<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_03_1259202</id>
	<title>Google Asks US For WTO Block On China Censorship</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267624620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Google is asking the US government to petition the World Trade Organization to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-02/google-wants-u-s-to-weigh-wto-challenge-to-china-censorship.html">recognize China's censorship as an unfair barrier to trade</a>.  The US Trade Representative is reviewing their petition to see if they can prove that China's rules discriminate against foreign competition.  At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Google is asking the US government to petition the World Trade Organization to recognize China 's censorship as an unfair barrier to trade .
The US Trade Representative is reviewing their petition to see if they can prove that China 's rules discriminate against foreign competition .
At least it 's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do , rather than secretly negotiating ACTA .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Google is asking the US government to petition the World Trade Organization to recognize China's censorship as an unfair barrier to trade.
The US Trade Representative is reviewing their petition to see if they can prove that China's rules discriminate against foreign competition.
At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344874</id>
	<title>Pull Out??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267629060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happened to Google pulling out??  Like Tiger they've got no balls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to Google pulling out ? ?
Like Tiger they 've got no balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to Google pulling out??
Like Tiger they've got no balls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346364</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1267635420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do agree but it is slightly better than nothing.<br>At this point if google takes a payoff then they are just as evil as anybody else.<br>If the keep fighting then they are slightly better than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do agree but it is slightly better than nothing.At this point if google takes a payoff then they are just as evil as anybody else.If the keep fighting then they are slightly better than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do agree but it is slightly better than nothing.At this point if google takes a payoff then they are just as evil as anybody else.If the keep fighting then they are slightly better than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346130</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>RalphTheWonderLlama</author>
	<datestamp>1267634460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else.</p></div><p>Actually no they weren't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before China did that , Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else.Actually no they were n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else.Actually no they weren't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345140</id>
	<title>China Should Respond by</title>
	<author>Conzar</author>
	<datestamp>1267630260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In response China should petition the World Trade Organisation to recognise USA's patents and copyrigt as an unfair barrier to trade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In response China should petition the World Trade Organisation to recognise USA 's patents and copyrigt as an unfair barrier to trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response China should petition the World Trade Organisation to recognise USA's patents and copyrigt as an unfair barrier to trade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344926</id>
	<title>Uh, you do realize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267629300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that Google couldn't care less about the civil liberties of the average Chinese citizen.  All Google wants is to be the invasive ones in everyone's daily online lives in a background, monitoring sense.  Google is probably negotiating deals with China regarding data collection and backdoor eavesdropping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that Google could n't care less about the civil liberties of the average Chinese citizen .
All Google wants is to be the invasive ones in everyone 's daily online lives in a background , monitoring sense .
Google is probably negotiating deals with China regarding data collection and backdoor eavesdropping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that Google couldn't care less about the civil liberties of the average Chinese citizen.
All Google wants is to be the invasive ones in everyone's daily online lives in a background, monitoring sense.
Google is probably negotiating deals with China regarding data collection and backdoor eavesdropping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345384</id>
	<title>Re:I Guess That Means</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1267631340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well the bluff continues. Right now Google (a big successful company that a lot ofmanager listen to) basically says "foreigners are not allowed to do profit in China". Don't you think this can have repercussions on foreign investments ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the bluff continues .
Right now Google ( a big successful company that a lot ofmanager listen to ) basically says " foreigners are not allowed to do profit in China " .
Do n't you think this can have repercussions on foreign investments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the bluff continues.
Right now Google (a big successful company that a lot ofmanager listen to) basically says "foreigners are not allowed to do profit in China".
Don't you think this can have repercussions on foreign investments ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31350176</id>
	<title>A little far fetched</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1267609500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law applies to both chinese and foreign companies. Good luck anyway!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law applies to both chinese and foreign companies .
Good luck anyway !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law applies to both chinese and foreign companies.
Good luck anyway!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346176</id>
	<title>Re:I Guess That Means</title>
	<author>RalphTheWonderLlama</author>
	<datestamp>1267634640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Called their bluff by letting them continue to run Google.cn with censorship turned off?  That works for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Called their bluff by letting them continue to run Google.cn with censorship turned off ?
That works for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Called their bluff by letting them continue to run Google.cn with censorship turned off?
That works for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31352960</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>tqk</author>
	<datestamp>1267624080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The silly thing is, the worst hit by google pulling out of PRC would be present Chinese businesses attempting to market to the world.<br> <br>Does China really believe it would be a good thing to point that gun at its own foot?<br> <br>"Commie/Fascist Bastards" &amp;&amp; "stupid" too?<br> <br>Make my day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The silly thing is , the worst hit by google pulling out of PRC would be present Chinese businesses attempting to market to the world .
Does China really believe it would be a good thing to point that gun at its own foot ?
" Commie/Fascist Bastards " &amp;&amp; " stupid " too ?
Make my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The silly thing is, the worst hit by google pulling out of PRC would be present Chinese businesses attempting to market to the world.
Does China really believe it would be a good thing to point that gun at its own foot?
"Commie/Fascist Bastards" &amp;&amp; "stupid" too?
Make my day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31349246</id>
	<title>How is it an unfair trade barrier?</title>
	<author>belrick</author>
	<datestamp>1267648620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't local Chinese companies that compete with Google, such as Baidu, have to comply with the same censorship restrictions?   For it to be an unfair trade barrier, don't local companies have to be treated differently?</p><p>For example, in Canada food products must be labelled in both English and French.  A US company with US-produced food goods must use different packaging that complies with this law to import those goods into Canada, or, as is often the case, slap a sticker that meets the minimum requirements of the law.  Since the law treats local and imported goods the same, it is not considered an unfair trade barrier.  It doesn't matter that it is inconvenient for a US company to have to modify its manufacturing process to accommodate that law.</p><p>Note I'm not making any statement about the censorship laws being fair or moral in and of themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't local Chinese companies that compete with Google , such as Baidu , have to comply with the same censorship restrictions ?
For it to be an unfair trade barrier , do n't local companies have to be treated differently ? For example , in Canada food products must be labelled in both English and French .
A US company with US-produced food goods must use different packaging that complies with this law to import those goods into Canada , or , as is often the case , slap a sticker that meets the minimum requirements of the law .
Since the law treats local and imported goods the same , it is not considered an unfair trade barrier .
It does n't matter that it is inconvenient for a US company to have to modify its manufacturing process to accommodate that law.Note I 'm not making any statement about the censorship laws being fair or moral in and of themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't local Chinese companies that compete with Google, such as Baidu, have to comply with the same censorship restrictions?
For it to be an unfair trade barrier, don't local companies have to be treated differently?For example, in Canada food products must be labelled in both English and French.
A US company with US-produced food goods must use different packaging that complies with this law to import those goods into Canada, or, as is often the case, slap a sticker that meets the minimum requirements of the law.
Since the law treats local and imported goods the same, it is not considered an unfair trade barrier.
It doesn't matter that it is inconvenient for a US company to have to modify its manufacturing process to accommodate that law.Note I'm not making any statement about the censorship laws being fair or moral in and of themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344842</id>
	<title>Good one google!</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1267628940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>O.K they are doing it for their own benefit, but the side effect of that could be to encourage China to prevent censorship

I personally think that repressive regimes should be removed from the internet entirely. (although that would have included the USA 2001-2009)</htmltext>
<tokenext>O.K they are doing it for their own benefit , but the side effect of that could be to encourage China to prevent censorship I personally think that repressive regimes should be removed from the internet entirely .
( although that would have included the USA 2001-2009 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O.K they are doing it for their own benefit, but the side effect of that could be to encourage China to prevent censorship

I personally think that repressive regimes should be removed from the internet entirely.
(although that would have included the USA 2001-2009)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346726</id>
	<title>Why don't the US block China trading like Cuba</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US should treat all communist the same way. Let's block China for trading like it is happening with Cuba<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....hahaha</p><p>No more ipods, computers, or anything made in china should get into the US. And US companies should not be able to put manufacturing plants or use any China services to produce goods !!</p><p>So Obama, are you afraid of China?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or take out the Cuba embargo, that will be easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US should treat all communist the same way .
Let 's block China for trading like it is happening with Cuba ....hahahaNo more ipods , computers , or anything made in china should get into the US .
And US companies should not be able to put manufacturing plants or use any China services to produce goods !
! So Obama , are you afraid of China ?
...or take out the Cuba embargo , that will be easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US should treat all communist the same way.
Let's block China for trading like it is happening with Cuba ....hahahaNo more ipods, computers, or anything made in china should get into the US.
And US companies should not be able to put manufacturing plants or use any China services to produce goods !
!So Obama, are you afraid of China?
...or take out the Cuba embargo, that will be easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344948</id>
	<title>How many times has the US flouted WTO?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267629420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Far too many. Pot Kettle Black Google Evil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Far too many .
Pot Kettle Black Google Evil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far too many.
Pot Kettle Black Google Evil</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31348730</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1267645860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't be. The only reason they are doing this is because China directly threatened their bottom line by trying to steal [wired.com] some of Google's proprietary source code (their bread and butter). </i></p><p>Oh, so we are supposed to be pissed off at people who do evil, AND now pissed off just as much at people who do a lot of good, but only when doing that good is for free?</p><p>Gotcha</p><p><i>Before China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else. </i></p><p>Oooh, oh never mind, you don't mean the above after all.  You just have your facts mixed up and all wrong.</p><p>Carry on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be .
The only reason they are doing this is because China directly threatened their bottom line by trying to steal [ wired.com ] some of Google 's proprietary source code ( their bread and butter ) .
Oh , so we are supposed to be pissed off at people who do evil , AND now pissed off just as much at people who do a lot of good , but only when doing that good is for free ? GotchaBefore China did that , Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else .
Oooh , oh never mind , you do n't mean the above after all .
You just have your facts mixed up and all wrong.Carry on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be.
The only reason they are doing this is because China directly threatened their bottom line by trying to steal [wired.com] some of Google's proprietary source code (their bread and butter).
Oh, so we are supposed to be pissed off at people who do evil, AND now pissed off just as much at people who do a lot of good, but only when doing that good is for free?GotchaBefore China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else.
Oooh, oh never mind, you don't mean the above after all.
You just have your facts mixed up and all wrong.Carry on</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345250</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1267630800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Gentlemen, you can't just do whatever you want, this is free trade!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Gentlemen , you ca n't just do whatever you want , this is free trade !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Gentlemen, you can't just do whatever you want, this is free trade!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</id>
	<title>Google V China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267628340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue. I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it, but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have. It's one of their only ways to find news and information that hasn't been filtered through the government's propaganda machine. Obviously, that's why China doesn't want them to be able to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue .
I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it , but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have .
It 's one of their only ways to find news and information that has n't been filtered through the government 's propaganda machine .
Obviously , that 's why China does n't want them to be able to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue.
I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it, but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have.
It's one of their only ways to find news and information that hasn't been filtered through the government's propaganda machine.
Obviously, that's why China doesn't want them to be able to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346934</id>
	<title>Re:WTO reply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grandparent post: Five-word, pithy &mdash; if not witty &mdash; joke.  Quick and funny.</p><p>Parent post: Response consisting of a multiple-paragraph history lecture that borders on conspiracy theory in an attempt to educate a group of people notorious for already sharing that point of view and experience as to the exact nature and deep intricacies of the GP's joke.</p><p>Obviously, one of these people gets invited to parties while the other gets invited to tweed sportcoat factories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grandparent post : Five-word , pithy    if not witty    joke .
Quick and funny.Parent post : Response consisting of a multiple-paragraph history lecture that borders on conspiracy theory in an attempt to educate a group of people notorious for already sharing that point of view and experience as to the exact nature and deep intricacies of the GP 's joke.Obviously , one of these people gets invited to parties while the other gets invited to tweed sportcoat factories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grandparent post: Five-word, pithy — if not witty — joke.
Quick and funny.Parent post: Response consisting of a multiple-paragraph history lecture that borders on conspiracy theory in an attempt to educate a group of people notorious for already sharing that point of view and experience as to the exact nature and deep intricacies of the GP's joke.Obviously, one of these people gets invited to parties while the other gets invited to tweed sportcoat factories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31452466</id>
	<title>Google leaving China? eh?</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1268413380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, what does it MEAN that google is leaving china? So what if they are not there. Google keeps the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn domain google.cn and it will resolve to somewhere in california or probably Japan since it's closer. Unless the Chinese gov blocks ALL access to google worldwide why would Baidu all of a sudden get all of Google's search biz? China can censor it themselves if they want, google does not have to have anything to do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , what does it MEAN that google is leaving china ?
So what if they are not there .
Google keeps the .cn domain google.cn and it will resolve to somewhere in california or probably Japan since it 's closer .
Unless the Chinese gov blocks ALL access to google worldwide why would Baidu all of a sudden get all of Google 's search biz ?
China can censor it themselves if they want , google does not have to have anything to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, what does it MEAN that google is leaving china?
So what if they are not there.
Google keeps the .cn domain google.cn and it will resolve to somewhere in california or probably Japan since it's closer.
Unless the Chinese gov blocks ALL access to google worldwide why would Baidu all of a sudden get all of Google's search biz?
China can censor it themselves if they want, google does not have to have anything to do with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345138</id>
	<title>I Guess That Means</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1267630260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>China must have called their bluff and won the first round. Now that "we'll leave if you don't change  your ways" is off the table, Google's hand is a lot weaker. At this point I expect them to run around for another few months, pretend that they're actually trying to do something that will work, eventually declare "victory" and continue on in China like none of this ever happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China must have called their bluff and won the first round .
Now that " we 'll leave if you do n't change your ways " is off the table , Google 's hand is a lot weaker .
At this point I expect them to run around for another few months , pretend that they 're actually trying to do something that will work , eventually declare " victory " and continue on in China like none of this ever happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China must have called their bluff and won the first round.
Now that "we'll leave if you don't change  your ways" is off the table, Google's hand is a lot weaker.
At this point I expect them to run around for another few months, pretend that they're actually trying to do something that will work, eventually declare "victory" and continue on in China like none of this ever happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346286</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267635120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know when i fail to find some crack or some god forbidden software i just go china biggest search engine baidu.com</p><p>its  awesome  why they need google censor ship . or for the rest of us outside US . they do alot of censor ship on google . its almost  impossible to search for porn !!! yes on google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know when i fail to find some crack or some god forbidden software i just go china biggest search engine baidu.comits awesome why they need google censor ship .
or for the rest of us outside US .
they do alot of censor ship on google .
its almost impossible to search for porn ! ! !
yes on google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know when i fail to find some crack or some god forbidden software i just go china biggest search engine baidu.comits  awesome  why they need google censor ship .
or for the rest of us outside US .
they do alot of censor ship on google .
its almost  impossible to search for porn !!!
yes on google</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31347610</id>
	<title>While we're at it. . .</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1267640580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When are we going to get around to dealing with their blatant price fixing through currency manipulation?  Seems like that's another thing China likes to do that the WTO is meant to prevent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are we going to get around to dealing with their blatant price fixing through currency manipulation ?
Seems like that 's another thing China likes to do that the WTO is meant to prevent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are we going to get around to dealing with their blatant price fixing through currency manipulation?
Seems like that's another thing China likes to do that the WTO is meant to prevent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346052</id>
	<title>Re:WTO reply</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1267634040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The WTO is certainly among the lesser evils. In the old-old days, when the uber-wealthy wanted to protect their property rights, they had to hire mercenaries. It was cruel, but at least it was honest.</p><p>Later in history, the developments of religion and nationalism enabled those on top to use mere rhetoric to convince the poor to die protecting business interests. Protect the King's land from the godless invaders! Fly under the stars and stripes to defend the fruit company's interests in the banana republics!</p><p>With the advent of conscription, however, those who owned the world could merely summon slaves to make sure their property remained under their control (Korea, Vietnam).</p><p>But the Owners didn't entirely control the new phenomenon of mass media, and popular opinion turned. Slavery wasn't an option, so we tried espionage (CIA) and even old-school mercenaries (Gulf War I) to protect businesses interests .</p><p>The uber-rich aren't going to stop trying to protect "their" property, but with the Internet turning media upside-down, it will be harder than ever to get the poor to agree to conscription, crusades or even merc work. Using trade embargoes via the WTO is probably better than outright war for this purpose, so long as they don't embargo to the point of mass starvation.</p><p>(For the record: I'm not anti-capitalist. Humanity just sucks when it comes to war and money. A progressive capitalism in which you can get rich but you can't take it with you [high inheritance tax to fund education of the poor] sounds most appealing to me.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The WTO is certainly among the lesser evils .
In the old-old days , when the uber-wealthy wanted to protect their property rights , they had to hire mercenaries .
It was cruel , but at least it was honest.Later in history , the developments of religion and nationalism enabled those on top to use mere rhetoric to convince the poor to die protecting business interests .
Protect the King 's land from the godless invaders !
Fly under the stars and stripes to defend the fruit company 's interests in the banana republics ! With the advent of conscription , however , those who owned the world could merely summon slaves to make sure their property remained under their control ( Korea , Vietnam ) .But the Owners did n't entirely control the new phenomenon of mass media , and popular opinion turned .
Slavery was n't an option , so we tried espionage ( CIA ) and even old-school mercenaries ( Gulf War I ) to protect businesses interests .The uber-rich are n't going to stop trying to protect " their " property , but with the Internet turning media upside-down , it will be harder than ever to get the poor to agree to conscription , crusades or even merc work .
Using trade embargoes via the WTO is probably better than outright war for this purpose , so long as they do n't embargo to the point of mass starvation .
( For the record : I 'm not anti-capitalist .
Humanity just sucks when it comes to war and money .
A progressive capitalism in which you can get rich but you ca n't take it with you [ high inheritance tax to fund education of the poor ] sounds most appealing to me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WTO is certainly among the lesser evils.
In the old-old days, when the uber-wealthy wanted to protect their property rights, they had to hire mercenaries.
It was cruel, but at least it was honest.Later in history, the developments of religion and nationalism enabled those on top to use mere rhetoric to convince the poor to die protecting business interests.
Protect the King's land from the godless invaders!
Fly under the stars and stripes to defend the fruit company's interests in the banana republics!With the advent of conscription, however, those who owned the world could merely summon slaves to make sure their property remained under their control (Korea, Vietnam).But the Owners didn't entirely control the new phenomenon of mass media, and popular opinion turned.
Slavery wasn't an option, so we tried espionage (CIA) and even old-school mercenaries (Gulf War I) to protect businesses interests .The uber-rich aren't going to stop trying to protect "their" property, but with the Internet turning media upside-down, it will be harder than ever to get the poor to agree to conscription, crusades or even merc work.
Using trade embargoes via the WTO is probably better than outright war for this purpose, so long as they don't embargo to the point of mass starvation.
(For the record: I'm not anti-capitalist.
Humanity just sucks when it comes to war and money.
A progressive capitalism in which you can get rich but you can't take it with you [high inheritance tax to fund education of the poor] sounds most appealing to me.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346060</id>
	<title>Re:How many times has the US flouted WTO?</title>
	<author>Jarjarthejedi</author>
	<datestamp>1267634100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did google take over the United States? I must has missed that announcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did google take over the United States ?
I must has missed that announcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did google take over the United States?
I must has missed that announcement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345338</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>koxkoxkox</author>
	<datestamp>1267631160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess we have half the chance of getting the whole google.com banned from mainland China and only accessible behind a VPN<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... How would that be a progress to anyone ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess we have half the chance of getting the whole google.com banned from mainland China and only accessible behind a VPN ... How would that be a progress to anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess we have half the chance of getting the whole google.com banned from mainland China and only accessible behind a VPN ... How would that be a progress to anyone ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31348612</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1267645320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares about the motivations?  "Altruistic" behavior always has motivations, they're just more complex motivations than for  "selfish" behavior.  Let Google take credit for what they're doing, they're doing the right thing today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about the motivations ?
" Altruistic " behavior always has motivations , they 're just more complex motivations than for " selfish " behavior .
Let Google take credit for what they 're doing , they 're doing the right thing today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about the motivations?
"Altruistic" behavior always has motivations, they're just more complex motivations than for  "selfish" behavior.
Let Google take credit for what they're doing, they're doing the right thing today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346136</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267634460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are aware that Google makes its money by you providing you with your private information trough using their services, and then selling that to advertisers, are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are aware that Google makes its money by you providing you with your private information trough using their services , and then selling that to advertisers , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are aware that Google makes its money by you providing you with your private information trough using their services, and then selling that to advertisers, are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344810</id>
	<title>Down with Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267628760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should mind their own business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should mind their own business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should mind their own business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31347520</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267640040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue. I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it, but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have. It's one of their only ways to find news and information that hasn't been filtered through the government's propaganda machine. Obviously, that's why China doesn't want them to be able to use it.</p></div><p>yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they should also be able to find all the pr0n sites out there!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue .
I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it , but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have .
It 's one of their only ways to find news and information that has n't been filtered through the government 's propaganda machine .
Obviously , that 's why China does n't want them to be able to use it.yeah ... they should also be able to find all the pr0n sites out there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue.
I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it, but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have.
It's one of their only ways to find news and information that hasn't been filtered through the government's propaganda machine.
Obviously, that's why China doesn't want them to be able to use it.yeah ... they should also be able to find all the pr0n sites out there!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31352920</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray for Google</title>
	<author>Twigmon</author>
	<datestamp>1267623840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooh! This looks very interesting from an Australian Internet filter perspective. Google recently replied very abruptly when Stephen Conroy said he would like Google to start filtering Youtube for Australian visitors.</p><p>I would love to see the US start to pressure Australia as well!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooh !
This looks very interesting from an Australian Internet filter perspective .
Google recently replied very abruptly when Stephen Conroy said he would like Google to start filtering Youtube for Australian visitors.I would love to see the US start to pressure Australia as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooh!
This looks very interesting from an Australian Internet filter perspective.
Google recently replied very abruptly when Stephen Conroy said he would like Google to start filtering Youtube for Australian visitors.I would love to see the US start to pressure Australia as well!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344886</id>
	<title>Internet trade barriers</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1267629120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Internet based trade barriers are everywhere, what immediately also comes to mind are the US block on gambling websites.<br> <br>
The problem here is that it won't be easy to figth this one when we're not smelling like a rose, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet based trade barriers are everywhere , what immediately also comes to mind are the US block on gambling websites .
The problem here is that it wo n't be easy to figth this one when we 're not smelling like a rose , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet based trade barriers are everywhere, what immediately also comes to mind are the US block on gambling websites.
The problem here is that it won't be easy to figth this one when we're not smelling like a rose, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346280</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, you do realize...</title>
	<author>bberens</author>
	<datestamp>1267635060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is probably trying to win the "good will" of the Chinese people by being a vocal advocate for them.  It certainly wins good will from me to see Google publicly fighting censorship in China.  As a result I, and presumably many Chinese, will be willing to exchange some of my information so that Google can profit from it.  If the culture of Google changes and I become aware of any serious breaches of my privacy (beyond the little I willingly give up) then I will simply change my home page and block the domain causing Google to disappear from my world in a matter of moments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is probably trying to win the " good will " of the Chinese people by being a vocal advocate for them .
It certainly wins good will from me to see Google publicly fighting censorship in China .
As a result I , and presumably many Chinese , will be willing to exchange some of my information so that Google can profit from it .
If the culture of Google changes and I become aware of any serious breaches of my privacy ( beyond the little I willingly give up ) then I will simply change my home page and block the domain causing Google to disappear from my world in a matter of moments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is probably trying to win the "good will" of the Chinese people by being a vocal advocate for them.
It certainly wins good will from me to see Google publicly fighting censorship in China.
As a result I, and presumably many Chinese, will be willing to exchange some of my information so that Google can profit from it.
If the culture of Google changes and I become aware of any serious breaches of my privacy (beyond the little I willingly give up) then I will simply change my home page and block the domain causing Google to disappear from my world in a matter of moments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345408</id>
	<title>Re:Pull Out??</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1267631460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like Tiger, they also don't pull out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Tiger , they also do n't pull out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Tiger, they also don't pull out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344930</id>
	<title>Re:Pull Out??</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267629300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>well, no balls means no point in pulling out.  (oh yeah... i went there)</htmltext>
<tokenext>well , no balls means no point in pulling out .
( oh yeah... i went there )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, no balls means no point in pulling out.
(oh yeah... i went there)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345378</id>
	<title>Hooray for Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267631340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for pressuring the disgusting and odious Chinese government.  The Chinese are big on 'face', and maybe -- just maybe -- they can be shamed into adopting international standards of decent behaviour.</p><p>Ideally, what China really needs is a Hungarian-style transition to civilized, responsible democratic government, although I suppose piecemeal reform could rate a (distant) second place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for pressuring the disgusting and odious Chinese government .
The Chinese are big on 'face ' , and maybe -- just maybe -- they can be shamed into adopting international standards of decent behaviour.Ideally , what China really needs is a Hungarian-style transition to civilized , responsible democratic government , although I suppose piecemeal reform could rate a ( distant ) second place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for pressuring the disgusting and odious Chinese government.
The Chinese are big on 'face', and maybe -- just maybe -- they can be shamed into adopting international standards of decent behaviour.Ideally, what China really needs is a Hungarian-style transition to civilized, responsible democratic government, although I suppose piecemeal reform could rate a (distant) second place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1267630080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be. The only reason they are doing this is because China directly threatened their bottom line by trying to <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/google-hack-attack/" title="wired.com">steal</a> [wired.com] some of Google's proprietary source code (their bread and butter). Before China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else. Google isn't taking on China to protect innocents, they're doing it to send a message to China that if you hit Google's money train, they will hit back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be .
The only reason they are doing this is because China directly threatened their bottom line by trying to steal [ wired.com ] some of Google 's proprietary source code ( their bread and butter ) .
Before China did that , Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else .
Google is n't taking on China to protect innocents , they 're doing it to send a message to China that if you hit Google 's money train , they will hit back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be.
The only reason they are doing this is because China directly threatened their bottom line by trying to steal [wired.com] some of Google's proprietary source code (their bread and butter).
Before China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else.
Google isn't taking on China to protect innocents, they're doing it to send a message to China that if you hit Google's money train, they will hit back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31349794</id>
	<title>seems like another rerun of pirate bay</title>
	<author>bomcha</author>
	<datestamp>1267607940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems to me more like a rerun of MPAA lobbying US for piratebay...except in this case it is google lobbying US for the China censorship.Why are they making such a fuss now...why dint they make it long back...google's "no evil" is a joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to me more like a rerun of MPAA lobbying US for piratebay...except in this case it is google lobbying US for the China censorship.Why are they making such a fuss now...why dint they make it long back...google 's " no evil " is a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to me more like a rerun of MPAA lobbying US for piratebay...except in this case it is google lobbying US for the China censorship.Why are they making such a fuss now...why dint they make it long back...google's "no evil" is a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345040</id>
	<title>WTO reply</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1267629840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, we only do evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , we only do evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, we only do evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345002</id>
	<title>A good action from Google</title>
	<author>jeanph01</author>
	<datestamp>1267629720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was really disturbed by the buzz fiasco with privacy and was awaiting a good action from Google to restore my faith in them. I think this move deserve to be called a good action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was really disturbed by the buzz fiasco with privacy and was awaiting a good action from Google to restore my faith in them .
I think this move deserve to be called a good action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was really disturbed by the buzz fiasco with privacy and was awaiting a good action from Google to restore my faith in them.
I think this move deserve to be called a good action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345428</id>
	<title>Italy's trying to keep up with China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267631520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when we start working against censorship in Italy?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship\_in\_Italy#During\_Berlusconi.27s\_era\_.281992-present.29</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when we start working against censorship in Italy ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship \ _in \ _Italy # During \ _Berlusconi.27s \ _era \ _.281992-present.29</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when we start working against censorship in Italy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship\_in\_Italy#During\_Berlusconi.27s\_era\_.281992-present.29</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345928</id>
	<title>Nothing is going to happen.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1267633500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be great if this came to pass, but it wont. First, you're going to have a hard time getting China to do anything particularly when the people themselves believe that censorship is sometimes necessary. But more importantly, most companies couldn't care less. What they want is cheap manufacturing and some level of experience. China provides both while other developing nations can't yet meet these needs.</p><p>And China is a great target for passing the buck. Anything goes wrong with your product blame the Chinese manufacturers. When some of Mattel's toys were found to have a variety of problems what did they do? Blame China. Everyone completely overlooked the fact that Mattel should be directly involved in overseeing the manufacturing of their own products. But why should they care? The whole point of going to China to begin with was to cut costs.</p><p>If most companies don't care about the kind the quality of the stuff they sell us why the hell would they care about what China does on its own soil? And currently China is in a situation where it can throw its weight around. Perhaps when India and Southeast Asia are much stronger competitors to China things will change because at that point it will become more apparent that the world doesn't really need China. But of course, that really isn't going to help the case for China easing up on its own people.</p><p>And like I've stated, most Chinese don't think there's a problem at all. Frankly, there are far greater atrocities taking place around the world that Google should be speaking up about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be great if this came to pass , but it wont .
First , you 're going to have a hard time getting China to do anything particularly when the people themselves believe that censorship is sometimes necessary .
But more importantly , most companies could n't care less .
What they want is cheap manufacturing and some level of experience .
China provides both while other developing nations ca n't yet meet these needs.And China is a great target for passing the buck .
Anything goes wrong with your product blame the Chinese manufacturers .
When some of Mattel 's toys were found to have a variety of problems what did they do ?
Blame China .
Everyone completely overlooked the fact that Mattel should be directly involved in overseeing the manufacturing of their own products .
But why should they care ?
The whole point of going to China to begin with was to cut costs.If most companies do n't care about the kind the quality of the stuff they sell us why the hell would they care about what China does on its own soil ?
And currently China is in a situation where it can throw its weight around .
Perhaps when India and Southeast Asia are much stronger competitors to China things will change because at that point it will become more apparent that the world does n't really need China .
But of course , that really is n't going to help the case for China easing up on its own people.And like I 've stated , most Chinese do n't think there 's a problem at all .
Frankly , there are far greater atrocities taking place around the world that Google should be speaking up about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be great if this came to pass, but it wont.
First, you're going to have a hard time getting China to do anything particularly when the people themselves believe that censorship is sometimes necessary.
But more importantly, most companies couldn't care less.
What they want is cheap manufacturing and some level of experience.
China provides both while other developing nations can't yet meet these needs.And China is a great target for passing the buck.
Anything goes wrong with your product blame the Chinese manufacturers.
When some of Mattel's toys were found to have a variety of problems what did they do?
Blame China.
Everyone completely overlooked the fact that Mattel should be directly involved in overseeing the manufacturing of their own products.
But why should they care?
The whole point of going to China to begin with was to cut costs.If most companies don't care about the kind the quality of the stuff they sell us why the hell would they care about what China does on its own soil?
And currently China is in a situation where it can throw its weight around.
Perhaps when India and Southeast Asia are much stronger competitors to China things will change because at that point it will become more apparent that the world doesn't really need China.
But of course, that really isn't going to help the case for China easing up on its own people.And like I've stated, most Chinese don't think there's a problem at all.
Frankly, there are far greater atrocities taking place around the world that Google should be speaking up about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345618</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267632240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for them to see the top three pages of most searches be shopping and review sites that are nothing more then mostly broken links to other sites.</p><p>Welcome to the free-word China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for them to see the top three pages of most searches be shopping and review sites that are nothing more then mostly broken links to other sites.Welcome to the free-word China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for them to see the top three pages of most searches be shopping and review sites that are nothing more then mostly broken links to other sites.Welcome to the free-word China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345156</id>
	<title>Re:Down with Google</title>
	<author>Tukz</author>
	<datestamp>1267630320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's exactly what they are doing.</p><p>They believe the censorship imposed on Google by the Chinese government, is against the trade agreement set by WTO between the US and China.<br>I can't say if that's the case or not, that's up to the WTO to decide.<br>But it's a fair request to make by Google, it's disrupting to there business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly what they are doing.They believe the censorship imposed on Google by the Chinese government , is against the trade agreement set by WTO between the US and China.I ca n't say if that 's the case or not , that 's up to the WTO to decide.But it 's a fair request to make by Google , it 's disrupting to there business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly what they are doing.They believe the censorship imposed on Google by the Chinese government, is against the trade agreement set by WTO between the US and China.I can't say if that's the case or not, that's up to the WTO to decide.But it's a fair request to make by Google, it's disrupting to there business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344746</id>
	<title>Go cry baby river of blood google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267628460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All google.cn are belong to us cowboy !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All google.cn are belong to us cowboy !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All google.cn are belong to us cowboy !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345452</id>
	<title>Something worthwhile?</title>
	<author>WinPimp2K</author>
	<datestamp>1267631640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."</p></div><p>

You fail to understand how govenrment works. They will not re-assign "US  Tarde Reps" from their vital-to-national-security role in the ongoing ACTA negotiations. They will simply hire more "US Trade Reps" and raise taxes to pay for them. Since this will also mean at least the appearance of increased taxes on Disneywood, Disneywood will move more jobs offshore AND raise prices on their fine products. The increased local unemployment will require local govenrments to hire more workers to deal with the unemployment claims so they will also have to raise taxes.
<br> <br>
I think these petty (WTO) squabbles would be better resolved via bikini jello rass'ln.  It would certainly be a classier form of entertainment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it 's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do , rather than secretly negotiating ACTA .
" You fail to understand how govenrment works .
They will not re-assign " US Tarde Reps " from their vital-to-national-security role in the ongoing ACTA negotiations .
They will simply hire more " US Trade Reps " and raise taxes to pay for them .
Since this will also mean at least the appearance of increased taxes on Disneywood , Disneywood will move more jobs offshore AND raise prices on their fine products .
The increased local unemployment will require local govenrments to hire more workers to deal with the unemployment claims so they will also have to raise taxes .
I think these petty ( WTO ) squabbles would be better resolved via bikini jello rass'ln .
It would certainly be a classier form of entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA.
"

You fail to understand how govenrment works.
They will not re-assign "US  Tarde Reps" from their vital-to-national-security role in the ongoing ACTA negotiations.
They will simply hire more "US Trade Reps" and raise taxes to pay for them.
Since this will also mean at least the appearance of increased taxes on Disneywood, Disneywood will move more jobs offshore AND raise prices on their fine products.
The increased local unemployment will require local govenrments to hire more workers to deal with the unemployment claims so they will also have to raise taxes.
I think these petty (WTO) squabbles would be better resolved via bikini jello rass'ln.
It would certainly be a classier form of entertainment.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344794</id>
	<title>Re:Google V China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267628700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm quite proud of Google as well... because they seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to be a complete pain in the ass the Chinese government on the issue. Not to spite the Chinese, but to make them "play fair".<br> <br>

Google seemed to realize that until someone made a HUGE fuss over it the status quo would never change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite proud of Google as well... because they seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to be a complete pain in the ass the Chinese government on the issue .
Not to spite the Chinese , but to make them " play fair " .
Google seemed to realize that until someone made a HUGE fuss over it the status quo would never change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite proud of Google as well... because they seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to be a complete pain in the ass the Chinese government on the issue.
Not to spite the Chinese, but to make them "play fair".
Google seemed to realize that until someone made a HUGE fuss over it the status quo would never change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31347520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31352920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31348612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31348730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31352960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1259202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31347520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31352960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31348612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31348730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31346176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31352920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1259202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31344930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1259202.31345408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
