the same thing, this isn't exclusive to the Chinese.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245994</id>
	<title>In Soviet China:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talks restart YOU !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talks restart YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talks restart YOU !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31247238</id>
	<title>Re:Okay... what is the law?</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1266952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... state-sanctioned attacks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>So far, there's no proof. All we have are presuppositions and rhetorical claims. Hey, I'm not saying Chinese people didn't do it. But still people are so prejudiced that I'll get modded into oblivion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... state-sanctioned attacks ...So far , there 's no proof .
All we have are presuppositions and rhetorical claims .
Hey , I 'm not saying Chinese people did n't do it .
But still people are so prejudiced that I 'll get modded into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... state-sanctioned attacks ...So far, there's no proof.
All we have are presuppositions and rhetorical claims.
Hey, I'm not saying Chinese people didn't do it.
But still people are so prejudiced that I'll get modded into oblivion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31272014</id>
	<title>Re:Ask yourself, do you want to support China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it so shocking that a country is acting in its own best interests?</p><p>And the litany of "evils" is no different than the list for any country that was scrambling to get its way to the top. Yet from the lofty perch created from the blood of Native Americans, Iraqis, Hondurans, West African slaves, underpaid laborers, etc. etc. its easy to cast aspersions.</p><p>So feel free to direct your purchases and investments as you see fit, while you're at it, why not renounce the benefit of public goods and services and accumulated benefits built and acquired on the backs of past (and present) oppressed? But please, easy on the moral hypocrisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it so shocking that a country is acting in its own best interests ? And the litany of " evils " is no different than the list for any country that was scrambling to get its way to the top .
Yet from the lofty perch created from the blood of Native Americans , Iraqis , Hondurans , West African slaves , underpaid laborers , etc .
etc. its easy to cast aspersions.So feel free to direct your purchases and investments as you see fit , while you 're at it , why not renounce the benefit of public goods and services and accumulated benefits built and acquired on the backs of past ( and present ) oppressed ?
But please , easy on the moral hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it so shocking that a country is acting in its own best interests?And the litany of "evils" is no different than the list for any country that was scrambling to get its way to the top.
Yet from the lofty perch created from the blood of Native Americans, Iraqis, Hondurans, West African slaves, underpaid laborers, etc.
etc. its easy to cast aspersions.So feel free to direct your purchases and investments as you see fit, while you're at it, why not renounce the benefit of public goods and services and accumulated benefits built and acquired on the backs of past (and present) oppressed?
But please, easy on the moral hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244436</id>
	<title>Re:Show some backbone</title>
	<author>allcar</author>
	<datestamp>1266940260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just Google that you want to stand up to the Chinese, or should the rest of the businesses in the world follow suit?
Indeed, should our governments "show a little spine"?
Get into the real world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just Google that you want to stand up to the Chinese , or should the rest of the businesses in the world follow suit ?
Indeed , should our governments " show a little spine " ?
Get into the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just Google that you want to stand up to the Chinese, or should the rest of the businesses in the world follow suit?
Indeed, should our governments "show a little spine"?
Get into the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246342</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Interwebs</title>
	<author>Atanamis</author>
	<datestamp>1266948960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can we please stop regarding Google's saccharine "Don't Be Evil" claptrap for anymore than what it always was: branding.</p></div></blockquote><p>The only reason branding exists is to make an implied promise to the consumer. McDonald's brand promises fast burgers following a similar recipe in a fairly consistent eating environment. Google's brand is supposed to represent easy to use, highly effective, and non-evil. If they at least appear to practice this brand, they sell more stuff. If they don't, they lose the brand value. Regardless of WHY they want to appear non-evil, the results are what should be judged by the market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop regarding Google 's saccharine " Do n't Be Evil " claptrap for anymore than what it always was : branding.The only reason branding exists is to make an implied promise to the consumer .
McDonald 's brand promises fast burgers following a similar recipe in a fairly consistent eating environment .
Google 's brand is supposed to represent easy to use , highly effective , and non-evil .
If they at least appear to practice this brand , they sell more stuff .
If they do n't , they lose the brand value .
Regardless of WHY they want to appear non-evil , the results are what should be judged by the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop regarding Google's saccharine "Don't Be Evil" claptrap for anymore than what it always was: branding.The only reason branding exists is to make an implied promise to the consumer.
McDonald's brand promises fast burgers following a similar recipe in a fairly consistent eating environment.
Google's brand is supposed to represent easy to use, highly effective, and non-evil.
If they at least appear to practice this brand, they sell more stuff.
If they don't, they lose the brand value.
Regardless of WHY they want to appear non-evil, the results are what should be judged by the market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31248826</id>
	<title>Re:Ask yourself, do you want to support China?</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1266957300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right about everything except one. The older generations do know things, actually they know better. Look at Noam Chomsky, the Nobel-winning mathematician.</p><p>http://www.chomsky.info/</p><p>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Noam\_Chomsky.html</p><p>No matter how rationally and how objectively he put forth his arguments, the mainstream media successfully portrayed him as a conspiracy theorist.</p><p>Heck, the mainstream media even marooned (figuratively) Albert Einstein because his political views were socialist. He was also one of the first to understand media's role in imperialism. But when the latter's success in science grew beyond certain level, media just couldn't contain him anymore. So they came up with the "a genius working in dungeons of science without any time to think about politics" image for him, thus shaking off any need to publicize his political views.</p><p>Then there was Howard Zinn, who passed away recently.</p><p>These days, the media reich has coined the term "alternative history" to refer to the publications of Zinn, Chomsky and such. It has successfully brought the intended negative connotation to these people's work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right about everything except one .
The older generations do know things , actually they know better .
Look at Noam Chomsky , the Nobel-winning mathematician.http : //www.chomsky.info/http : //www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Noam \ _Chomsky.htmlNo matter how rationally and how objectively he put forth his arguments , the mainstream media successfully portrayed him as a conspiracy theorist.Heck , the mainstream media even marooned ( figuratively ) Albert Einstein because his political views were socialist .
He was also one of the first to understand media 's role in imperialism .
But when the latter 's success in science grew beyond certain level , media just could n't contain him anymore .
So they came up with the " a genius working in dungeons of science without any time to think about politics " image for him , thus shaking off any need to publicize his political views.Then there was Howard Zinn , who passed away recently.These days , the media reich has coined the term " alternative history " to refer to the publications of Zinn , Chomsky and such .
It has successfully brought the intended negative connotation to these people 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right about everything except one.
The older generations do know things, actually they know better.
Look at Noam Chomsky, the Nobel-winning mathematician.http://www.chomsky.info/http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Noam\_Chomsky.htmlNo matter how rationally and how objectively he put forth his arguments, the mainstream media successfully portrayed him as a conspiracy theorist.Heck, the mainstream media even marooned (figuratively) Albert Einstein because his political views were socialist.
He was also one of the first to understand media's role in imperialism.
But when the latter's success in science grew beyond certain level, media just couldn't contain him anymore.
So they came up with the "a genius working in dungeons of science without any time to think about politics" image for him, thus shaking off any need to publicize his political views.Then there was Howard Zinn, who passed away recently.These days, the media reich has coined the term "alternative history" to refer to the publications of Zinn, Chomsky and such.
It has successfully brought the intended negative connotation to these people's work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244648</id>
	<title>Threatening without having the balls to do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China called Google's bluff and destroyed Google's credibility. Next time think it through first, Google. Right now you look like any other multinational corporation that would sell their founders' grandmothers to make more profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China called Google 's bluff and destroyed Google 's credibility .
Next time think it through first , Google .
Right now you look like any other multinational corporation that would sell their founders ' grandmothers to make more profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China called Google's bluff and destroyed Google's credibility.
Next time think it through first, Google.
Right now you look like any other multinational corporation that would sell their founders' grandmothers to make more profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244584</id>
	<title>How this plays out</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1266940980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's face it -- Google's not pulling out of China because the market is too big and China's not going to back down on filtering.  The way I see this playing out is a deal where Google is allowed to operate unfiltered on their end, however the Chinese government places in-line content filters down stream from Google, between their network and the rest of country.  This way the content still gets blocked, but Google can say "its not our fault."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it -- Google 's not pulling out of China because the market is too big and China 's not going to back down on filtering .
The way I see this playing out is a deal where Google is allowed to operate unfiltered on their end , however the Chinese government places in-line content filters down stream from Google , between their network and the rest of country .
This way the content still gets blocked , but Google can say " its not our fault .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it -- Google's not pulling out of China because the market is too big and China's not going to back down on filtering.
The way I see this playing out is a deal where Google is allowed to operate unfiltered on their end, however the Chinese government places in-line content filters down stream from Google, between their network and the rest of country.
This way the content still gets blocked, but Google can say "its not our fault.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244392</id>
	<title>As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266940020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>business  before human rights.</p><p>Yours In Minsk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>business before human rights.Yours In Minsk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>business  before human rights.Yours In Minsk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31248042</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening without having the balls to do it</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1266954840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google already destroyed its own credibility by the announcement. A simple youtube search would reveal the hilarious infomercial on of the "school with ties to the Chinese military": <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xx6Y6XOM58" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xx6Y6XOM58</a> [youtube.com] <br> <br>

For crying out loud Google, you <b>own</b> youtube; at least try to use it before you make an ass out of yourself on the world stage. If Lanxiang vocational school really had "ties to the Chinese military" they wouldn't be interrupting my soap-operas every hour with cheesy infomercials that promise 30 days money back guarantees on a month long course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google already destroyed its own credibility by the announcement .
A simple youtube search would reveal the hilarious infomercial on of the " school with ties to the Chinese military " : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 3Xx6Y6XOM58 [ youtube.com ] For crying out loud Google , you own youtube ; at least try to use it before you make an ass out of yourself on the world stage .
If Lanxiang vocational school really had " ties to the Chinese military " they would n't be interrupting my soap-operas every hour with cheesy infomercials that promise 30 days money back guarantees on a month long course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google already destroyed its own credibility by the announcement.
A simple youtube search would reveal the hilarious infomercial on of the "school with ties to the Chinese military": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xx6Y6XOM58 [youtube.com]  

For crying out loud Google, you own youtube; at least try to use it before you make an ass out of yourself on the world stage.
If Lanxiang vocational school really had "ties to the Chinese military" they wouldn't be interrupting my soap-operas every hour with cheesy infomercials that promise 30 days money back guarantees on a month long course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244266</id>
	<title>do no evil huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266939420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google: Now the digital UN, sending strongly worded letters, and sending envoys worldwide to "investigate" cases of human rights abuses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : Now the digital UN , sending strongly worded letters , and sending envoys worldwide to " investigate " cases of human rights abuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: Now the digital UN, sending strongly worded letters, and sending envoys worldwide to "investigate" cases of human rights abuses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244634</id>
	<title>Dear Interwebs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we please stop regarding Google's saccharine "Don't Be Evil" claptrap for anymore than what it always was: branding.</p><p>Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop regarding Google 's saccharine " Do n't Be Evil " claptrap for anymore than what it always was : branding.Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop regarding Google's saccharine "Don't Be Evil" claptrap for anymore than what it always was: branding.Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31247516</id>
	<title>Most of us wouldn't stay where we aren't wanted.</title>
	<author>PDX</author>
	<datestamp>1266952980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother to negotiate if there has been no change in the mindset that created the problem in the first place. Just walk away Google. Don't be evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother to negotiate if there has been no change in the mindset that created the problem in the first place .
Just walk away Google .
Do n't be evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother to negotiate if there has been no change in the mindset that created the problem in the first place.
Just walk away Google.
Don't be evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244732</id>
	<title>Only in China, and maybe Russia too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to law</p></div><p>When the law is doing the hacking, how much cracking down is really going to happen here? I'd say all of about none.</p><p>Oblig: You don't hack China, China hacks you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to lawWhen the law is doing the hacking , how much cracking down is really going to happen here ?
I 'd say all of about none.Oblig : You do n't hack China , China hacks you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to lawWhen the law is doing the hacking, how much cracking down is really going to happen here?
I'd say all of about none.Oblig: You don't hack China, China hacks you!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31265948</id>
	<title>Re:Pussies.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265111100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You&rsquo;re forgetting that China has probably more special agents ready to meet the Google bosses in their sleep, that Google has employees. They can&rsquo;t exactly do much against a huge armed state.</p><p>I still think one should fight what one thinks is wrong. But it doesn&rsquo;t exactly make sense to lose one&rsquo;s life in the process. Because as a dead person, you can&rsquo;t change much, can you?</p><p>So how about you? Let&rsquo;s go to China. Then you&rsquo;ll get to openly say your opinion in front of some of their cops. And we&rsquo;ll see if you are a &ldquo;pussy&rdquo;.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>(I&rsquo;m more for a invisible but effective job, than cowardly open attacks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You    re forgetting that China has probably more special agents ready to meet the Google bosses in their sleep , that Google has employees .
They can    t exactly do much against a huge armed state.I still think one should fight what one thinks is wrong .
But it doesn    t exactly make sense to lose one    s life in the process .
Because as a dead person , you can    t change much , can you ? So how about you ?
Let    s go to China .
Then you    ll get to openly say your opinion in front of some of their cops .
And we    ll see if you are a    pussy    .
; ) ( I    m more for a invisible but effective job , than cowardly open attacks .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You’re forgetting that China has probably more special agents ready to meet the Google bosses in their sleep, that Google has employees.
They can’t exactly do much against a huge armed state.I still think one should fight what one thinks is wrong.
But it doesn’t exactly make sense to lose one’s life in the process.
Because as a dead person, you can’t change much, can you?So how about you?
Let’s go to China.
Then you’ll get to openly say your opinion in front of some of their cops.
And we’ll see if you are a “pussy”.
;)(I’m more for a invisible but effective job, than cowardly open attacks.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244410</id>
	<title>Semantics for fun and profit</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1266940140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't doubt for a minute that China will, "...crack down on hacking according to law."  Hacking that isn't according to law, however, will continue as usual.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't doubt for a minute that China will , " ...crack down on hacking according to law .
" Hacking that is n't according to law , however , will continue as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't doubt for a minute that China will, "...crack down on hacking according to law.
"  Hacking that isn't according to law, however, will continue as usual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244722</id>
	<title>Hacking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no. As a government-sanctioned action it would neither be considered 'hacking' nor against the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no .
As a government-sanctioned action it would neither be considered 'hacking ' nor against the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no.
As a government-sanctioned action it would neither be considered 'hacking' nor against the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245406</id>
	<title>Re:Ask yourself, do you want to support China?</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1266945540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite all the flack that China gets in the western world constantly, it is quite a peaceful country (internationally) compared to the U.S. How many wars, "conflicts", or secret wars has the U.S. been involved with in the last 50 years? Yet we always seem to take ourselves to be a constant benevolent force working to liberate these conveniently oil-rich countries from their own governments. Say what you will about China, but on the international scene, but it's something of a sleeping dragon. The rule for China is "don't rock the boat", and that could be a welcome break from all the war and conflict. I don't think the U.S. was ever really ready to have superpower status, and maybe when it has to start playing nicely with everyone else, it will be a relief for everyone.<br> <br>Do people seriously still believe that the U.S. is genuinely concerned with fighting evil in the world? That the conflicts between it and the Middle East are not due to culture, religion, and oil? Or that North Korea isn't just about nuclear dominance and Cold War, part 2? I hope that the younger generation on Slashdot is not so naive, and that it has been able to learn from recent history. Lord knows the U.S. could use a little wisdom and insight, which the older generations seem to sadly lack.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite all the flack that China gets in the western world constantly , it is quite a peaceful country ( internationally ) compared to the U.S. How many wars , " conflicts " , or secret wars has the U.S. been involved with in the last 50 years ?
Yet we always seem to take ourselves to be a constant benevolent force working to liberate these conveniently oil-rich countries from their own governments .
Say what you will about China , but on the international scene , but it 's something of a sleeping dragon .
The rule for China is " do n't rock the boat " , and that could be a welcome break from all the war and conflict .
I do n't think the U.S. was ever really ready to have superpower status , and maybe when it has to start playing nicely with everyone else , it will be a relief for everyone .
Do people seriously still believe that the U.S. is genuinely concerned with fighting evil in the world ?
That the conflicts between it and the Middle East are not due to culture , religion , and oil ?
Or that North Korea is n't just about nuclear dominance and Cold War , part 2 ?
I hope that the younger generation on Slashdot is not so naive , and that it has been able to learn from recent history .
Lord knows the U.S. could use a little wisdom and insight , which the older generations seem to sadly lack .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite all the flack that China gets in the western world constantly, it is quite a peaceful country (internationally) compared to the U.S. How many wars, "conflicts", or secret wars has the U.S. been involved with in the last 50 years?
Yet we always seem to take ourselves to be a constant benevolent force working to liberate these conveniently oil-rich countries from their own governments.
Say what you will about China, but on the international scene, but it's something of a sleeping dragon.
The rule for China is "don't rock the boat", and that could be a welcome break from all the war and conflict.
I don't think the U.S. was ever really ready to have superpower status, and maybe when it has to start playing nicely with everyone else, it will be a relief for everyone.
Do people seriously still believe that the U.S. is genuinely concerned with fighting evil in the world?
That the conflicts between it and the Middle East are not due to culture, religion, and oil?
Or that North Korea isn't just about nuclear dominance and Cold War, part 2?
I hope that the younger generation on Slashdot is not so naive, and that it has been able to learn from recent history.
Lord knows the U.S. could use a little wisdom and insight, which the older generations seem to sadly lack.
:-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246918</id>
	<title>Insightful!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and <b>been blamed for</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Whoa, whoa! Hold on. Could you please give an example of a bad thing that the U.S. has not done but <b>has been blamed for</b>?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be.</p></div><p>Well, let's see. It isn't obvious for me.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider Tibet</p></div><p>Consider Iraq and Afghanistan.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider North Korea</p></div><p>Consider Israel.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider Ulighars</p></div><p>What are they? Latest fiction from the propagandists?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider Global Warming</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The last time I checked</a> [wikipedia.org], an average American emitted 18.99 tonnes of CO2 per year whereas an average Chinese emitted 4.62 tonnes per year. You never knew it, right? For this, I won't blame you. I'll blame your media.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider dissidents</p></div><p>Oh, you mean incidents like these?</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram\_Buddhi</p><p>http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/eins-s03.shtml</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and been blamed for ...Whoa , whoa !
Hold on .
Could you please give an example of a bad thing that the U.S. has not done but has been blamed for ? I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be.Well , let 's see .
It is n't obvious for me.Consider TibetConsider Iraq and Afghanistan.Consider North KoreaConsider Israel.Consider UligharsWhat are they ?
Latest fiction from the propagandists ? Consider Global Warming The last time I checked [ wikipedia.org ] , an average American emitted 18.99 tonnes of CO2 per year whereas an average Chinese emitted 4.62 tonnes per year .
You never knew it , right ?
For this , I wo n't blame you .
I 'll blame your media.Consider dissidentsOh , you mean incidents like these ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram \ _Buddhihttp : //www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/eins-s03.shtml</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and been blamed for ...Whoa, whoa!
Hold on.
Could you please give an example of a bad thing that the U.S. has not done but has been blamed for?I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be.Well, let's see.
It isn't obvious for me.Consider TibetConsider Iraq and Afghanistan.Consider North KoreaConsider Israel.Consider UligharsWhat are they?
Latest fiction from the propagandists?Consider Global Warming The last time I checked [wikipedia.org], an average American emitted 18.99 tonnes of CO2 per year whereas an average Chinese emitted 4.62 tonnes per year.
You never knew it, right?
For this, I won't blame you.
I'll blame your media.Consider dissidentsOh, you mean incidents like these?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram\_Buddhihttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/eins-s03.shtml
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244652</id>
	<title>Google Search Language Preferences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else notice the change to Search Language Preferences after the Google/China incident? It may just be a coincidence but the "Search for pages written in any language (Recommended)" option is no longer the default or an available option. The only option now is "Prefer pages written in these language(s)" with one of the languages sometimes selected and unselectable by default depending on your "Interface Language" setting or which localized version of Google you visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else notice the change to Search Language Preferences after the Google/China incident ?
It may just be a coincidence but the " Search for pages written in any language ( Recommended ) " option is no longer the default or an available option .
The only option now is " Prefer pages written in these language ( s ) " with one of the languages sometimes selected and unselectable by default depending on your " Interface Language " setting or which localized version of Google you visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else notice the change to Search Language Preferences after the Google/China incident?
It may just be a coincidence but the "Search for pages written in any language (Recommended)" option is no longer the default or an available option.
The only option now is "Prefer pages written in these language(s)" with one of the languages sometimes selected and unselectable by default depending on your "Interface Language" setting or which localized version of Google you visit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244478</id>
	<title>Fists.</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1266940440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has started wielding their fists in China.  They've been trying to operate unfiltered, they shut the filters off briefly in this debacle, they've started drawing bad publicity on China and threatening to just walk away.  Their behavior has forced some other Chinese-operated search engines to back off on censorship, and forced the Chinese government to ease up a little.  They seem to be tired of waiting calmly for negotiations to turn favorable, so they've taken to slugging the other guy in the face when he doesn't give ground fast enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has started wielding their fists in China .
They 've been trying to operate unfiltered , they shut the filters off briefly in this debacle , they 've started drawing bad publicity on China and threatening to just walk away .
Their behavior has forced some other Chinese-operated search engines to back off on censorship , and forced the Chinese government to ease up a little .
They seem to be tired of waiting calmly for negotiations to turn favorable , so they 've taken to slugging the other guy in the face when he does n't give ground fast enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has started wielding their fists in China.
They've been trying to operate unfiltered, they shut the filters off briefly in this debacle, they've started drawing bad publicity on China and threatening to just walk away.
Their behavior has forced some other Chinese-operated search engines to back off on censorship, and forced the Chinese government to ease up a little.
They seem to be tired of waiting calmly for negotiations to turn favorable, so they've taken to slugging the other guy in the face when he doesn't give ground fast enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244258</id>
	<title>"Talks and Negotiations"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266939360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Google a country? Did I miss something?</p><p>And exactly what "laws" is Google breaking in China?</p><p>Why isn't this ever worth noting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google a country ?
Did I miss something ? And exactly what " laws " is Google breaking in China ? Why is n't this ever worth noting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google a country?
Did I miss something?And exactly what "laws" is Google breaking in China?Why isn't this ever worth noting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246236</id>
	<title>the law is flexible in China</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1266948540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure there are laws against this. I'm also quite certain that a wise local can get around them. This is one of the biggest problems in China. They can tighten the law all they want and it doesn't stop things because the enforcement is corrupt.</p><p>It also creates a huge inequity against foreign companies (like Google) because the same people who take the bribes either are already bribed by the locals or are afraid if they accept bribes from foreigners, the foreigners will be more likely to rat them out for taking bribes (an offense which carries the death penalty) later.</p><p>And this is all before you get into the question as to whether the government is breaking the law, which is quite possible, it happens in a lot of countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there are laws against this .
I 'm also quite certain that a wise local can get around them .
This is one of the biggest problems in China .
They can tighten the law all they want and it does n't stop things because the enforcement is corrupt.It also creates a huge inequity against foreign companies ( like Google ) because the same people who take the bribes either are already bribed by the locals or are afraid if they accept bribes from foreigners , the foreigners will be more likely to rat them out for taking bribes ( an offense which carries the death penalty ) later.And this is all before you get into the question as to whether the government is breaking the law , which is quite possible , it happens in a lot of countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there are laws against this.
I'm also quite certain that a wise local can get around them.
This is one of the biggest problems in China.
They can tighten the law all they want and it doesn't stop things because the enforcement is corrupt.It also creates a huge inequity against foreign companies (like Google) because the same people who take the bribes either are already bribed by the locals or are afraid if they accept bribes from foreigners, the foreigners will be more likely to rat them out for taking bribes (an offense which carries the death penalty) later.And this is all before you get into the question as to whether the government is breaking the law, which is quite possible, it happens in a lot of countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244520</id>
	<title>Oh, No!! Not a Strongly Worded Message!!</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1266940680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that doesn't work, I suggest that Google just taunt them further.  Worst case scenario, Eric Schmidt can wave his private parts at them.  That seemed to work for <a href="http://www.newser.com/story/81548/google-ceo-squelches-lovers-blog.html?utm\_source=9at9&amp;utm\_medium=email&amp;utm\_campaign=20100223" title="newser.com">this l'il troublemaker</a> [newser.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that does n't work , I suggest that Google just taunt them further .
Worst case scenario , Eric Schmidt can wave his private parts at them .
That seemed to work for this l'il troublemaker [ newser.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that doesn't work, I suggest that Google just taunt them further.
Worst case scenario, Eric Schmidt can wave his private parts at them.
That seemed to work for this l'il troublemaker [newser.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245242</id>
	<title>Re:Ask yourself, do you want to support China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266944700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately replace China with US in your statements and replace Iraq for Iran, Afganistan for Tibet, no need to replace anything for global warming, and Africa and I think both countries have very similar human rights problems.</p><p>I'm sure you believe what you say, it just means the spin doctors are doing their jobs in both countries</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately replace China with US in your statements and replace Iraq for Iran , Afganistan for Tibet , no need to replace anything for global warming , and Africa and I think both countries have very similar human rights problems.I 'm sure you believe what you say , it just means the spin doctors are doing their jobs in both countries</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately replace China with US in your statements and replace Iraq for Iran, Afganistan for Tibet, no need to replace anything for global warming, and Africa and I think both countries have very similar human rights problems.I'm sure you believe what you say, it just means the spin doctors are doing their jobs in both countries</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244850</id>
	<title>Okay... what is the law?</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1266942540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China administers its internet according to law, and this position will not change. China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to law.'"</p></div><p>Am I just getting cynical in my own age, or is it entirely possible that this is just doublespeak and  state-sanctioned attacks are permitted under chinese law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China administers its internet according to law , and this position will not change .
China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to law .
' " Am I just getting cynical in my own age , or is it entirely possible that this is just doublespeak and state-sanctioned attacks are permitted under chinese law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China administers its internet according to law, and this position will not change.
China prohibits hacking and will crack down on hacking according to law.
'"Am I just getting cynical in my own age, or is it entirely possible that this is just doublespeak and  state-sanctioned attacks are permitted under chinese law.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244286</id>
	<title>Show some backbone</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1266939480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Show a little spine and turn the damn filters off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show a little spine and turn the damn filters off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show a little spine and turn the damn filters off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244986</id>
	<title>biznatCh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As to which *BSD Slashdot's then disappeared copy a 17 Meg file suffering *BSD as it is licensed from the openBSD in jocks or chaps</htmltext>
<tokenext>As to which * BSD Slashdot 's then disappeared copy a 17 Meg file suffering * BSD as it is licensed from the openBSD in jocks or chaps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As to which *BSD Slashdot's then disappeared copy a 17 Meg file suffering *BSD as it is licensed from the openBSD in jocks or chaps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244500</id>
	<title>China doesn't know what the rule of law is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266940560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to china and find this out for yourself. The streets are like anarchy. The society as a whole rules itself regardless of the communist party or not using a social system of governance. Everyone there mostly understands what is acceptable, what is not.</p><p>The laws the govt makes are not followed by the govt. You cannot have rule of law until the govt is accountable to its own legislation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to china and find this out for yourself .
The streets are like anarchy .
The society as a whole rules itself regardless of the communist party or not using a social system of governance .
Everyone there mostly understands what is acceptable , what is not.The laws the govt makes are not followed by the govt .
You can not have rule of law until the govt is accountable to its own legislation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to china and find this out for yourself.
The streets are like anarchy.
The society as a whole rules itself regardless of the communist party or not using a social system of governance.
Everyone there mostly understands what is acceptable, what is not.The laws the govt makes are not followed by the govt.
You cannot have rule of law until the govt is accountable to its own legislation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31257092</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1265106600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The internet is also a great danger to the world. It allows the propaganda-partners of big corporations (especially oil companies and arms companies) to convince people about the existence of WMDs, etc.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is also a great danger to the world .
It allows the propaganda-partners of big corporations ( especially oil companies and arms companies ) to convince people about the existence of WMDs , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is also a great danger to the world.
It allows the propaganda-partners of big corporations (especially oil companies and arms companies) to convince people about the existence of WMDs, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31272014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31247238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31248826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31249498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31247090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31254014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31265948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31253996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31248042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1346227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31248042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31254014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31247090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31249498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31245406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31248826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31272014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31247238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31265948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31246092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31253996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1346227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1346227.31244410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
