<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_17_1153251</id>
	<title>Facebook Attracting More Visitors Than Google.com</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268830440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:magnaliberatio@gmai\%5B\%5Dom\%5B'l.c'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">vikingpower</a> writes <i>"Internet research firm Hitwise just broke the news: last week, Facebook <a href="http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-dougherty/2010/03/facebook\_reaches\_top\_ranking\_i.html">attracted 7.07 percent of the internet traffic</a> in the USA, compared to 7.03 percent for Google. This is the first time google.com has been out of the top spot since it surpassed MySpace in 2007, and reflects <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/16/technology/facebook\_most\_visited/">a change in the way people use internet</a>. They tend to privilege social interaction sites above 'passive' search engines."</i>
Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03\% of traffic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>vikingpower writes " Internet research firm Hitwise just broke the news : last week , Facebook attracted 7.07 percent of the internet traffic in the USA , compared to 7.03 percent for Google .
This is the first time google.com has been out of the top spot since it surpassed MySpace in 2007 , and reflects a change in the way people use internet .
They tend to privilege social interaction sites above 'passive ' search engines .
" Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google 's non-search properties , which bring the total up to 11.03 \ % of traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vikingpower writes "Internet research firm Hitwise just broke the news: last week, Facebook attracted 7.07 percent of the internet traffic in the USA, compared to 7.03 percent for Google.
This is the first time google.com has been out of the top spot since it surpassed MySpace in 2007, and reflects a change in the way people use internet.
They tend to privilege social interaction sites above 'passive' search engines.
"
Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03\% of traffic.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508286</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1268839920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were looking for some way to validate their comparison of apples to hippopotamuses.</p><p>They were also at a loss for words. They meant "outputative" and "inputative". Google is something where you look for useful stuff. Facebook is where you post useless crap. Presumably, an "active" search engine would be one where you provide the content you're looking for.</p><p>All these statistics show is that the Internet is dominated by useless crap. But there's hope, in that Facebook will become a huge repository for useless crap (along with Twitter), which should help to clean up the rest of the Internet, making Google's job easier.</p><p>I think Facebook and Google should put up hit counters. Just for laughs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were looking for some way to validate their comparison of apples to hippopotamuses.They were also at a loss for words .
They meant " outputative " and " inputative " .
Google is something where you look for useful stuff .
Facebook is where you post useless crap .
Presumably , an " active " search engine would be one where you provide the content you 're looking for.All these statistics show is that the Internet is dominated by useless crap .
But there 's hope , in that Facebook will become a huge repository for useless crap ( along with Twitter ) , which should help to clean up the rest of the Internet , making Google 's job easier.I think Facebook and Google should put up hit counters .
Just for laughs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were looking for some way to validate their comparison of apples to hippopotamuses.They were also at a loss for words.
They meant "outputative" and "inputative".
Google is something where you look for useful stuff.
Facebook is where you post useless crap.
Presumably, an "active" search engine would be one where you provide the content you're looking for.All these statistics show is that the Internet is dominated by useless crap.
But there's hope, in that Facebook will become a huge repository for useless crap (along with Twitter), which should help to clean up the rest of the Internet, making Google's job easier.I think Facebook and Google should put up hit counters.
Just for laughs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507612</id>
	<title>Google needs to catch up...</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1268836920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only thing I do on Facebook is throw cows at everyone on my friends list. Outside of that Facebook is kinda pointless to me. All these causes, games, god knows what else I find more annoying then useful. Still Superpoke is useful for tossing cows at people. When Google comes up with something that lets me do that then I'm ditching Facebook forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I do on Facebook is throw cows at everyone on my friends list .
Outside of that Facebook is kinda pointless to me .
All these causes , games , god knows what else I find more annoying then useful .
Still Superpoke is useful for tossing cows at people .
When Google comes up with something that lets me do that then I 'm ditching Facebook forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I do on Facebook is throw cows at everyone on my friends list.
Outside of that Facebook is kinda pointless to me.
All these causes, games, god knows what else I find more annoying then useful.
Still Superpoke is useful for tossing cows at people.
When Google comes up with something that lets me do that then I'm ditching Facebook forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507426</id>
	<title>What do they do there?</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1268835720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it only me who knows that what people do on Facebook is more of gossip spreading than anything really useful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it only me who knows that what people do on Facebook is more of gossip spreading than anything really useful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it only me who knows that what people do on Facebook is more of gossip spreading than anything really useful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510016</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's not quite fair, I have about 9 or so close friends that may or may not live in the same city/state/country as I do. Doesn't mean I'm trading them in because I can only see them a few times a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's not quite fair , I have about 9 or so close friends that may or may not live in the same city/state/country as I do .
Does n't mean I 'm trading them in because I can only see them a few times a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's not quite fair, I have about 9 or so close friends that may or may not live in the same city/state/country as I do.
Doesn't mean I'm trading them in because I can only see them a few times a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507402</id>
	<title>Google is aware of this</title>
	<author>spacepimp</author>
	<datestamp>1268835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a vulnerability to them. They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet.  If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will.  If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will. The interesting bit comes around when you start getting an agreement with Facebook and Bing/Yahoo that tries to make this impossible for Google to achieve. The interwebs is a fickle hellcat, it moves at speeds of fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a vulnerability to them .
They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet .
If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will .
If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will .
The interesting bit comes around when you start getting an agreement with Facebook and Bing/Yahoo that tries to make this impossible for Google to achieve .
The interwebs is a fickle hellcat , it moves at speeds of fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a vulnerability to them.
They want to be YOUR portal to the rest of the internet.
If they can make it easier for you to get to Facebook via Google they will.
If they can pull you away from facebook into BUZZ or GoogleWave they will.
The interesting bit comes around when you start getting an agreement with Facebook and Bing/Yahoo that tries to make this impossible for Google to achieve.
The interwebs is a fickle hellcat, it moves at speeds of fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507602</id>
	<title>It's a bullshit marketing term</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1268836800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's extra fluff to make Google sound like a skank whore that no man will ever want to fuck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's extra fluff to make Google sound like a skank whore that no man will ever want to fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's extra fluff to make Google sound like a skank whore that no man will ever want to fuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507256</id>
	<title>quit cold turkey sometime last week</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh, I only went to facebook regularly because I got addicted to some of the crappy clicky games (MafiaWars and Starfleet Commander).  But at some point just this month, I finally stopped feeding the urge to maintain those things...  it was eating a lot of quality time out of my personal time in mornings and evenings.  I pretty much avoid MMORPGs for the same reason.</p><p>The signal-to-noise ratio of most of those social networking sites have plummeted, so I rarely pay much attention to them anymore.  The feeds are dominated by a handful of people who post all the time.  So queue up the next big thing... or actually maybe the older sites like LiveJournal with actual content, and not just grey connective tissue.   Clicky clicky linky linky can still get old and tired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , I only went to facebook regularly because I got addicted to some of the crappy clicky games ( MafiaWars and Starfleet Commander ) .
But at some point just this month , I finally stopped feeding the urge to maintain those things... it was eating a lot of quality time out of my personal time in mornings and evenings .
I pretty much avoid MMORPGs for the same reason.The signal-to-noise ratio of most of those social networking sites have plummeted , so I rarely pay much attention to them anymore .
The feeds are dominated by a handful of people who post all the time .
So queue up the next big thing... or actually maybe the older sites like LiveJournal with actual content , and not just grey connective tissue .
Clicky clicky linky linky can still get old and tired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, I only went to facebook regularly because I got addicted to some of the crappy clicky games (MafiaWars and Starfleet Commander).
But at some point just this month, I finally stopped feeding the urge to maintain those things...  it was eating a lot of quality time out of my personal time in mornings and evenings.
I pretty much avoid MMORPGs for the same reason.The signal-to-noise ratio of most of those social networking sites have plummeted, so I rarely pay much attention to them anymore.
The feeds are dominated by a handful of people who post all the time.
So queue up the next big thing... or actually maybe the older sites like LiveJournal with actual content, and not just grey connective tissue.
Clicky clicky linky linky can still get old and tired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510656</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with this post.  Along with St. Patty's day and everything, it is also NCAA march madness week and millions of people have brackets and groups setup on Facebook.  I would say that has contributed to the slight advantage Facebook has over Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this post .
Along with St. Patty 's day and everything , it is also NCAA march madness week and millions of people have brackets and groups setup on Facebook .
I would say that has contributed to the slight advantage Facebook has over Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this post.
Along with St. Patty's day and everything, it is also NCAA march madness week and millions of people have brackets and groups setup on Facebook.
I would say that has contributed to the slight advantage Facebook has over Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508154</id>
	<title>Lotta traffic for one site</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1268839500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an aside, it's stunning to think of the absolutely massive hardware that must sit behind Google and Facebook. I mean, 11\% and 7\% of ~total web traffic in the US~, respectively. That's a lot of bytes! Frankly I find it shocking/amazing that any single site can command such a massive slice of all traffic, given the size of the web and all. 11\% for Google's stuff combined doesn't surprise me but 7\% for FB certainly does. I mean, it's a popular site and I use it, but I doubt it makes up 7\% of my browsing-related traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an aside , it 's stunning to think of the absolutely massive hardware that must sit behind Google and Facebook .
I mean , 11 \ % and 7 \ % of ~ total web traffic in the US ~ , respectively .
That 's a lot of bytes !
Frankly I find it shocking/amazing that any single site can command such a massive slice of all traffic , given the size of the web and all .
11 \ % for Google 's stuff combined does n't surprise me but 7 \ % for FB certainly does .
I mean , it 's a popular site and I use it , but I doubt it makes up 7 \ % of my browsing-related traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an aside, it's stunning to think of the absolutely massive hardware that must sit behind Google and Facebook.
I mean, 11\% and 7\% of ~total web traffic in the US~, respectively.
That's a lot of bytes!
Frankly I find it shocking/amazing that any single site can command such a massive slice of all traffic, given the size of the web and all.
11\% for Google's stuff combined doesn't surprise me but 7\% for FB certainly does.
I mean, it's a popular site and I use it, but I doubt it makes up 7\% of my browsing-related traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507518</id>
	<title>What is Facebook?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268836320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never heard of that. I generally go out have fun and meet new people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never heard of that .
I generally go out have fun and meet new people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never heard of that.
I generally go out have fun and meet new people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507326</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1268835180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, as the Internet gets more popular, the average technical ability of the users will decrease, and it will be used less often, overall, as a research tool for people looking for information about development/physics/whatever, and more for entertainment (watching tv/movies, listening to music etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , as the Internet gets more popular , the average technical ability of the users will decrease , and it will be used less often , overall , as a research tool for people looking for information about development/physics/whatever , and more for entertainment ( watching tv/movies , listening to music etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, as the Internet gets more popular, the average technical ability of the users will decrease, and it will be used less often, overall, as a research tool for people looking for information about development/physics/whatever, and more for entertainment (watching tv/movies, listening to music etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507914</id>
	<title>Facebook knows more than that.</title>
	<author>jwietelmann</author>
	<datestamp>1268838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook knows your name, age, location, friends, events you attend...

And unlike Google, they're not afraid to give that information to whoever's willing to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook knows your name , age , location , friends , events you attend.. . And unlike Google , they 're not afraid to give that information to whoever 's willing to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook knows your name, age, location, friends, events you attend...

And unlike Google, they're not afraid to give that information to whoever's willing to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507282</id>
	<title>What comparison?</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1268834760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know why they make the comparison, as if somehow Facebook is replacing Google.  They serve different purposes.  People may need to use Google a few times a day to locate information, but they'll hit FB every hour?  every 15 minutes?  Depends on the person, but the conclusion they seem to draw, that we are using the internet differently, seems an odd one.  Unless they are trying to just comment that more people are using social networking sites than before?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why they make the comparison , as if somehow Facebook is replacing Google .
They serve different purposes .
People may need to use Google a few times a day to locate information , but they 'll hit FB every hour ?
every 15 minutes ?
Depends on the person , but the conclusion they seem to draw , that we are using the internet differently , seems an odd one .
Unless they are trying to just comment that more people are using social networking sites than before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why they make the comparison, as if somehow Facebook is replacing Google.
They serve different purposes.
People may need to use Google a few times a day to locate information, but they'll hit FB every hour?
every 15 minutes?
Depends on the person, but the conclusion they seem to draw, that we are using the internet differently, seems an odd one.
Unless they are trying to just comment that more people are using social networking sites than before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509176</id>
	<title>Facebook is a one trick pony</title>
	<author>yog</author>
	<datestamp>1268843640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Facebook hits exceed Google Search hits.  That's an interesting trend.  But Facebook is a rather one dimensional tool, while Google represents practically everything people do on the Internet.  They can't really be compared, in my opinion.</p><p>Millions of people (myself included) log onto Facebook several times a day to check their friends' status, and update their own status, and engage in banter with friends.  It's a casual, superficial, but fun way to keep in touch with people that you'd otherwise have to compose an email to, which entails maintaining up to date contact information, keeping them out of your spam folder, etc.  Facebook is a wonderful convenience but not a necessity.</p><p>Google is the internet.  I can't imagine getting through the day without Google (well, I could but it wouldn't be pretty), whereas I could totally ditch Facebook if I had to.  I suspect many if not most of FB's 300 million users feel similarly.</p><p>What's more, a lot of users seem to hate Facebook.  Every time they change their privacy policy, for example, people become outraged and start passing around petitions telling FB to leave their personal info alone.  In fact, every time they slightly rearrange the user interface, people get all up in arms.  People's love for Facebook is skin deep.  I imagine if a superior service came along that allowed us to quickly import our FB contacts, people would ditch FB in a minute, similarly to the way Myspace was abandoned a couple of years back.</p><p>Oops, gotta go check my facebook now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Facebook hits exceed Google Search hits .
That 's an interesting trend .
But Facebook is a rather one dimensional tool , while Google represents practically everything people do on the Internet .
They ca n't really be compared , in my opinion.Millions of people ( myself included ) log onto Facebook several times a day to check their friends ' status , and update their own status , and engage in banter with friends .
It 's a casual , superficial , but fun way to keep in touch with people that you 'd otherwise have to compose an email to , which entails maintaining up to date contact information , keeping them out of your spam folder , etc .
Facebook is a wonderful convenience but not a necessity.Google is the internet .
I ca n't imagine getting through the day without Google ( well , I could but it would n't be pretty ) , whereas I could totally ditch Facebook if I had to .
I suspect many if not most of FB 's 300 million users feel similarly.What 's more , a lot of users seem to hate Facebook .
Every time they change their privacy policy , for example , people become outraged and start passing around petitions telling FB to leave their personal info alone .
In fact , every time they slightly rearrange the user interface , people get all up in arms .
People 's love for Facebook is skin deep .
I imagine if a superior service came along that allowed us to quickly import our FB contacts , people would ditch FB in a minute , similarly to the way Myspace was abandoned a couple of years back.Oops , got ta go check my facebook now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Facebook hits exceed Google Search hits.
That's an interesting trend.
But Facebook is a rather one dimensional tool, while Google represents practically everything people do on the Internet.
They can't really be compared, in my opinion.Millions of people (myself included) log onto Facebook several times a day to check their friends' status, and update their own status, and engage in banter with friends.
It's a casual, superficial, but fun way to keep in touch with people that you'd otherwise have to compose an email to, which entails maintaining up to date contact information, keeping them out of your spam folder, etc.
Facebook is a wonderful convenience but not a necessity.Google is the internet.
I can't imagine getting through the day without Google (well, I could but it wouldn't be pretty), whereas I could totally ditch Facebook if I had to.
I suspect many if not most of FB's 300 million users feel similarly.What's more, a lot of users seem to hate Facebook.
Every time they change their privacy policy, for example, people become outraged and start passing around petitions telling FB to leave their personal info alone.
In fact, every time they slightly rearrange the user interface, people get all up in arms.
People's love for Facebook is skin deep.
I imagine if a superior service came along that allowed us to quickly import our FB contacts, people would ditch FB in a minute, similarly to the way Myspace was abandoned a couple of years back.Oops, gotta go check my facebook now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508902</id>
	<title>Loss for Privacy and the Open Internet</title>
	<author>Compaqt</author>
	<datestamp>1268842500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you will about Google, but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook's.</p><p>*You can use much of Google without logging in, even without cookies or Javascript. Try that with Facebook.<br>*Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz, but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations<br>*Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads (text ads).  Though they later added other kinds of ads, Google showed it's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious. Facebook ads are evil incarnate.<br>*Google is all about pointing people towards the World Wide Web. Facebook is about keeping people in a walled garden.<br>*Google's birth story is 2 geeks building a better mousetrap. Facebook was conceived in privacy-impinging, account-hacking, contract-abrogating, trust-violating sin. New developments serve to confirm these initial trajectories.</p><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/234204/Facebook-Founder-Accused-of-Hacking-Into-Rivals-Email" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/234204/Facebook-Founder-Accused-of-Hacking-Into-Rivals-Email</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will about Google , but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook 's .
* You can use much of Google without logging in , even without cookies or Javascript .
Try that with Facebook .
* Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz , but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations * Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads ( text ads ) .
Though they later added other kinds of ads , Google showed it 's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious .
Facebook ads are evil incarnate .
* Google is all about pointing people towards the World Wide Web .
Facebook is about keeping people in a walled garden .
* Google 's birth story is 2 geeks building a better mousetrap .
Facebook was conceived in privacy-impinging , account-hacking , contract-abrogating , trust-violating sin .
New developments serve to confirm these initial trajectories.http : //news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/234204/Facebook-Founder-Accused-of-Hacking-Into-Rivals-Email [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will about Google, but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook's.
*You can use much of Google without logging in, even without cookies or Javascript.
Try that with Facebook.
*Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz, but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations*Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads (text ads).
Though they later added other kinds of ads, Google showed it's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious.
Facebook ads are evil incarnate.
*Google is all about pointing people towards the World Wide Web.
Facebook is about keeping people in a walled garden.
*Google's birth story is 2 geeks building a better mousetrap.
Facebook was conceived in privacy-impinging, account-hacking, contract-abrogating, trust-violating sin.
New developments serve to confirm these initial trajectories.http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/234204/Facebook-Founder-Accused-of-Hacking-Into-Rivals-Email [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31516148</id>
	<title>Re:OK</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1268823900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not a lie. There is not only one answer to this. The world is not black and white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not a lie .
There is not only one answer to this .
The world is not black and white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not a lie.
There is not only one answer to this.
The world is not black and white.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31511070</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook is the new AOL.  The marketing guys I work with are convinced that a 'Facebook strategy' is the One True Path to financial success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is the new AOL .
The marketing guys I work with are convinced that a 'Facebook strategy ' is the One True Path to financial success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is the new AOL.
The marketing guys I work with are convinced that a 'Facebook strategy' is the One True Path to financial success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507610</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268836860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're analyzing whatever they can find so they can make up a headline "Facebook attracting more visitors than google.com" so you'll actually read it and discover it's complete tripe, but only after having seen a few ads that they get paid for.</p><p>I know when I search on Google, I go to Google.com, enter my search criteria, and then start poring through the results.  When I've found what I wanted, I move to the sites that have what I want.  So Google gets maybe 10 "hits", 100 if you count each page element my browser requests as a "hit".</p><p>When I go on Facebook, I'll read updates, sometimes post replies, etc.  Facebook also has a much more complex page with a lot more elements.  So depending on their measurement of "visits", just going to Facebook might be anywhere between 20-30 hits per brief visit to thousands of them if you count each request.</p><p>But you looked at their ads, didn't you?  Their statistics served their purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're analyzing whatever they can find so they can make up a headline " Facebook attracting more visitors than google.com " so you 'll actually read it and discover it 's complete tripe , but only after having seen a few ads that they get paid for.I know when I search on Google , I go to Google.com , enter my search criteria , and then start poring through the results .
When I 've found what I wanted , I move to the sites that have what I want .
So Google gets maybe 10 " hits " , 100 if you count each page element my browser requests as a " hit " .When I go on Facebook , I 'll read updates , sometimes post replies , etc .
Facebook also has a much more complex page with a lot more elements .
So depending on their measurement of " visits " , just going to Facebook might be anywhere between 20-30 hits per brief visit to thousands of them if you count each request.But you looked at their ads , did n't you ?
Their statistics served their purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're analyzing whatever they can find so they can make up a headline "Facebook attracting more visitors than google.com" so you'll actually read it and discover it's complete tripe, but only after having seen a few ads that they get paid for.I know when I search on Google, I go to Google.com, enter my search criteria, and then start poring through the results.
When I've found what I wanted, I move to the sites that have what I want.
So Google gets maybe 10 "hits", 100 if you count each page element my browser requests as a "hit".When I go on Facebook, I'll read updates, sometimes post replies, etc.
Facebook also has a much more complex page with a lot more elements.
So depending on their measurement of "visits", just going to Facebook might be anywhere between 20-30 hits per brief visit to thousands of them if you count each request.But you looked at their ads, didn't you?
Their statistics served their purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507834</id>
	<title>This just in</title>
	<author>LSD-OBS</author>
	<datestamp>1268837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People generally prefer talking bullshit and gawking at each other's pointless photos over finding and learning useful information on the Internet.</p><p>Either that or people stopped googling the website name they wanted, and learned either how to use the address bar or the bookmarks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People generally prefer talking bullshit and gawking at each other 's pointless photos over finding and learning useful information on the Internet.Either that or people stopped googling the website name they wanted , and learned either how to use the address bar or the bookmarks : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People generally prefer talking bullshit and gawking at each other's pointless photos over finding and learning useful information on the Internet.Either that or people stopped googling the website name they wanted, and learned either how to use the address bar or the bookmarks :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510674</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1268848680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh jeez, get over yourself.  No one can keep a close personal relationship with every one of our friends.  We have moved or have families or are just too busy.  Facebook is a simple way to keep in touch.  I log in, see someone I haven't chatted with in awhile, send them some messages and enjoy seeing how they are doing.<br> <br>To try to make it seem like that is somehow anti-social and I don't have real friends is moronic.  I don't maintain some sort of fake personality.  I'll throw up a link or something if I think the people I know will enjoy it and that's about it. <br> <br>Stop being such a judgmental prick.  My "real" friends that I hang out with every weekend are on facebook.  It is just an easy way to share things with them.  Sometimes they organize events through facebook (like disc golf outings).<br> <br>If you don't like it, fine, don't use it.  But there isn't anything screwed up with people who do and find it useful.<br> <br>And don't you find it ironic you are telling people to get off the Internet when you are on Slashdot posting all day?<br> <br>And for the love of all that is good, learn how to use capital letters at the beginning of sentences!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh jeez , get over yourself .
No one can keep a close personal relationship with every one of our friends .
We have moved or have families or are just too busy .
Facebook is a simple way to keep in touch .
I log in , see someone I have n't chatted with in awhile , send them some messages and enjoy seeing how they are doing .
To try to make it seem like that is somehow anti-social and I do n't have real friends is moronic .
I do n't maintain some sort of fake personality .
I 'll throw up a link or something if I think the people I know will enjoy it and that 's about it .
Stop being such a judgmental prick .
My " real " friends that I hang out with every weekend are on facebook .
It is just an easy way to share things with them .
Sometimes they organize events through facebook ( like disc golf outings ) .
If you do n't like it , fine , do n't use it .
But there is n't anything screwed up with people who do and find it useful .
And do n't you find it ironic you are telling people to get off the Internet when you are on Slashdot posting all day ?
And for the love of all that is good , learn how to use capital letters at the beginning of sentences !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh jeez, get over yourself.
No one can keep a close personal relationship with every one of our friends.
We have moved or have families or are just too busy.
Facebook is a simple way to keep in touch.
I log in, see someone I haven't chatted with in awhile, send them some messages and enjoy seeing how they are doing.
To try to make it seem like that is somehow anti-social and I don't have real friends is moronic.
I don't maintain some sort of fake personality.
I'll throw up a link or something if I think the people I know will enjoy it and that's about it.
Stop being such a judgmental prick.
My "real" friends that I hang out with every weekend are on facebook.
It is just an easy way to share things with them.
Sometimes they organize events through facebook (like disc golf outings).
If you don't like it, fine, don't use it.
But there isn't anything screwed up with people who do and find it useful.
And don't you find it ironic you are telling people to get off the Internet when you are on Slashdot posting all day?
And for the love of all that is good, learn how to use capital letters at the beginning of sentences!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31511418</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1268850600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see it more as Facebook rebuilding AOL from the bottom up. It is a walled garden that for increasing numbers of people IS the Internet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it more as Facebook rebuilding AOL from the bottom up .
It is a walled garden that for increasing numbers of people IS the Internet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it more as Facebook rebuilding AOL from the bottom up.
It is a walled garden that for increasing numbers of people IS the Internet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31519706</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>respired</author>
	<datestamp>1268942400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not about needing a social network or not. It's understanding that what it means to be human and what it means to have friends is changing. 27 here now. I started making my first internet friends at 16. I've had real emotional and tangible life stories with friends I've met online and in fleeting passing who were downloading a song from me on napster, and I simply pulled up the chat with their user name ( yes napster had chat ), and asked them if they really enjoyed the music of the artist they're downloading from my music store.

Real connections, real emotions, real bonds can be formed between online acquaintances, because at each end is a human being. Life is simply more dynamic, faster, and people have the accessibility and tools to bond with more people, even if they will never meet them in real life. Welcome to a new world, where cybernetic implants, grown organs from your own DNA, and wonderful discoveries from extending our abilities is possible as it always has been.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about needing a social network or not .
It 's understanding that what it means to be human and what it means to have friends is changing .
27 here now .
I started making my first internet friends at 16 .
I 've had real emotional and tangible life stories with friends I 've met online and in fleeting passing who were downloading a song from me on napster , and I simply pulled up the chat with their user name ( yes napster had chat ) , and asked them if they really enjoyed the music of the artist they 're downloading from my music store .
Real connections , real emotions , real bonds can be formed between online acquaintances , because at each end is a human being .
Life is simply more dynamic , faster , and people have the accessibility and tools to bond with more people , even if they will never meet them in real life .
Welcome to a new world , where cybernetic implants , grown organs from your own DNA , and wonderful discoveries from extending our abilities is possible as it always has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about needing a social network or not.
It's understanding that what it means to be human and what it means to have friends is changing.
27 here now.
I started making my first internet friends at 16.
I've had real emotional and tangible life stories with friends I've met online and in fleeting passing who were downloading a song from me on napster, and I simply pulled up the chat with their user name ( yes napster had chat ), and asked them if they really enjoyed the music of the artist they're downloading from my music store.
Real connections, real emotions, real bonds can be formed between online acquaintances, because at each end is a human being.
Life is simply more dynamic, faster, and people have the accessibility and tools to bond with more people, even if they will never meet them in real life.
Welcome to a new world, where cybernetic implants, grown organs from your own DNA, and wonderful discoveries from extending our abilities is possible as it always has been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507824</id>
	<title>The new AOL</title>
	<author>olddotter</author>
	<datestamp>1268837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So some people spend time in Facebook like members of the TheGuild spend time in WoW.  That generates lots of page views and traffic.  On the other hand I visit facebook about twice a month and use google countless times a day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So some people spend time in Facebook like members of the TheGuild spend time in WoW .
That generates lots of page views and traffic .
On the other hand I visit facebook about twice a month and use google countless times a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So some people spend time in Facebook like members of the TheGuild spend time in WoW.
That generates lots of page views and traffic.
On the other hand I visit facebook about twice a month and use google countless times a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507254</id>
	<title>It won't go on for long</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the near future, people are going to abandon Facebook for supposed privacy issues. Google is too powerful to lose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the near future , people are going to abandon Facebook for supposed privacy issues .
Google is too powerful to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the near future, people are going to abandon Facebook for supposed privacy issues.
Google is too powerful to lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507404</id>
	<title>Re:People still visit google.com?</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1268835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the answer page is on Google.com.  They're talking about the whole TLD, not the home page.  <br>
&nbsp; <br>Using the search bar is win-win with Google.  They save on bandwidth/resources, and there's no ads on their home page anyway.  And when it jumps you to Wikipedia, those are usually for instances where you're not shopping for something anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the answer page is on Google.com .
They 're talking about the whole TLD , not the home page .
  Using the search bar is win-win with Google .
They save on bandwidth/resources , and there 's no ads on their home page anyway .
And when it jumps you to Wikipedia , those are usually for instances where you 're not shopping for something anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the answer page is on Google.com.
They're talking about the whole TLD, not the home page.
  Using the search bar is win-win with Google.
They save on bandwidth/resources, and there's no ads on their home page anyway.
And when it jumps you to Wikipedia, those are usually for instances where you're not shopping for something anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510640</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...</title>
	<author>E-Rock</author>
	<datestamp>1268848560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one finds it funny that this milestone of the rise of social networking is that facebook surpassed google.  Did they not read the next line where before google MySpace was the top site?</p><p>Social Site - Search Engine - Social Site</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one finds it funny that this milestone of the rise of social networking is that facebook surpassed google .
Did they not read the next line where before google MySpace was the top site ? Social Site - Search Engine - Social Site</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one finds it funny that this milestone of the rise of social networking is that facebook surpassed google.
Did they not read the next line where before google MySpace was the top site?Social Site - Search Engine - Social Site</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507698</id>
	<title>Traffic != Visitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article states traffic, not visitors. I'm only guessing here, but I think the google search-page doesn't generate as much traffic as facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states traffic , not visitors .
I 'm only guessing here , but I think the google search-page does n't generate as much traffic as facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states traffic, not visitors.
I'm only guessing here, but I think the google search-page doesn't generate as much traffic as facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522082</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>You mean Facebook is trying to be the AOL of last century?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet .
...You mean Facebook is trying to be the AOL of last century ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.
...You mean Facebook is trying to be the AOL of last century?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507280</id>
	<title>Apples and oranges.</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268834760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the point of the article is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the point of the article is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the point of the article is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507666</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet. Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed.</p></div><p>To further add to the Wal-Mart analogy, every person that finds me from high school has turned into a fat, conservative evangelical breeder. So it's JUST like Wal-Mart!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet .
Sure , you could go to flickr for the photos , twitter for the updates , upcoming for the events , youtube/hulu for videos , gtalk/yahoo for IM , gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed.To further add to the Wal-Mart analogy , every person that finds me from high school has turned into a fat , conservative evangelical breeder .
So it 's JUST like Wal-Mart !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.
Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed.To further add to the Wal-Mart analogy, every person that finds me from high school has turned into a fat, conservative evangelical breeder.
So it's JUST like Wal-Mart!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508828</id>
	<title>Re:facebook</title>
	<author>Sinning</author>
	<datestamp>1268842200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't this have been 'first poke!' ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this have been 'first poke !
' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this have been 'first poke!
' ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206</id>
	<title>OK</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1268834340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03\% of traffic.</p></div><p>So, in other words, the entire premise of the headline/summary/article is a lie? What would the statistics for Facebook be if you only included "search properties"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google 's non-search properties , which bring the total up to 11.03 \ % of traffic.So , in other words , the entire premise of the headline/summary/article is a lie ?
What would the statistics for Facebook be if you only included " search properties " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03\% of traffic.So, in other words, the entire premise of the headline/summary/article is a lie?
What would the statistics for Facebook be if you only included "search properties"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is a "passive" search engine?</p><p>Come on, CNN.  These people aren't saying "Oh, well, I have Facebook, so fuck Google"...they are just going to Facebook.  What with Saint Patrick's day upon us and Spring Break happening in the near future, this doesn't surprise me, as a ton of people are likely using Facebook to organize parties and trips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is a " passive " search engine ? Come on , CNN .
These people are n't saying " Oh , well , I have Facebook , so fuck Google " ...they are just going to Facebook .
What with Saint Patrick 's day upon us and Spring Break happening in the near future , this does n't surprise me , as a ton of people are likely using Facebook to organize parties and trips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is a "passive" search engine?Come on, CNN.
These people aren't saying "Oh, well, I have Facebook, so fuck Google"...they are just going to Facebook.
What with Saint Patrick's day upon us and Spring Break happening in the near future, this doesn't surprise me, as a ton of people are likely using Facebook to organize parties and trips.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509118</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>webreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1268843400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of utter tosh. I'm pretty busy. I work an 11-hour day, with an hour commute at each end. I also have busy weekends. So in order to keep up with my friends I share pictures, comments, etc on Facebook during normally dead time (like commuting). My friends are friends, not aquaintences. And the reason I'm so close to them is because I communicate with them daily or hourly - even if I don't physically see them for days or weeks.

</p><p>In fact, some of my best friends I've known for 11-12 years, and communicate daily via email. I know far more about them than I do about acquaintances I meet at the pub or at work, etc. Some of them I've only met face-to-face two or three times.

</p><p>Friendship is almost wholly about communication. Whether I sit in a pub drinking beer and talking, or play sports and talk, or watch a movie and talk, communication is the bit that matters. So communicating via email, SMS, facebook, twitter, etc, is just as valid - possibly more so, as I communicate far more electronically than I would ever be bothered to do if I had to get in a car and go meet people week-by-week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of utter tosh .
I 'm pretty busy .
I work an 11-hour day , with an hour commute at each end .
I also have busy weekends .
So in order to keep up with my friends I share pictures , comments , etc on Facebook during normally dead time ( like commuting ) .
My friends are friends , not aquaintences .
And the reason I 'm so close to them is because I communicate with them daily or hourly - even if I do n't physically see them for days or weeks .
In fact , some of my best friends I 've known for 11-12 years , and communicate daily via email .
I know far more about them than I do about acquaintances I meet at the pub or at work , etc .
Some of them I 've only met face-to-face two or three times .
Friendship is almost wholly about communication .
Whether I sit in a pub drinking beer and talking , or play sports and talk , or watch a movie and talk , communication is the bit that matters .
So communicating via email , SMS , facebook , twitter , etc , is just as valid - possibly more so , as I communicate far more electronically than I would ever be bothered to do if I had to get in a car and go meet people week-by-week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of utter tosh.
I'm pretty busy.
I work an 11-hour day, with an hour commute at each end.
I also have busy weekends.
So in order to keep up with my friends I share pictures, comments, etc on Facebook during normally dead time (like commuting).
My friends are friends, not aquaintences.
And the reason I'm so close to them is because I communicate with them daily or hourly - even if I don't physically see them for days or weeks.
In fact, some of my best friends I've known for 11-12 years, and communicate daily via email.
I know far more about them than I do about acquaintances I meet at the pub or at work, etc.
Some of them I've only met face-to-face two or three times.
Friendship is almost wholly about communication.
Whether I sit in a pub drinking beer and talking, or play sports and talk, or watch a movie and talk, communication is the bit that matters.
So communicating via email, SMS, facebook, twitter, etc, is just as valid - possibly more so, as I communicate far more electronically than I would ever be bothered to do if I had to get in a car and go meet people week-by-week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507318</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1268835120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So fall out of touch with them. There is  nothing social about social networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So fall out of touch with them .
There is nothing social about social networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So fall out of touch with them.
There is  nothing social about social networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31517768</id>
	<title>Re:OK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook only uses only one domain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook only uses only one domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook only uses only one domain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507276</id>
	<title>People still visit google.com?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I need to search for something, I put the search terms into the URL bar and Google Chrome automatically sends me to the answer page for the search query. Sometimes it even takes me straight to a Wikipedia article.</p><p>Search isn't dead, it's just transparent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I need to search for something , I put the search terms into the URL bar and Google Chrome automatically sends me to the answer page for the search query .
Sometimes it even takes me straight to a Wikipedia article.Search is n't dead , it 's just transparent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I need to search for something, I put the search terms into the URL bar and Google Chrome automatically sends me to the answer page for the search query.
Sometimes it even takes me straight to a Wikipedia article.Search isn't dead, it's just transparent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507384</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1268835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall. The trick of course, is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there.</p> </div><p>You know, they just opened up their chat over Jabber, right?  I just added another account in Empathy, (you can do it in any chat client that support Jabber, like Pidgin, and many, many others) and now my friends keep messaging me when I'm asleep, wondering why I'm still online.</p><p>I actually like it, I can chat with friends on the site, without having to be on the site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall .
The trick of course , is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb 's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there .
You know , they just opened up their chat over Jabber , right ?
I just added another account in Empathy , ( you can do it in any chat client that support Jabber , like Pidgin , and many , many others ) and now my friends keep messaging me when I 'm asleep , wondering why I 'm still online.I actually like it , I can chat with friends on the site , without having to be on the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall.
The trick of course, is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there.
You know, they just opened up their chat over Jabber, right?
I just added another account in Empathy, (you can do it in any chat client that support Jabber, like Pidgin, and many, many others) and now my friends keep messaging me when I'm asleep, wondering why I'm still online.I actually like it, I can chat with friends on the site, without having to be on the site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507480</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1268836020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> gotta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [dotgnu.info], with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Falling out of touch? The friends I have are just a phone call away. I have an account on FB but if I really care about someone, I don't need it to stay in touch with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>got ta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [ dotgnu.info ] , with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing.Falling out of touch ?
The friends I have are just a phone call away .
I have an account on FB but if I really care about someone , I do n't need it to stay in touch with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> gotta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [dotgnu.info], with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing.Falling out of touch?
The friends I have are just a phone call away.
I have an account on FB but if I really care about someone, I don't need it to stay in touch with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507958</id>
	<title>Myspace was in the lead...</title>
	<author>laxsu19</author>
	<datestamp>1268838600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If MySpace was in the lead in 2007, then google overtook it for a few years, and now facebook has the lead, how is this a 'change in the way people use the internet'?  Apparently back before 2007 we used google less than myspace...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If MySpace was in the lead in 2007 , then google overtook it for a few years , and now facebook has the lead , how is this a 'change in the way people use the internet ' ?
Apparently back before 2007 we used google less than myspace.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If MySpace was in the lead in 2007, then google overtook it for a few years, and now facebook has the lead, how is this a 'change in the way people use the internet'?
Apparently back before 2007 we used google less than myspace...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</id>
	<title>The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>Gopal.V</author>
	<datestamp>1268834580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet. Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed.
</p><p>
Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall. The trick of course, is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there.
</p><p>
Now, do I use facebook? Damn right, I do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because as much bitching as I do about the effect it's having on the entire internet, I gotta move with my friends or end up <a href="http://t3.dotgnu.info/blog/misc/people-must-stay" title="dotgnu.info">falling out of touch</a> [dotgnu.info], with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing. And in some selfish way, my friends are more important to me than the internet.
</p><p>
Sad, but true.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet .
Sure , you could go to flickr for the photos , twitter for the updates , upcoming for the events , youtube/hulu for videos , gtalk/yahoo for IM , gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed .
Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall .
The trick of course , is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb 's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there .
Now , do I use facebook ?
Damn right , I do ... because as much bitching as I do about the effect it 's having on the entire internet , I got ta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [ dotgnu.info ] , with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing .
And in some selfish way , my friends are more important to me than the internet .
Sad , but true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.
Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages - or you could go to facebook and have all of it half-assed.
Basically a huge walled garden which is only available to those inside the wall.
The trick of course, is to make it nice so that people can bring in their data easily and fb's success is because they make it damn convenient to put your data in there.
Now, do I use facebook?
Damn right, I do ... because as much bitching as I do about the effect it's having on the entire internet, I gotta move with my friends or end up falling out of touch [dotgnu.info], with everybody who already knows what everybody else is doing.
And in some selfish way, my friends are more important to me than the internet.
Sad, but true.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509314</id>
	<title>Re:to get it balanced...</title>
	<author>tompaulco</author>
	<datestamp>1268844240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My part of the internet would look exactly the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My part of the internet would look exactly the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My part of the internet would look exactly the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507510</id>
	<title>Sure... lots and lots of traffic</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1268836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure there's a ton of traffic. People keep handing me free beers!</p><p>I'd hazard that at least 80\% of that Google traffic is useful and productive. Facebook traffic, OTOH, tends to be viral marketing crap designed to drive up the traffic stats.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure there 's a ton of traffic .
People keep handing me free beers ! I 'd hazard that at least 80 \ % of that Google traffic is useful and productive .
Facebook traffic , OTOH , tends to be viral marketing crap designed to drive up the traffic stats.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure there's a ton of traffic.
People keep handing me free beers!I'd hazard that at least 80\% of that Google traffic is useful and productive.
Facebook traffic, OTOH, tends to be viral marketing crap designed to drive up the traffic stats.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509210</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268843820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So fall out of touch with them. There is  nothing social about social networks.</p></div><p>Agreed.  I don't use facebook and neither do any of my friends and we don't have problems staying in touch.  We're not "old" or anything--we're typical young adults in our mid twenties.  I think the type that is drawn to face book simply isn't the type that forms good friendships with the types that don't like facebook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So fall out of touch with them .
There is nothing social about social networks.Agreed .
I do n't use facebook and neither do any of my friends and we do n't have problems staying in touch .
We 're not " old " or anything--we 're typical young adults in our mid twenties .
I think the type that is drawn to face book simply is n't the type that forms good friendships with the types that do n't like facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So fall out of touch with them.
There is  nothing social about social networks.Agreed.
I don't use facebook and neither do any of my friends and we don't have problems staying in touch.
We're not "old" or anything--we're typical young adults in our mid twenties.
I think the type that is drawn to face book simply isn't the type that forms good friendships with the types that don't like facebook.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507238</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>jplopez</author>
	<datestamp>1268834580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google introduces Gfarm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google introduces Gfarm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google introduces Gfarm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507538</id>
	<title>to get it balanced...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268836440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would the internet without Facebook look like?<br>No change, only the happy family party hooker photos would go to Flickr or similar.</p><p>What would the internet without Google look like?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...so?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would the internet without Facebook look like ? No change , only the happy family party hooker photos would go to Flickr or similar.What would the internet without Google look like ?
...so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would the internet without Facebook look like?No change, only the happy family party hooker photos would go to Flickr or similar.What would the internet without Google look like?
...so?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510474</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>Ohio Calvinist</author>
	<datestamp>1268848080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not necessarily true. I've lived in 4 different US states in the past 6 years. Status updates for a period can be enough to keep that relationship going to the point that if I called them tomorrow it would not be a 2 hour conversation around catching up so much as "Hey, I have a 4 hour layover passing through Las Vegas on my way to Chicago next week, want to try to grab lunch?" or "Saw you were going to a convention in LA, I live about 90 minutes from there, think you'll have time to grab a beer?"</p><p>There are many friends who I simply do not have the time to keep up with because they are not good about using their e-mail or social media resources. I simply cannot coordinate calls when I am three time zones away and work two jobs the same way I can send you an e-mail or facebook message (effectively an e-mail) or comment on a post you made while my code is compiling.</p><p>Without these tools, I'd loose track of friends I have had and miss opportunities to enjoy their company, pursue business ventures, get information, or other things in meatspace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not necessarily true .
I 've lived in 4 different US states in the past 6 years .
Status updates for a period can be enough to keep that relationship going to the point that if I called them tomorrow it would not be a 2 hour conversation around catching up so much as " Hey , I have a 4 hour layover passing through Las Vegas on my way to Chicago next week , want to try to grab lunch ?
" or " Saw you were going to a convention in LA , I live about 90 minutes from there , think you 'll have time to grab a beer ?
" There are many friends who I simply do not have the time to keep up with because they are not good about using their e-mail or social media resources .
I simply can not coordinate calls when I am three time zones away and work two jobs the same way I can send you an e-mail or facebook message ( effectively an e-mail ) or comment on a post you made while my code is compiling.Without these tools , I 'd loose track of friends I have had and miss opportunities to enjoy their company , pursue business ventures , get information , or other things in meatspace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not necessarily true.
I've lived in 4 different US states in the past 6 years.
Status updates for a period can be enough to keep that relationship going to the point that if I called them tomorrow it would not be a 2 hour conversation around catching up so much as "Hey, I have a 4 hour layover passing through Las Vegas on my way to Chicago next week, want to try to grab lunch?
" or "Saw you were going to a convention in LA, I live about 90 minutes from there, think you'll have time to grab a beer?
"There are many friends who I simply do not have the time to keep up with because they are not good about using their e-mail or social media resources.
I simply cannot coordinate calls when I am three time zones away and work two jobs the same way I can send you an e-mail or facebook message (effectively an e-mail) or comment on a post you made while my code is compiling.Without these tools, I'd loose track of friends I have had and miss opportunities to enjoy their company, pursue business ventures, get information, or other things in meatspace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31513242</id>
	<title>Re:People still visit google.com?</title>
	<author>Matheus</author>
	<datestamp>1268856060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heh... I use google.com to test if a network connection is alive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heh... I use google.com to test if a network connection is alive : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heh... I use google.com to test if a network connection is alive :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508418</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Mashdar</author>
	<datestamp>1268840460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All those things are why I no longer use facebook. That and creepy young/old people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All those things are why I no longer use facebook .
That and creepy young/old people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All those things are why I no longer use facebook.
That and creepy young/old people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507476</id>
	<title>.Ca/.Co.uk/.Fr/etc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goes this account for google.ca/google.fr/google.co.uk, etc? Seems like Google does automatic load balancing across domains</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goes this account for google.ca/google.fr/google.co.uk , etc ?
Seems like Google does automatic load balancing across domains</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goes this account for google.ca/google.fr/google.co.uk, etc?
Seems like Google does automatic load balancing across domains</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507556</id>
	<title>Shit methodology there, guys!</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1268836560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you're counting all of Facebook's assets -- including Farmville! -- while only looking at Google's core.</p><p>Sloppy and lazy.  You guys should be proud of putting this on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're counting all of Facebook 's assets -- including Farmville !
-- while only looking at Google 's core.Sloppy and lazy .
You guys should be proud of putting this on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're counting all of Facebook's assets -- including Farmville!
-- while only looking at Google's core.Sloppy and lazy.
You guys should be proud of putting this on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507752</id>
	<title>Quality vs quantity, traffic vs reach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if google had half the traffic of facebook it still would trump it: google knows what you are looking for in that moment so it is able to target advertisement better. Facebook on the other hand generally only knows that you are tending to your pigs in farmville, at the moment.</p><p>Even if facebook had twice traffic, it still is an easy bet that google has more reach (as a greater \% of internet users access it). Just think about age/professional profiles: you know everyone uses google. You know lots of people don't use and don't care for facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if google had half the traffic of facebook it still would trump it : google knows what you are looking for in that moment so it is able to target advertisement better .
Facebook on the other hand generally only knows that you are tending to your pigs in farmville , at the moment.Even if facebook had twice traffic , it still is an easy bet that google has more reach ( as a greater \ % of internet users access it ) .
Just think about age/professional profiles : you know everyone uses google .
You know lots of people do n't use and do n't care for facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if google had half the traffic of facebook it still would trump it: google knows what you are looking for in that moment so it is able to target advertisement better.
Facebook on the other hand generally only knows that you are tending to your pigs in farmville, at the moment.Even if facebook had twice traffic, it still is an easy bet that google has more reach (as a greater \% of internet users access it).
Just think about age/professional profiles: you know everyone uses google.
You know lots of people don't use and don't care for facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507274</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1268834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you take one sites total traffic (including searching, media, and generated traffic), and compare it to a (albeit large) portion of a another sites traffic.  I mean it's cool that Facebook's traffic exceeds Google's search traffic, but I think the title is misleading...<br> <br>
One thing that bothers me is how Hitwise gets its data...<blockquote><div><p>Hitwise takes a wholly different approach. It does not gather data directly from individual computers as comScore and Nielsen do. Instead, it gets the data from Internet service providers (ISPs) who aggregate traffic data across all the individuals to whom they deliver Internet access. Hitwise provides ISPs with proprietary software that allows them to analyze website usage logs created on their networks</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online\_sidebars\_backgrounders" title="stateofthemedia.org">http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online\_sidebars\_backgrounders</a> [stateofthemedia.org] <br> <br>
So what does that mean?  Are they analyzing DNS queries?  Are they analyzing raw IP addresses?  Are they analyzing raw HTTP headers?  And I'd like to know more about what ISPs are signed up for this.  Is it a statistical significant portion of them, or is it only a few here and there...  Do those providers use high speed, mid speed or dialup connections?  These are the kinds of questions that need answering to know if the conclusions that they draw are indeed valid, or if this isn't just a marketing stunt for the company...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you take one sites total traffic ( including searching , media , and generated traffic ) , and compare it to a ( albeit large ) portion of a another sites traffic .
I mean it 's cool that Facebook 's traffic exceeds Google 's search traffic , but I think the title is misleading.. . One thing that bothers me is how Hitwise gets its data...Hitwise takes a wholly different approach .
It does not gather data directly from individual computers as comScore and Nielsen do .
Instead , it gets the data from Internet service providers ( ISPs ) who aggregate traffic data across all the individuals to whom they deliver Internet access .
Hitwise provides ISPs with proprietary software that allows them to analyze website usage logs created on their networks http : //www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online \ _sidebars \ _backgrounders [ stateofthemedia.org ] So what does that mean ?
Are they analyzing DNS queries ?
Are they analyzing raw IP addresses ?
Are they analyzing raw HTTP headers ?
And I 'd like to know more about what ISPs are signed up for this .
Is it a statistical significant portion of them , or is it only a few here and there... Do those providers use high speed , mid speed or dialup connections ?
These are the kinds of questions that need answering to know if the conclusions that they draw are indeed valid , or if this is n't just a marketing stunt for the company.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you take one sites total traffic (including searching, media, and generated traffic), and compare it to a (albeit large) portion of a another sites traffic.
I mean it's cool that Facebook's traffic exceeds Google's search traffic, but I think the title is misleading... 
One thing that bothers me is how Hitwise gets its data...Hitwise takes a wholly different approach.
It does not gather data directly from individual computers as comScore and Nielsen do.
Instead, it gets the data from Internet service providers (ISPs) who aggregate traffic data across all the individuals to whom they deliver Internet access.
Hitwise provides ISPs with proprietary software that allows them to analyze website usage logs created on their networks http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online\_sidebars\_backgrounders [stateofthemedia.org]  
So what does that mean?
Are they analyzing DNS queries?
Are they analyzing raw IP addresses?
Are they analyzing raw HTTP headers?
And I'd like to know more about what ISPs are signed up for this.
Is it a statistical significant portion of them, or is it only a few here and there...  Do those providers use high speed, mid speed or dialup connections?
These are the kinds of questions that need answering to know if the conclusions that they draw are indeed valid, or if this isn't just a marketing stunt for the company...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508918</id>
	<title>Facebook could be far ahead!</title>
	<author>GhigoRenzulli</author>
	<datestamp>1268842560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook users should stop typing "facebook" in Google search.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook users should stop typing " facebook " in Google search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook users should stop typing "facebook" in Google search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507250</id>
	<title>Peter Wolf said it best...</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268834580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss\_on\_the\_Wall" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Piss on the wall!</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Piss on the wall !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piss on the wall!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507760</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet. Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messages</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words, what Google and Yahoo! and many others have tried to do - become the One Site To Rule Them All.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet .
Sure , you could go to flickr for the photos , twitter for the updates , upcoming for the events , youtube/hulu for videos , gtalk/yahoo for IM , gmail to send messagesIn other words , what Google and Yahoo !
and many others have tried to do - become the One Site To Rule Them All .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.
Sure, you could go to flickr for the photos, twitter for the updates, upcoming for the events, youtube/hulu for videos, gtalk/yahoo for IM, gmail to send messagesIn other words, what Google and Yahoo!
and many others have tried to do - become the One Site To Rule Them All.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522112</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268923800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like having my relatives on facebook.   That way I don't have to go visit them, like once every few months, I can log in on facebook, say hello to everyone on my wall, say whatever, then go on and ignore them for a few more months.</p><p>means I can skip the holidays and everything else with them now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like having my relatives on facebook .
That way I do n't have to go visit them , like once every few months , I can log in on facebook , say hello to everyone on my wall , say whatever , then go on and ignore them for a few more months.means I can skip the holidays and everything else with them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like having my relatives on facebook.
That way I don't have to go visit them, like once every few months, I can log in on facebook, say hello to everyone on my wall, say whatever, then go on and ignore them for a few more months.means I can skip the holidays and everything else with them now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507192</id>
	<title>facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pokes google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pokes google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pokes google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507464</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1268835900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect most people visit BOTH sites.  If I want to look up some technical information (or find new pr0n), I use google.  If I want to find out if Brenda's son got his car fixed, I check on Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect most people visit BOTH sites .
If I want to look up some technical information ( or find new pr0n ) , I use google .
If I want to find out if Brenda 's son got his car fixed , I check on Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect most people visit BOTH sites.
If I want to look up some technical information (or find new pr0n), I use google.
If I want to find out if Brenda's son got his car fixed, I check on Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31512416</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>DrVomact</author>
	<datestamp>1268853420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.
</p></div><p>I believe we already had something like that&mdash;it was called "AOL". </p><p>The Normals need a playground. A market like that just can't be ignored; after all, there are so <em>many</em> of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet .
I believe we already had something like that    it was called " AOL " .
The Normals need a playground .
A market like that just ca n't be ignored ; after all , there are so many of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Facebook is slowly turning into the WalMart equivalent for the internet.
I believe we already had something like that—it was called "AOL".
The Normals need a playground.
A market like that just can't be ignored; after all, there are so many of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510314</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with the sentiment that needing a social network to keep up with REAL friends makes them acquaintances and not friends.</p><p>I've been in the military and have lived in three different parts of the nation where I spent a considerable amount of time (7+ years). I have real friends in all three places. Using Facebook, I can see what's going on in their lives, see their children grow up, see the annual party that I didn't get to go to this year (as I generally rotate around where I go for fun annual events), etc. FB makes doing these things easier.</p><p>Otherwise, I'd only hang out with people who I live near- which isn't a bad thing by any means, but I like to keep my friends who I met throughout my life.</p><p>(granted, I have a ton of acquaintances on FB too, but my main usage is for my real friends)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the sentiment that needing a social network to keep up with REAL friends makes them acquaintances and not friends.I 've been in the military and have lived in three different parts of the nation where I spent a considerable amount of time ( 7 + years ) .
I have real friends in all three places .
Using Facebook , I can see what 's going on in their lives , see their children grow up , see the annual party that I did n't get to go to this year ( as I generally rotate around where I go for fun annual events ) , etc .
FB makes doing these things easier.Otherwise , I 'd only hang out with people who I live near- which is n't a bad thing by any means , but I like to keep my friends who I met throughout my life .
( granted , I have a ton of acquaintances on FB too , but my main usage is for my real friends )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the sentiment that needing a social network to keep up with REAL friends makes them acquaintances and not friends.I've been in the military and have lived in three different parts of the nation where I spent a considerable amount of time (7+ years).
I have real friends in all three places.
Using Facebook, I can see what's going on in their lives, see their children grow up, see the annual party that I didn't get to go to this year (as I generally rotate around where I go for fun annual events), etc.
FB makes doing these things easier.Otherwise, I'd only hang out with people who I live near- which isn't a bad thing by any means, but I like to keep my friends who I met throughout my life.
(granted, I have a ton of acquaintances on FB too, but my main usage is for my real friends)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507670</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1268837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Ummm, like Google Buzz?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Google is moving away from "Do no evil" to "extend, embrace and exterminate".  By the looks of it, Google Buzz has been another Google flop though.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Facebook has their fair share of flop elements, such as their privacy (or lack thereof), which made the news but hasn't really scared too many people away.   Considering how many games requests I've gotten from people I know, when I check my messages on there once every few months, they're still happily using them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Ummm , like Google Buzz ?
    Google is moving away from " Do no evil " to " extend , embrace and exterminate " .
By the looks of it , Google Buzz has been another Google flop though .
    Facebook has their fair share of flop elements , such as their privacy ( or lack thereof ) , which made the news but has n't really scared too many people away .
Considering how many games requests I 've gotten from people I know , when I check my messages on there once every few months , they 're still happily using them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Ummm, like Google Buzz?
    Google is moving away from "Do no evil" to "extend, embrace and exterminate".
By the looks of it, Google Buzz has been another Google flop though.
    Facebook has their fair share of flop elements, such as their privacy (or lack thereof), which made the news but hasn't really scared too many people away.
Considering how many games requests I've gotten from people I know, when I check my messages on there once every few months, they're still happily using them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</id>
	<title>if you need a social network</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends</p><p>facebook is for ACQUAINTANCES, not true friends, even if the word you use for an acquaintance is "friend" (which makes sense to promote the word "friend" to the realm of the more dispersonal, for the sake of corporate level public relations, which is how some people run their lives)</p><p>the point is that a true friendship is its own reward. you actually commit real work and maintenance to see them because you want to do that. if it feels like a lot of effort to do that with someone, then in emotional honesty, they aren't really a true friend anymore. as soon as someone is unimportant enough to you that you slag them off to your fake corporate public relations face, aka, facebook, they have ceased to be your friend. just admit it and move on</p><p>all facebook is is a giant mask, a bit of fakery, that requires you to constantly maintain it, as long as having a fake public face is important to you for whatever reason. facebook is turning our social lives into emotionally dead corporate facades of shallow fakery</p><p>so for a little bit of genuine, psychologically healthy friendship, stop running your private life the same way a corporation runs a public relations department. facebook users, try this: the next time you make a new friend, someone you sense could be or you want them to be a close friend, make a pact with them to "keep it off the radar"</p><p>off of facebook, off of tweets, etc. when you want to socialize with them, socialize with them directly. make your emails and phone calls terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes place</p><p>then you will know what it is like to actually have a friend</p><p>i'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebook, that you dutifully and exhaustively maintain a corporate mask for. but inside, no one knows you and you don't know anyone else. for those of us addicted to facebook, life has become an emotionally unsatisfying slog through fake masks of constant shallow empty cheerfulness</p><p>go off the internet, make a real friend, lose the corporate pr department</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to keep up with your friends , they are n't really your friendsfacebook is for ACQUAINTANCES , not true friends , even if the word you use for an acquaintance is " friend " ( which makes sense to promote the word " friend " to the realm of the more dispersonal , for the sake of corporate level public relations , which is how some people run their lives ) the point is that a true friendship is its own reward .
you actually commit real work and maintenance to see them because you want to do that .
if it feels like a lot of effort to do that with someone , then in emotional honesty , they are n't really a true friend anymore .
as soon as someone is unimportant enough to you that you slag them off to your fake corporate public relations face , aka , facebook , they have ceased to be your friend .
just admit it and move onall facebook is is a giant mask , a bit of fakery , that requires you to constantly maintain it , as long as having a fake public face is important to you for whatever reason .
facebook is turning our social lives into emotionally dead corporate facades of shallow fakeryso for a little bit of genuine , psychologically healthy friendship , stop running your private life the same way a corporation runs a public relations department .
facebook users , try this : the next time you make a new friend , someone you sense could be or you want them to be a close friend , make a pact with them to " keep it off the radar " off of facebook , off of tweets , etc .
when you want to socialize with them , socialize with them directly .
make your emails and phone calls terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes placethen you will know what it is like to actually have a friendi 'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebook , that you dutifully and exhaustively maintain a corporate mask for .
but inside , no one knows you and you do n't know anyone else .
for those of us addicted to facebook , life has become an emotionally unsatisfying slog through fake masks of constant shallow empty cheerfulnessgo off the internet , make a real friend , lose the corporate pr department</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friendsfacebook is for ACQUAINTANCES, not true friends, even if the word you use for an acquaintance is "friend" (which makes sense to promote the word "friend" to the realm of the more dispersonal, for the sake of corporate level public relations, which is how some people run their lives)the point is that a true friendship is its own reward.
you actually commit real work and maintenance to see them because you want to do that.
if it feels like a lot of effort to do that with someone, then in emotional honesty, they aren't really a true friend anymore.
as soon as someone is unimportant enough to you that you slag them off to your fake corporate public relations face, aka, facebook, they have ceased to be your friend.
just admit it and move onall facebook is is a giant mask, a bit of fakery, that requires you to constantly maintain it, as long as having a fake public face is important to you for whatever reason.
facebook is turning our social lives into emotionally dead corporate facades of shallow fakeryso for a little bit of genuine, psychologically healthy friendship, stop running your private life the same way a corporation runs a public relations department.
facebook users, try this: the next time you make a new friend, someone you sense could be or you want them to be a close friend, make a pact with them to "keep it off the radar"off of facebook, off of tweets, etc.
when you want to socialize with them, socialize with them directly.
make your emails and phone calls terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes placethen you will know what it is like to actually have a friendi'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebook, that you dutifully and exhaustively maintain a corporate mask for.
but inside, no one knows you and you don't know anyone else.
for those of us addicted to facebook, life has become an emotionally unsatisfying slog through fake masks of constant shallow empty cheerfulnessgo off the internet, make a real friend, lose the corporate pr department</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507628</id>
	<title>"passive" search engine</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1268836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What the hell is a "passive" search engine?</i> <br> <br>
Wikipedia could be considered a passive search engine.  The bulk of everything there was put there manually by the various contributors.  Sure, there are bots clearing out dead links, and translating from one language to another, or from one wiki to another, but they work on the wiki itself. They don't go out actively searching for new information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is a " passive " search engine ?
Wikipedia could be considered a passive search engine .
The bulk of everything there was put there manually by the various contributors .
Sure , there are bots clearing out dead links , and translating from one language to another , or from one wiki to another , but they work on the wiki itself .
They do n't go out actively searching for new information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is a "passive" search engine?
Wikipedia could be considered a passive search engine.
The bulk of everything there was put there manually by the various contributors.
Sure, there are bots clearing out dead links, and translating from one language to another, or from one wiki to another, but they work on the wiki itself.
They don't go out actively searching for new information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509000</id>
	<title>Re:if you need a social network</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268842920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>make your emails and phone calls</i></p><p>If you need email to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends?</p><p>If you need a phone to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends?</p><p><i>terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes place</i></p><p>Er yes, just like what many people use Facebook for. They have a whole system dedicated to events - as much as I dislike Facebook, that's one of the things they do well.</p><p><i>i'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebook</i></p><p>False dichotomy. I might have two or three friends who will personally come to my front door everytime they want to tell me something, but I'll still gladly also have a wider group of friends, some of whom may only these days send out invites through some media, be it a phone, email, or (annoyingly) Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>make your emails and phone callsIf you need email to keep up with your friends , they are n't really your friends ? If you need a phone to keep up with your friends , they are n't really your friends ? terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes placeEr yes , just like what many people use Facebook for .
They have a whole system dedicated to events - as much as I dislike Facebook , that 's one of the things they do well.i 'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebookFalse dichotomy .
I might have two or three friends who will personally come to my front door everytime they want to tell me something , but I 'll still gladly also have a wider group of friends , some of whom may only these days send out invites through some media , be it a phone , email , or ( annoyingly ) Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>make your emails and phone callsIf you need email to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends?If you need a phone to keep up with your friends, they aren't really your friends?terse things to actually just arrange meet up times in which real socialization actually takes placeEr yes, just like what many people use Facebook for.
They have a whole system dedicated to events - as much as I dislike Facebook, that's one of the things they do well.i'd rather have two or three friends like that than 200 to 300 acquaintances on facebookFalse dichotomy.
I might have two or three friends who will personally come to my front door everytime they want to tell me something, but I'll still gladly also have a wider group of friends, some of whom may only these days send out invites through some media, be it a phone, email, or (annoyingly) Facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508156</id>
	<title>Re:The Stripmall Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268839500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>upcoming for the events</p></div><p>I've never heard of this one.  Could you describe how useful it is compared to MeetUp.com, Google Calendar, Facebook invites, or eVite.com?

</p><p>Specifically, I want an online invitation system where I can set a "Max RSVP Number" so I can put a ceiling on the number of people who come to events that I host.  Honestly, I *want* to be able to invite the whole world when I hold desirable events, but it's a matter of logistics that "poker night" can't accommodate more than 8 people and "homemade pizza/sushi night" tops out at 24 and 12 (respectively) based the amount of space needed for eating.

</p><p>As a host... it's frustrating to only invite a dozen people to an event (like "poker night") where you want between 5 and 8 people to show-up.  Too many times I've had 7 people confirm and then three of them drop-out 4 hours before the planned event (luckily, Wii has lots of 4 player games for when this happens).  I've also had 9 people confirm and show-up (too many!).  For the times where 4-5 people confirm, I like to invite an extra 6 people two days before the event get closer to the 7 to 8 sweetspot.  But the point is, I'd just as soon have invited those people to begin with because I'm not the sort of person who likes playing favorites.

</p><p>For people who don't RSVP by the time the "Max RSVP Number" is reached, they can join a waitlist. The optimal situation would be to have a system that automatically e-mailed all the waitlisters when somebody un-RSVPs so they could get a chance to add themselves to the list.

</p><p>To my knowledge... no such sophisticated system exists and yet I think this would be a killer feature for lots of people besides me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>upcoming for the eventsI 've never heard of this one .
Could you describe how useful it is compared to MeetUp.com , Google Calendar , Facebook invites , or eVite.com ?
Specifically , I want an online invitation system where I can set a " Max RSVP Number " so I can put a ceiling on the number of people who come to events that I host .
Honestly , I * want * to be able to invite the whole world when I hold desirable events , but it 's a matter of logistics that " poker night " ca n't accommodate more than 8 people and " homemade pizza/sushi night " tops out at 24 and 12 ( respectively ) based the amount of space needed for eating .
As a host... it 's frustrating to only invite a dozen people to an event ( like " poker night " ) where you want between 5 and 8 people to show-up .
Too many times I 've had 7 people confirm and then three of them drop-out 4 hours before the planned event ( luckily , Wii has lots of 4 player games for when this happens ) .
I 've also had 9 people confirm and show-up ( too many ! ) .
For the times where 4-5 people confirm , I like to invite an extra 6 people two days before the event get closer to the 7 to 8 sweetspot .
But the point is , I 'd just as soon have invited those people to begin with because I 'm not the sort of person who likes playing favorites .
For people who do n't RSVP by the time the " Max RSVP Number " is reached , they can join a waitlist .
The optimal situation would be to have a system that automatically e-mailed all the waitlisters when somebody un-RSVPs so they could get a chance to add themselves to the list .
To my knowledge... no such sophisticated system exists and yet I think this would be a killer feature for lots of people besides me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>upcoming for the eventsI've never heard of this one.
Could you describe how useful it is compared to MeetUp.com, Google Calendar, Facebook invites, or eVite.com?
Specifically, I want an online invitation system where I can set a "Max RSVP Number" so I can put a ceiling on the number of people who come to events that I host.
Honestly, I *want* to be able to invite the whole world when I hold desirable events, but it's a matter of logistics that "poker night" can't accommodate more than 8 people and "homemade pizza/sushi night" tops out at 24 and 12 (respectively) based the amount of space needed for eating.
As a host... it's frustrating to only invite a dozen people to an event (like "poker night") where you want between 5 and 8 people to show-up.
Too many times I've had 7 people confirm and then three of them drop-out 4 hours before the planned event (luckily, Wii has lots of 4 player games for when this happens).
I've also had 9 people confirm and show-up (too many!).
For the times where 4-5 people confirm, I like to invite an extra 6 people two days before the event get closer to the 7 to 8 sweetspot.
But the point is, I'd just as soon have invited those people to begin with because I'm not the sort of person who likes playing favorites.
For people who don't RSVP by the time the "Max RSVP Number" is reached, they can join a waitlist.
The optimal situation would be to have a system that automatically e-mailed all the waitlisters when somebody un-RSVPs so they could get a chance to add themselves to the list.
To my knowledge... no such sophisticated system exists and yet I think this would be a killer feature for lots of people besides me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522064</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268923560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for. More social googling could also mean planning a trip together, searching for Linux information together, or even looking at porn together.</p></div><p>yes, i want my social network googling with me, when i'm trying to find out why my penis is dripping black goo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for .
More social googling could also mean planning a trip together , searching for Linux information together , or even looking at porn together.yes , i want my social network googling with me , when i 'm trying to find out why my penis is dripping black goo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for.
More social googling could also mean planning a trip together, searching for Linux information together, or even looking at porn together.yes, i want my social network googling with me, when i'm trying to find out why my penis is dripping black goo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508124</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1268839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More people read the TV Guide than Yellow Pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More people read the TV Guide than Yellow Pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More people read the TV Guide than Yellow Pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507574</id>
	<title>Do they include other TLDs than .com? I use .ca.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine many use their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.country TLD, if it's not included in the results here I'd be skeptical in the comparison.</p><p>Also, look at facebook app downloads on iPhones / android market etc, I would imagine that all that cell-phone generated traffic bumps their percent up significantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine many use their .country TLD , if it 's not included in the results here I 'd be skeptical in the comparison.Also , look at facebook app downloads on iPhones / android market etc , I would imagine that all that cell-phone generated traffic bumps their percent up significantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine many use their .country TLD, if it's not included in the results here I'd be skeptical in the comparison.Also, look at facebook app downloads on iPhones / android market etc, I would imagine that all that cell-phone generated traffic bumps their percent up significantly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507284</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1268834760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be interested in how this is measured tbh. It is the old, false, addage of 'hits'? The graph cites as 'visits', but I'm curious how that's actually measured.</p><p>Besides, even if FB had more visits, big deal.. a visit to search means you're likely trying to find out something.. not post that you're getting ready to make eggs for breakfest.. then post again that you realized you're out of eggs.. and another one asking if anyone needs anything from the store..<br>FB is popular for the same reasons MMOs remain popular, because people can't actually be assed to talk to thier neighbors, so we'll create a semi-artifical online society where we never have to deal with one another in person.. although to be fair, it's also the basis for creating a more pure non-prejudacted society (based on things you have little/no control over.. ie: race, height, etc..).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be interested in how this is measured tbh .
It is the old , false , addage of 'hits ' ?
The graph cites as 'visits ' , but I 'm curious how that 's actually measured.Besides , even if FB had more visits , big deal.. a visit to search means you 're likely trying to find out something.. not post that you 're getting ready to make eggs for breakfest.. then post again that you realized you 're out of eggs.. and another one asking if anyone needs anything from the store..FB is popular for the same reasons MMOs remain popular , because people ca n't actually be assed to talk to thier neighbors , so we 'll create a semi-artifical online society where we never have to deal with one another in person.. although to be fair , it 's also the basis for creating a more pure non-prejudacted society ( based on things you have little/no control over.. ie : race , height , etc.. ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be interested in how this is measured tbh.
It is the old, false, addage of 'hits'?
The graph cites as 'visits', but I'm curious how that's actually measured.Besides, even if FB had more visits, big deal.. a visit to search means you're likely trying to find out something.. not post that you're getting ready to make eggs for breakfest.. then post again that you realized you're out of eggs.. and another one asking if anyone needs anything from the store..FB is popular for the same reasons MMOs remain popular, because people can't actually be assed to talk to thier neighbors, so we'll create a semi-artifical online society where we never have to deal with one another in person.. although to be fair, it's also the basis for creating a more pure non-prejudacted society (based on things you have little/no control over.. ie: race, height, etc..).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508182</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Matt Perry</author>
	<datestamp>1268839560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google introduces Gfarm.</p></div></blockquote><p>Obviously it requires GNOME.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google introduces Gfarm.Obviously it requires GNOME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google introduces Gfarm.Obviously it requires GNOME.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for. More social googling could also mean planning a trip together, searching for Linux information together, or even looking at porn together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for .
More social googling could also mean planning a trip together , searching for Linux information together , or even looking at porn together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe CNN implies that Google searching should be more social and have a wall and status updates of what their friends have searched for.
More social googling could also mean planning a trip together, searching for Linux information together, or even looking at porn together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507378</id>
	<title>web bugs?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1268835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of those "Add this to Facebook" links do you see everywhere?  How many of those drive page hits to facebook.com ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of those " Add this to Facebook " links do you see everywhere ?
How many of those drive page hits to facebook.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of those "Add this to Facebook" links do you see everywhere?
How many of those drive page hits to facebook.com ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31519706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31513242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31511418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31517768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31512416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31511070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31516148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1153251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31513242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31516148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31517768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1153251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31519706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31510674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31512416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31511070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31522082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31508156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31511418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31509210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1153251.31507666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
