<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_1958201</id>
	<title>Google's New Approach For China Is To Serve From Hong Kong</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269246540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>abs0lutz3ro writes with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html?pagewanted=all">a major update to the Google/China situation</a> we've been discussing so much lately:
<i>"Google has stopped censoring simplified Chinese search results on google.cn by <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html">redirecting users to google.com.hk</a>, which Google maintains is entirely legal.  From the official blog: 'We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced&mdash;it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services. We will therefore be carefully monitoring access issues, and have <a href="http://www.google.com/prc/report.html#hl=en">created this new web page</a>, which we will update regularly each day, so that everyone can see which Google services are available in China.'  Seems like google.cn got served (from google.com.hk)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>abs0lutz3ro writes with a major update to the Google/China situation we 've been discussing so much lately : " Google has stopped censoring simplified Chinese search results on google.cn by redirecting users to google.com.hk , which Google maintains is entirely legal .
From the official blog : 'We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services , including users in mainland China , yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement .
We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we 've faced    it 's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China .
We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision , though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services .
We will therefore be carefully monitoring access issues , and have created this new web page , which we will update regularly each day , so that everyone can see which Google services are available in China .
' Seems like google.cn got served ( from google.com.hk ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>abs0lutz3ro writes with a major update to the Google/China situation we've been discussing so much lately:
"Google has stopped censoring simplified Chinese search results on google.cn by redirecting users to google.com.hk, which Google maintains is entirely legal.
From the official blog: 'We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement.
We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced—it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China.
We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.
We will therefore be carefully monitoring access issues, and have created this new web page, which we will update regularly each day, so that everyone can see which Google services are available in China.
'  Seems like google.cn got served (from google.com.hk).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575092</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then they will be serving man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then they will be serving man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then they will be serving man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888</id>
	<title>China's next move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China's next move will be to block access to google.com.hk for all Internet users in China<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so how does this help?</htmltext>
<tokenext>China 's next move will be to block access to google.com.hk for all Internet users in China ... so how does this help ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China's next move will be to block access to google.com.hk for all Internet users in China ... so how does this help?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580202</id>
	<title>Re:They already own it</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1269374640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie points</p></div><p>Tibet wasn't exactly a free market democracy before the PRC took over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie pointsTibet was n't exactly a free market democracy before the PRC took over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie pointsTibet wasn't exactly a free market democracy before the PRC took over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575530</id>
	<title>Re:google.com.tw</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1269253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be tantamount, in the CCP's eyes, to a declaration of war. Then you would REALLY see their true colours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be tantamount , in the CCP 's eyes , to a declaration of war .
Then you would REALLY see their true colours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be tantamount, in the CCP's eyes, to a declaration of war.
Then you would REALLY see their true colours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574868</id>
	<title>Did I miss something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I checked, Hong Kong was was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer\_of\_sovereignty\_over\_Hong\_Kong" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">transfered</a> [wikipedia.org] to full Chinese control about 13 years ago. So is this some sort of symbolic stunt done for some obscure reason, or is it actually supposed to accomplish something? Saying you're going to defy Chinese control by moving your HQ from Beijing to Hong Kong is like saying you're going to get out from under U.S. control by moving from New York to Chicago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , Hong Kong was was transfered [ wikipedia.org ] to full Chinese control about 13 years ago .
So is this some sort of symbolic stunt done for some obscure reason , or is it actually supposed to accomplish something ?
Saying you 're going to defy Chinese control by moving your HQ from Beijing to Hong Kong is like saying you 're going to get out from under U.S. control by moving from New York to Chicago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, Hong Kong was was transfered [wikipedia.org] to full Chinese control about 13 years ago.
So is this some sort of symbolic stunt done for some obscure reason, or is it actually supposed to accomplish something?
Saying you're going to defy Chinese control by moving your HQ from Beijing to Hong Kong is like saying you're going to get out from under U.S. control by moving from New York to Chicago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575376</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think they gave ".hk" back to the PRC.  They gave Hong Kong back to the PRC. <br> <br>

I'm not entirely sure the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hk TLD was theirs (the British, I mean) to give....<br> <br>

And I'm not sure the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hk TLD is the theirs (the Chinese, I mean) to take....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they gave " .hk " back to the PRC .
They gave Hong Kong back to the PRC .
I 'm not entirely sure the .hk TLD was theirs ( the British , I mean ) to give... . And I 'm not sure the .hk TLD is the theirs ( the Chinese , I mean ) to take... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they gave ".hk" back to the PRC.
They gave Hong Kong back to the PRC.
I'm not entirely sure the .hk TLD was theirs (the British, I mean) to give.... 

And I'm not sure the .hk TLD is the theirs (the Chinese, I mean) to take....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574902</id>
	<title>i'm getting a premonition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anytime google says, "china", it's going to be front page news on slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime google says , " china " , it 's going to be front page news on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime google says, "china", it's going to be front page news on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577064</id>
	<title>Re:google.com.tw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they wouldn't be able to read it! The PRC uses <i>Simplified</i> Chinese, ROC uses <i>Traditional</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they would n't be able to read it !
The PRC uses Simplified Chinese , ROC uses Traditional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they wouldn't be able to read it!
The PRC uses Simplified Chinese, ROC uses Traditional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575352</id>
	<title>Re:China's next move</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1269252120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making an enemy of the government might somehow end up putting a dampener on your business, though.  Risky advertising, innit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making an enemy of the government might somehow end up putting a dampener on your business , though .
Risky advertising , innit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making an enemy of the government might somehow end up putting a dampener on your business, though.
Risky advertising, innit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31581042</id>
	<title>Re:They already own it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269343140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May Hong Kong, but mustn't  Tibet. Hong Kong is adjacent mainland, the Pacific, and nothing else. Tibet is another thing. Though many people, scholar, culture researcher want to see a living example how the serf system run, how the surf's hands and eyes were cut as the master's freedom and democracy, for culture protection reason, they never show us how witches were executed by burning themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May Hong Kong , but must n't Tibet .
Hong Kong is adjacent mainland , the Pacific , and nothing else .
Tibet is another thing .
Though many people , scholar , culture researcher want to see a living example how the serf system run , how the surf 's hands and eyes were cut as the master 's freedom and democracy , for culture protection reason , they never show us how witches were executed by burning themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May Hong Kong, but mustn't  Tibet.
Hong Kong is adjacent mainland, the Pacific, and nothing else.
Tibet is another thing.
Though many people, scholar, culture researcher want to see a living example how the serf system run, how the surf's hands and eyes were cut as the master's freedom and democracy, for culture protection reason, they never show us how witches were executed by burning themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576574</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has been serving uncensored results from Google.COM for a while.  People who wanted to (try) to access it from Mainland could.  But, it had to cross the great firewall, and be served from outside of China (read:  blocking of sensitive terms and results and high latency).  So what has changed?  Just that Google.CN has (effectively) been redirected to that uncensored Google.com page.</p><p>What will happen now?  You guessed it.. Google WILL get blocked.  Unless this was negotiated with the Chinese government, it will get blocked A LOT.  Google's availability will go way down, only the hard-core will attempt to use it - and game over.</p><p>At least Google is trying (but I don't think they will have any effect).  The real villain here is Cisco, who helped build the great firewall, and Yahoo, who bowed down to the government and turned over a dissident Y! mail user who is still (I think) in jail..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has been serving uncensored results from Google.COM for a while .
People who wanted to ( try ) to access it from Mainland could .
But , it had to cross the great firewall , and be served from outside of China ( read : blocking of sensitive terms and results and high latency ) .
So what has changed ?
Just that Google.CN has ( effectively ) been redirected to that uncensored Google.com page.What will happen now ?
You guessed it.. Google WILL get blocked .
Unless this was negotiated with the Chinese government , it will get blocked A LOT .
Google 's availability will go way down , only the hard-core will attempt to use it - and game over.At least Google is trying ( but I do n't think they will have any effect ) .
The real villain here is Cisco , who helped build the great firewall , and Yahoo , who bowed down to the government and turned over a dissident Y !
mail user who is still ( I think ) in jail. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has been serving uncensored results from Google.COM for a while.
People who wanted to (try) to access it from Mainland could.
But, it had to cross the great firewall, and be served from outside of China (read:  blocking of sensitive terms and results and high latency).
So what has changed?
Just that Google.CN has (effectively) been redirected to that uncensored Google.com page.What will happen now?
You guessed it.. Google WILL get blocked.
Unless this was negotiated with the Chinese government, it will get blocked A LOT.
Google's availability will go way down, only the hard-core will attempt to use it - and game over.At least Google is trying (but I don't think they will have any effect).
The real villain here is Cisco, who helped build the great firewall, and Yahoo, who bowed down to the government and turned over a dissident Y!
mail user who is still (I think) in jail..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580094</id>
	<title>Re:Different, but the same.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"side with their own companies" may just be  your western interpretation. Chinese courts tend to think very differently about what is common sense or reasonable. E.g. if my truck supplying you with goods runs off the road, you can't sue me for late delivery or lost goods. Instead the court may rule that we should both share the cost of both goods and the replacement truck. Which probably works out in my favor, not yours. You may argue that my driver ran off the road, but in the Chinese mind it's you who asked me to take that road in the first place. My truck would not be lost if you had not hired me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" side with their own companies " may just be your western interpretation .
Chinese courts tend to think very differently about what is common sense or reasonable .
E.g. if my truck supplying you with goods runs off the road , you ca n't sue me for late delivery or lost goods .
Instead the court may rule that we should both share the cost of both goods and the replacement truck .
Which probably works out in my favor , not yours .
You may argue that my driver ran off the road , but in the Chinese mind it 's you who asked me to take that road in the first place .
My truck would not be lost if you had not hired me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"side with their own companies" may just be  your western interpretation.
Chinese courts tend to think very differently about what is common sense or reasonable.
E.g. if my truck supplying you with goods runs off the road, you can't sue me for late delivery or lost goods.
Instead the court may rule that we should both share the cost of both goods and the replacement truck.
Which probably works out in my favor, not yours.
You may argue that my driver ran off the road, but in the Chinese mind it's you who asked me to take that road in the first place.
My truck would not be lost if you had not hired me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580436</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1269335580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material (porn, politics, history, in that order) will use Google</p></div><p>Think your list of desired "finds" should have included anonymous proxy servers, encryption software, directions on how to beam Wi-Fi...you know, the standard stuff people want when thinking out loud the "wrong" way will get you a straw mat in prison...</p><p>Or shot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material ( porn , politics , history , in that order ) will use GoogleThink your list of desired " finds " should have included anonymous proxy servers , encryption software , directions on how to beam Wi-Fi...you know , the standard stuff people want when thinking out loud the " wrong " way will get you a straw mat in prison...Or shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material (porn, politics, history, in that order) will use GoogleThink your list of desired "finds" should have included anonymous proxy servers, encryption software, directions on how to beam Wi-Fi...you know, the standard stuff people want when thinking out loud the "wrong" way will get you a straw mat in prison...Or shot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476</id>
	<title>Different, but the same.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1269256800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever since Hong Kong return to China politicians and activists have tried to preserve the region's freedoms. The consensus seems to be that Hong Kong has been losing those freedoms, China has done a lot of meddling and the government has generally sided with the PRC. I don't recall the precise details but recently a number of politicians have openly protested China trying to exert more control. If I remember correctly, I think they suggested Hong Kong's politicians resigning en masse bringing about new elections with the hope that people would vote in those who would preserve the region's autonomy. I don't think much of anything came of it.</p><p>From a business perspective Hong Kong is, without question, a far more mature market. They wont face the same kind of cut-throat market still rampant in China. The problem in China for Google isn't simply one of hackers. A company will try to set up a partnership with a Chinese company and that company will turn on them, stealing whatever they can in the process. And the foreign company will be powerless to do anything about it because the Chinese courts almost always side with their own companies. Punishments for Chinese companies tend to amount to a slap on the wrist. Some very successful people have gotten burned badly in China. Certainly, there's success to be had, but you'd better be vigilant and have a very trusted networks. I have friends who have dipped their toes in China and have decided that the potential for success wasn't worth the trouble.</p><p>The nature of Google's business gives them the luxury of not having to be physically present in China. But the fact is that they still are in China, they're going to be facing many of the same issues they were facing in the mainland.</p><p>If they were serious about making a statement they'd base themselves in Taiwan. But then again, the Taiwanese government probably doesn't want to get involved, especially given the current administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since Hong Kong return to China politicians and activists have tried to preserve the region 's freedoms .
The consensus seems to be that Hong Kong has been losing those freedoms , China has done a lot of meddling and the government has generally sided with the PRC .
I do n't recall the precise details but recently a number of politicians have openly protested China trying to exert more control .
If I remember correctly , I think they suggested Hong Kong 's politicians resigning en masse bringing about new elections with the hope that people would vote in those who would preserve the region 's autonomy .
I do n't think much of anything came of it.From a business perspective Hong Kong is , without question , a far more mature market .
They wont face the same kind of cut-throat market still rampant in China .
The problem in China for Google is n't simply one of hackers .
A company will try to set up a partnership with a Chinese company and that company will turn on them , stealing whatever they can in the process .
And the foreign company will be powerless to do anything about it because the Chinese courts almost always side with their own companies .
Punishments for Chinese companies tend to amount to a slap on the wrist .
Some very successful people have gotten burned badly in China .
Certainly , there 's success to be had , but you 'd better be vigilant and have a very trusted networks .
I have friends who have dipped their toes in China and have decided that the potential for success was n't worth the trouble.The nature of Google 's business gives them the luxury of not having to be physically present in China .
But the fact is that they still are in China , they 're going to be facing many of the same issues they were facing in the mainland.If they were serious about making a statement they 'd base themselves in Taiwan .
But then again , the Taiwanese government probably does n't want to get involved , especially given the current administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since Hong Kong return to China politicians and activists have tried to preserve the region's freedoms.
The consensus seems to be that Hong Kong has been losing those freedoms, China has done a lot of meddling and the government has generally sided with the PRC.
I don't recall the precise details but recently a number of politicians have openly protested China trying to exert more control.
If I remember correctly, I think they suggested Hong Kong's politicians resigning en masse bringing about new elections with the hope that people would vote in those who would preserve the region's autonomy.
I don't think much of anything came of it.From a business perspective Hong Kong is, without question, a far more mature market.
They wont face the same kind of cut-throat market still rampant in China.
The problem in China for Google isn't simply one of hackers.
A company will try to set up a partnership with a Chinese company and that company will turn on them, stealing whatever they can in the process.
And the foreign company will be powerless to do anything about it because the Chinese courts almost always side with their own companies.
Punishments for Chinese companies tend to amount to a slap on the wrist.
Some very successful people have gotten burned badly in China.
Certainly, there's success to be had, but you'd better be vigilant and have a very trusted networks.
I have friends who have dipped their toes in China and have decided that the potential for success wasn't worth the trouble.The nature of Google's business gives them the luxury of not having to be physically present in China.
But the fact is that they still are in China, they're going to be facing many of the same issues they were facing in the mainland.If they were serious about making a statement they'd base themselves in Taiwan.
But then again, the Taiwanese government probably doesn't want to get involved, especially given the current administration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577796</id>
	<title>Very little, that's why Google is doing this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It had hard time in gaining market share in China because it's late entry in the Chinese language search market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It had hard time in gaining market share in China because it 's late entry in the Chinese language search market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It had hard time in gaining market share in China because it's late entry in the Chinese language search market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579332</id>
	<title>Re:Different, but the same.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it was never about hackers...wtf is wrong with you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it was never about hackers...wtf is wrong with you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it was never about hackers...wtf is wrong with you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576652</id>
	<title>Re:google.com.tw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't quite work since Google Taiwan is in Traditional Chinese not Simplified Chinese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't quite work since Google Taiwan is in Traditional Chinese not Simplified Chinese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't quite work since Google Taiwan is in Traditional Chinese not Simplified Chinese.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575374</id>
	<title>Re:The point?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1269252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Possibilities:<ol>
<li>They want to liberate the Chinese people, and will do everything in their power to bring censorship-free search results to them</li><li>Their investors would be too angry if they completely ditched China</li><li>They just wanted a good laugh</li></ol><p>

Which seems most likely?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibilities : They want to liberate the Chinese people , and will do everything in their power to bring censorship-free search results to themTheir investors would be too angry if they completely ditched ChinaThey just wanted a good laugh Which seems most likely ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibilities:
They want to liberate the Chinese people, and will do everything in their power to bring censorship-free search results to themTheir investors would be too angry if they completely ditched ChinaThey just wanted a good laugh

Which seems most likely?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575046</id>
	<title>Streisand Effect</title>
	<author>Tokolosh</author>
	<datestamp>1269250980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's Chinese for Streisand Effect?</p><p>You couldn't pay for such publicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's Chinese for Streisand Effect ? You could n't pay for such publicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's Chinese for Streisand Effect?You couldn't pay for such publicity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet not.</p><p>A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material (porn, politics, history, in that order) will use Google.</p><p>People who want to find the usual search engine stuff will use whatever is most popular and/or gives them the results they find most useful. Which may very well be Baidu, Yahoo, Bing or Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet not.A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material ( porn , politics , history , in that order ) will use Google.People who want to find the usual search engine stuff will use whatever is most popular and/or gives them the results they find most useful .
Which may very well be Baidu , Yahoo , Bing or Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet not.A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material (porn, politics, history, in that order) will use Google.People who want to find the usual search engine stuff will use whatever is most popular and/or gives them the results they find most useful.
Which may very well be Baidu, Yahoo, Bing or Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580626</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269338040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we Chinese wanna search for porn, we go to Baidu instead of Google. Google is for tech and English info (as well as politics, but nobody around me does that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we Chinese wan na search for porn , we go to Baidu instead of Google .
Google is for tech and English info ( as well as politics , but nobody around me does that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we Chinese wanna search for porn, we go to Baidu instead of Google.
Google is for tech and English info (as well as politics, but nobody around me does that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577574</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>cyfer2000</author>
	<datestamp>1269262920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet only a tiny pinch of people will be looking for politics, history and related stuff.  But the number of people looking for the good old sweet p()rn will be just huge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet only a tiny pinch of people will be looking for politics , history and related stuff .
But the number of people looking for the good old sweet p ( ) rn will be just huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet only a tiny pinch of people will be looking for politics, history and related stuff.
But the number of people looking for the good old sweet p()rn will be just huge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154</id>
	<title>google.com.tw</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1269251340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they wanted to piss off the PRC, they might have redirected to Google Taiwan instead.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they wanted to piss off the PRC , they might have redirected to Google Taiwan instead .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they wanted to piss off the PRC, they might have redirected to Google Taiwan instead.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576572</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>wanchai</author>
	<datestamp>1269257340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's the reverse.</p><p>even if China doesn't block the access of google.com.hk, individual who search (or do anything online) inside china can still be traced. I think the move to redirect search to google.com.hk will immediately reduce the usage of google, cos the general public, who knows a bit of what is being censored, may prefer not to see these materials at all. </p><p>still don't get it? imagine there's a search engine that returns NSFW materials for sure. will you use it at work? will you avoid using it?</p><p>yes, there's internet cafe. but there's highly efficient people's police, and net cafe owners who won't think twice to report to the authority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's the reverse.even if China does n't block the access of google.com.hk , individual who search ( or do anything online ) inside china can still be traced .
I think the move to redirect search to google.com.hk will immediately reduce the usage of google , cos the general public , who knows a bit of what is being censored , may prefer not to see these materials at all .
still do n't get it ?
imagine there 's a search engine that returns NSFW materials for sure .
will you use it at work ?
will you avoid using it ? yes , there 's internet cafe .
but there 's highly efficient people 's police , and net cafe owners who wo n't think twice to report to the authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's the reverse.even if China doesn't block the access of google.com.hk, individual who search (or do anything online) inside china can still be traced.
I think the move to redirect search to google.com.hk will immediately reduce the usage of google, cos the general public, who knows a bit of what is being censored, may prefer not to see these materials at all.
still don't get it?
imagine there's a search engine that returns NSFW materials for sure.
will you use it at work?
will you avoid using it?yes, there's internet cafe.
but there's highly efficient people's police, and net cafe owners who won't think twice to report to the authority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576906</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269258960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nahy nahy</p></div><p>Are you implying that Google employees are of the Horse species?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nahy nahyAre you implying that Google employees are of the Horse species ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nahy nahyAre you implying that Google employees are of the Horse species?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580056</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in Hong Kong linking to porn is just as illegal. Which doesn't mean they'll Google to censor, but "someone" may well sue Google for breaking HK law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in Hong Kong linking to porn is just as illegal .
Which does n't mean they 'll Google to censor , but " someone " may well sue Google for breaking HK law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in Hong Kong linking to porn is just as illegal.
Which doesn't mean they'll Google to censor, but "someone" may well sue Google for breaking HK law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575320</id>
	<title>Re:i'm getting a premonition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next up: Google Dining Room Invests in Fine China</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next up : Google Dining Room Invests in Fine China</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next up: Google Dining Room Invests in Fine China</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166</id>
	<title>Market Share</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what \% of the search market will Google now own after this change?</p><p>I would imagine a LOT of people would start using Google if they found out it was uncensored.</p><p>It will be interesting to watch how their market share changes from this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what \ % of the search market will Google now own after this change ? I would imagine a LOT of people would start using Google if they found out it was uncensored.It will be interesting to watch how their market share changes from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what \% of the search market will Google now own after this change?I would imagine a LOT of people would start using Google if they found out it was uncensored.It will be interesting to watch how their market share changes from this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990</id>
	<title>Re:China's next move</title>
	<author>nmosfet</author>
	<datestamp>1269250740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole censorship thing is mainly a marketing ploy. Google is making a gamble that this will help them gain market share in China. <br> <br>
Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of what Google is doing and I hope this leads to the end of censorship in China. But from a business persepctive, Google is threatening to pull out because it's not making much headway in gaining marketshare, while Baidu consistently have 60\% marketshare. They are earning only about 1.5\% of their profit from China. This recent strategy to threaten to drop censorship not only differentiate Google's search engine product from others in China, but also generates alot of news over there and over here. As much I would like to believe that a company is putting ethics above profit, the reality is giving uncensored search access to China is the last of Google's concerns (esp. since they still offer censored search to numerous other countries). But since Google's goals and my hopes coincide, go Google!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole censorship thing is mainly a marketing ploy .
Google is making a gamble that this will help them gain market share in China .
Do n't get me wrong I 'm in favor of what Google is doing and I hope this leads to the end of censorship in China .
But from a business persepctive , Google is threatening to pull out because it 's not making much headway in gaining marketshare , while Baidu consistently have 60 \ % marketshare .
They are earning only about 1.5 \ % of their profit from China .
This recent strategy to threaten to drop censorship not only differentiate Google 's search engine product from others in China , but also generates alot of news over there and over here .
As much I would like to believe that a company is putting ethics above profit , the reality is giving uncensored search access to China is the last of Google 's concerns ( esp .
since they still offer censored search to numerous other countries ) .
But since Google 's goals and my hopes coincide , go Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole censorship thing is mainly a marketing ploy.
Google is making a gamble that this will help them gain market share in China.
Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of what Google is doing and I hope this leads to the end of censorship in China.
But from a business persepctive, Google is threatening to pull out because it's not making much headway in gaining marketshare, while Baidu consistently have 60\% marketshare.
They are earning only about 1.5\% of their profit from China.
This recent strategy to threaten to drop censorship not only differentiate Google's search engine product from others in China, but also generates alot of news over there and over here.
As much I would like to believe that a company is putting ethics above profit, the reality is giving uncensored search access to China is the last of Google's concerns (esp.
since they still offer censored search to numerous other countries).
But since Google's goals and my hopes coincide, go Google!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576544</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>Toze</author>
	<datestamp>1269257160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A small minority of people</p><p>porn</p></div><p>Sir, I believe I have discovered a flaw in your argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A small minority of peoplepornSir , I believe I have discovered a flaw in your argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A small minority of peoplepornSir, I believe I have discovered a flaw in your argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31585344</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1269365700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There market share may go down.  Here is why:  Even though the search results aren't blocked, China still blocks the site.  So you search for something on Google.hk and you get pages of the best results, all of which give you a 404 since the page itself is blocked by PRC.  So what good is an uncensored search when the pages themselves are blocked? (source: npr)</htmltext>
<tokenext>There market share may go down .
Here is why : Even though the search results are n't blocked , China still blocks the site .
So you search for something on Google.hk and you get pages of the best results , all of which give you a 404 since the page itself is blocked by PRC .
So what good is an uncensored search when the pages themselves are blocked ?
( source : npr )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There market share may go down.
Here is why:  Even though the search results aren't blocked, China still blocks the site.
So you search for something on Google.hk and you get pages of the best results, all of which give you a 404 since the page itself is blocked by PRC.
So what good is an uncensored search when the pages themselves are blocked?
(source: npr)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The British already gave<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hk back to the PRC back in 2000 (i think that's the right year), so they already have it.  It's just maintained as a semi-autonomous "free-enterprise zone" iirc.  They don't need to invade it, conquer it or annex it.  They just need to enforce the law there in the same way they do everywhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The British already gave .hk back to the PRC back in 2000 ( i think that 's the right year ) , so they already have it .
It 's just maintained as a semi-autonomous " free-enterprise zone " iirc .
They do n't need to invade it , conquer it or annex it .
They just need to enforce the law there in the same way they do everywhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The British already gave .hk back to the PRC back in 2000 (i think that's the right year), so they already have it.
It's just maintained as a semi-autonomous "free-enterprise zone" iirc.
They don't need to invade it, conquer it or annex it.
They just need to enforce the law there in the same way they do everywhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579802</id>
	<title>Re:They already own it</title>
	<author>ljgshkg</author>
	<datestamp>1269282360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, you're talking about two totally different things.
<br> <br>
Hong Kong is a region that doesn'ts have "separation problem". They don't need to worry about it. On the other hand, Tibet does have terrorist organisation that tries to form its own country (though it's not gaining stream, but it exists).
<br> <br>
Now, I don't mean I neccessary agree on the way they do things. But you really can't compare the two places.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , you 're talking about two totally different things .
Hong Kong is a region that doesn'ts have " separation problem " .
They do n't need to worry about it .
On the other hand , Tibet does have terrorist organisation that tries to form its own country ( though it 's not gaining stream , but it exists ) .
Now , I do n't mean I neccessary agree on the way they do things .
But you really ca n't compare the two places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, you're talking about two totally different things.
Hong Kong is a region that doesn'ts have "separation problem".
They don't need to worry about it.
On the other hand, Tibet does have terrorist organisation that tries to form its own country (though it's not gaining stream, but it exists).
Now, I don't mean I neccessary agree on the way they do things.
But you really can't compare the two places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576022</id>
	<title>Re:China's next move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Baidu has the market share only because you can search for MP3's, cracked downloads and such. Not because is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Baidu has the market share only because you can search for MP3 's , cracked downloads and such .
Not because is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baidu has the market share only because you can search for MP3's, cracked downloads and such.
Not because is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142</id>
	<title>They already own it</title>
	<author>maroberts</author>
	<datestamp>1269251340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hong Kong is part of China, it has different regulations however as a result of being handed over by the UK. I believe the phrase is "one country, two systems". In all fairness its not a bad idea; if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie points</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hong Kong is part of China , it has different regulations however as a result of being handed over by the UK .
I believe the phrase is " one country , two systems " .
In all fairness its not a bad idea ; if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie points</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hong Kong is part of China, it has different regulations however as a result of being handed over by the UK.
I believe the phrase is "one country, two systems".
In all fairness its not a bad idea; if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie points</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575572</id>
	<title>Re:China's next move</title>
	<author>Jaqenn</author>
	<datestamp>1269253140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google isn't fighting China because they love us.<br> <br>

They want to make lots of money.<br> <br>

But I'll be a happier little pawn in Google's world, so I hope they win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is n't fighting China because they love us .
They want to make lots of money .
But I 'll be a happier little pawn in Google 's world , so I hope they win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google isn't fighting China because they love us.
They want to make lots of money.
But I'll be a happier little pawn in Google's world, so I hope they win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576804</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1269258480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, but if memory serves me correct, some sort of agreement was signed with the British; The laws of HK cannot be changed (grossly, at least) for a 50 year period, or something along those lines.</p><p>I'm not sure if that would apply to this, though?</p><p>here it is:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Chapter 1, Article 5 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, reads:[2]</p><p><i>"The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years."</i></p> </div><p>I suppose this could fall under "way of life". I don't know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , but if memory serves me correct , some sort of agreement was signed with the British ; The laws of HK can not be changed ( grossly , at least ) for a 50 year period , or something along those lines.I 'm not sure if that would apply to this , though ? here it is : Chapter 1 , Article 5 of the Hong Kong Basic Law , the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region , reads : [ 2 ] " The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region , and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years .
" I suppose this could fall under " way of life " .
I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, but if memory serves me correct, some sort of agreement was signed with the British; The laws of HK cannot be changed (grossly, at least) for a 50 year period, or something along those lines.I'm not sure if that would apply to this, though?here it is:Chapter 1, Article 5 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, reads:[2]"The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.
" I suppose this could fall under "way of life".
I don't know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575008</id>
	<title>Re:China's next move</title>
	<author>Murmel84</author>
	<datestamp>1269250800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, even if they block it, there's still proxies to get access for the people who know how to use them, as well as the very big community of chinese speakers in foreign countries who don't lose google in their native language.<br> <br>

I think this whole move is more about preserving the service for the chinese "language community", not the chinese country (even if the country makes up most of the language community).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , even if they block it , there 's still proxies to get access for the people who know how to use them , as well as the very big community of chinese speakers in foreign countries who do n't lose google in their native language .
I think this whole move is more about preserving the service for the chinese " language community " , not the chinese country ( even if the country makes up most of the language community ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, even if they block it, there's still proxies to get access for the people who know how to use them, as well as the very big community of chinese speakers in foreign countries who don't lose google in their native language.
I think this whole move is more about preserving the service for the chinese "language community", not the chinese country (even if the country makes up most of the language community).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575394</id>
	<title>dynamite</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1269252360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And BOOM goes the DYNAMITE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And BOOM goes the DYNAMITE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And BOOM goes the DYNAMITE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580136</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>opposabledumbs</author>
	<datestamp>1269287580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of hard to invade, conquer and annex a territory that already belongs to them, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of hard to invade , conquer and annex a territory that already belongs to them , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of hard to invade, conquer and annex a territory that already belongs to them, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579562</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>ljgshkg</author>
	<datestamp>1269279840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they decided to make Hong Kong a special area twenty something years ago, it was desgined to be a show case to Taiwan. Today, it's still an important bridge and middle land between PRC controlled area and RoC (Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan) controlled area. Its importance is in this politics. So even if Google land there, mainland won't do anything to altern the current situation in HK. <br> <br>
Google's matter is far from having enough strength to altern their HK policy. Nowhere near.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they decided to make Hong Kong a special area twenty something years ago , it was desgined to be a show case to Taiwan .
Today , it 's still an important bridge and middle land between PRC controlled area and RoC ( Republic of China , i.e .
Taiwan ) controlled area .
Its importance is in this politics .
So even if Google land there , mainland wo n't do anything to altern the current situation in HK .
Google 's matter is far from having enough strength to altern their HK policy .
Nowhere near .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they decided to make Hong Kong a special area twenty something years ago, it was desgined to be a show case to Taiwan.
Today, it's still an important bridge and middle land between PRC controlled area and RoC (Republic of China, i.e.
Taiwan) controlled area.
Its importance is in this politics.
So even if Google land there, mainland won't do anything to altern the current situation in HK.
Google's matter is far from having enough strength to altern their HK policy.
Nowhere near.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384</id>
	<title>Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1269252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits.  Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China, there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China.  I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.</p><p>In a nutshell it seems like they're saying, "Nahy nahy, we're in Hong Kong now.  You can't touch us."  That seems rather short sighted to me.  On the other hand, they have a fairly defensible position.  Would the Chinese risk looking like even more severe tyrants by disrupting the dynamics that govern companies in Hong Kong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits .
Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China , there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China .
I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.In a nutshell it seems like they 're saying , " Nahy nahy , we 're in Hong Kong now .
You ca n't touch us .
" That seems rather short sighted to me .
On the other hand , they have a fairly defensible position .
Would the Chinese risk looking like even more severe tyrants by disrupting the dynamics that govern companies in Hong Kong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits.
Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China, there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China.
I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.In a nutshell it seems like they're saying, "Nahy nahy, we're in Hong Kong now.
You can't touch us.
"  That seems rather short sighted to me.
On the other hand, they have a fairly defensible position.
Would the Chinese risk looking like even more severe tyrants by disrupting the dynamics that govern companies in Hong Kong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31578210</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>DDLKermit007</author>
	<datestamp>1269267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh it's a little more complex than that. China is treating Hong Kong well almost purely because they want Taiwan back so badly. A move like putting a choke-hold on Hong Kong would make that whole political mess even more impossible. This whole thing should be interesting, or it will fade away to be forgotten in a few weeks when China decides to block Hong Kong Google &amp; does nothing else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh it 's a little more complex than that .
China is treating Hong Kong well almost purely because they want Taiwan back so badly .
A move like putting a choke-hold on Hong Kong would make that whole political mess even more impossible .
This whole thing should be interesting , or it will fade away to be forgotten in a few weeks when China decides to block Hong Kong Google &amp; does nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh it's a little more complex than that.
China is treating Hong Kong well almost purely because they want Taiwan back so badly.
A move like putting a choke-hold on Hong Kong would make that whole political mess even more impossible.
This whole thing should be interesting, or it will fade away to be forgotten in a few weeks when China decides to block Hong Kong Google &amp; does nothing else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579010</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in China. Disclosure : I am French.</p><p>Actually, most people here do not see uncensored results as real bonus.</p><p>Many people here even argue that some degree of "information management" by the state is a good thing, and tend to see censorship and freedom of speech as western concerns that do not apply to their own country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in China .
Disclosure : I am French.Actually , most people here do not see uncensored results as real bonus.Many people here even argue that some degree of " information management " by the state is a good thing , and tend to see censorship and freedom of speech as western concerns that do not apply to their own country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in China.
Disclosure : I am French.Actually, most people here do not see uncensored results as real bonus.Many people here even argue that some degree of "information management" by the state is a good thing, and tend to see censorship and freedom of speech as western concerns that do not apply to their own country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577404</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269261840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits. Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China, there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China. I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes and no.  Yes, China officially has some power over Hong Kong.  Unofficially, Hong Kong rules itself, and any attempt by China to exert even the slightest power over it would result in uproar, if not uprising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits .
Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China , there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China .
I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.Yes and no .
Yes , China officially has some power over Hong Kong .
Unofficially , Hong Kong rules itself , and any attempt by China to exert even the slightest power over it would result in uproar , if not uprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits.
Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China, there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China.
I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.Yes and no.
Yes, China officially has some power over Hong Kong.
Unofficially, Hong Kong rules itself, and any attempt by China to exert even the slightest power over it would result in uproar, if not uprising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575870</id>
	<title>How difficult</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269254400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how difficult is it to gain unrestricted internet access in china ?  do you have to be a computer hacker or can anyone download some sort of onion thingy and just browse ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how difficult is it to gain unrestricted internet access in china ?
do you have to be a computer hacker or can anyone download some sort of onion thingy and just browse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how difficult is it to gain unrestricted internet access in china ?
do you have to be a computer hacker or can anyone download some sort of onion thingy and just browse ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577210</id>
	<title>Re:How difficult</title>
	<author>koxkoxkox</author>
	<datestamp>1269260640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a simple access to a blocked website, it is possible to use proxies website, but you have to find new ones very regularly because they are blocked pretty fast.</p><p>Tor is an option, I heard good reports about Freegate, but I don't know if it is still valid.</p><p>The best way is to have a VPN, either by a geek friend elsewhere (not convenient for most Chinese) or a company like Witopia (but the prices are expensive compared to the cost of life here).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a simple access to a blocked website , it is possible to use proxies website , but you have to find new ones very regularly because they are blocked pretty fast.Tor is an option , I heard good reports about Freegate , but I do n't know if it is still valid.The best way is to have a VPN , either by a geek friend elsewhere ( not convenient for most Chinese ) or a company like Witopia ( but the prices are expensive compared to the cost of life here ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a simple access to a blocked website, it is possible to use proxies website, but you have to find new ones very regularly because they are blocked pretty fast.Tor is an option, I heard good reports about Freegate, but I don't know if it is still valid.The best way is to have a VPN, either by a geek friend elsewhere (not convenient for most Chinese) or a company like Witopia (but the prices are expensive compared to the cost of life here).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858</id>
	<title>Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Invade, conquer and annex Hong Kong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Invade , conquer and annex Hong Kong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Invade, conquer and annex Hong Kong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575206</id>
	<title>Re:China's next move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so much a moral high ground of not dealing with people you don't like.  Google wants to play ball with China, but it intends to beat them on fair terms; China intends to cheat.  Rather than leave and let all the other players deal with China's unsportsmanlike conduct, Google is sitting around figuring out how to stay in the game and beat China regardless of their behavior.
</p><p>
In other words, they're not doing anything unethical themselves; and they're strategizing their business maneuvers to both be profitable and attempt to follow an ethical basis.  They have many choices, some blatantly evil and some where they throw their weight around to maximize their profits while either not hurting anyone or performing a humanitarian service; although these are business decisions, they can be made on more tasteful basis than squeezing the last few dollars out of an already profitable operation.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much a moral high ground of not dealing with people you do n't like .
Google wants to play ball with China , but it intends to beat them on fair terms ; China intends to cheat .
Rather than leave and let all the other players deal with China 's unsportsmanlike conduct , Google is sitting around figuring out how to stay in the game and beat China regardless of their behavior .
In other words , they 're not doing anything unethical themselves ; and they 're strategizing their business maneuvers to both be profitable and attempt to follow an ethical basis .
They have many choices , some blatantly evil and some where they throw their weight around to maximize their profits while either not hurting anyone or performing a humanitarian service ; although these are business decisions , they can be made on more tasteful basis than squeezing the last few dollars out of an already profitable operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much a moral high ground of not dealing with people you don't like.
Google wants to play ball with China, but it intends to beat them on fair terms; China intends to cheat.
Rather than leave and let all the other players deal with China's unsportsmanlike conduct, Google is sitting around figuring out how to stay in the game and beat China regardless of their behavior.
In other words, they're not doing anything unethical themselves; and they're strategizing their business maneuvers to both be profitable and attempt to follow an ethical basis.
They have many choices, some blatantly evil and some where they throw their weight around to maximize their profits while either not hurting anyone or performing a humanitarian service; although these are business decisions, they can be made on more tasteful basis than squeezing the last few dollars out of an already profitable operation.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575482</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>blai</author>
	<datestamp>1269252780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can't enforce the law there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ca n't enforce the law there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can't enforce the law there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575604</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1269253260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sit down my son.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sit down my son.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sit down my son.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579278</id>
	<title>Re:They already own it</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1269277080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hong Kong is part of China,</p> </div><p>In name only. In reality it is no more part of China than it was previously part of the UK. It is "owned" by the PRC, but has its own laws, citizenship, currency, foreign reserves, TLD etc. And people regularly protest without being shot or threatened by tanks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>if China were this flexible over Tibet</p></div><p> What? Still maintain the old theocracy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hong Kong is part of China , In name only .
In reality it is no more part of China than it was previously part of the UK .
It is " owned " by the PRC , but has its own laws , citizenship , currency , foreign reserves , TLD etc .
And people regularly protest without being shot or threatened by tanks.if China were this flexible over Tibet What ?
Still maintain the old theocracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hong Kong is part of China, In name only.
In reality it is no more part of China than it was previously part of the UK.
It is "owned" by the PRC, but has its own laws, citizenship, currency, foreign reserves, TLD etc.
And people regularly protest without being shot or threatened by tanks.if China were this flexible over Tibet What?
Still maintain the old theocracy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576456</id>
	<title>But what if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is all of us that live with censorship and fabricated news whereas China and North Korea are free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is all of us that live with censorship and fabricated news whereas China and North Korea are free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is all of us that live with censorship and fabricated news whereas China and North Korea are free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575284</id>
	<title>The point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do the Chinese people feel about what is going on? I understand that their government has X stance and is sticking with it, but Google seems hell bent on getting around this because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... why? Do they just want to piss off the Chinese government or are they just trying to make a name for themselves in China? It seems like they are trying to subvert the government for their own well being without thinking of the consequences it could have on the culture of the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do the Chinese people feel about what is going on ?
I understand that their government has X stance and is sticking with it , but Google seems hell bent on getting around this because ..... why ? Do they just want to piss off the Chinese government or are they just trying to make a name for themselves in China ?
It seems like they are trying to subvert the government for their own well being without thinking of the consequences it could have on the culture of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do the Chinese people feel about what is going on?
I understand that their government has X stance and is sticking with it, but Google seems hell bent on getting around this because ..... why? Do they just want to piss off the Chinese government or are they just trying to make a name for themselves in China?
It seems like they are trying to subvert the government for their own well being without thinking of the consequences it could have on the culture of the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575846</id>
	<title>Re:google.com.tw</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they want to confront China with the fact that part of the country has utterly distinct laws between the two countries not start an international armed conflict.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they want to confront China with the fact that part of the country has utterly distinct laws between the two countries not start an international armed conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they want to confront China with the fact that part of the country has utterly distinct laws between the two countries not start an international armed conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576646</id>
	<title>Re:How difficult</title>
	<author>rmm4pi8</author>
	<datestamp>1269257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't quite able to figure out the attitudes there.  Where I was (Chengdu), everyone used anonymous proxies like crazy, and while they were quickly blocked more would spring up, with DNS/IPs often distributed on email lists.  It was treated a bit like speeding in the U.S. I guess--technically illegal, best to avoid the cops, but everyone does it.  I was using my corporate VPN as an easier access method, and even though VPNs are, as best I can tell, in the same sort of legal grey area, my usage really freaked people out.  The very idea of encryption (even used to view the same exact material) gave them visions of visitors in the night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't quite able to figure out the attitudes there .
Where I was ( Chengdu ) , everyone used anonymous proxies like crazy , and while they were quickly blocked more would spring up , with DNS/IPs often distributed on email lists .
It was treated a bit like speeding in the U.S. I guess--technically illegal , best to avoid the cops , but everyone does it .
I was using my corporate VPN as an easier access method , and even though VPNs are , as best I can tell , in the same sort of legal grey area , my usage really freaked people out .
The very idea of encryption ( even used to view the same exact material ) gave them visions of visitors in the night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't quite able to figure out the attitudes there.
Where I was (Chengdu), everyone used anonymous proxies like crazy, and while they were quickly blocked more would spring up, with DNS/IPs often distributed on email lists.
It was treated a bit like speeding in the U.S. I guess--technically illegal, best to avoid the cops, but everyone does it.
I was using my corporate VPN as an easier access method, and even though VPNs are, as best I can tell, in the same sort of legal grey area, my usage really freaked people out.
The very idea of encryption (even used to view the same exact material) gave them visions of visitors in the night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579834</id>
	<title>Re:google.com.tw</title>
	<author>The Atog Lord</author>
	<datestamp>1269282780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taiwan uses Traditional Chinese. Mainland China uses Simplified Chinese. So, that wouldn't work. Mao changed the written form of the language some years back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taiwan uses Traditional Chinese .
Mainland China uses Simplified Chinese .
So , that would n't work .
Mao changed the written form of the language some years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taiwan uses Traditional Chinese.
Mainland China uses Simplified Chinese.
So, that wouldn't work.
Mao changed the written form of the language some years back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575296</id>
	<title>Re:i'm getting a premonition</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1269251880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's called jingoism. Usually, jingoism wears off after certain period of time - usually a week. But some flavors of jingoism - especially the ones arising from propaganda - will last untill the objectives of the propagandist are fulfilled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's called jingoism .
Usually , jingoism wears off after certain period of time - usually a week .
But some flavors of jingoism - especially the ones arising from propaganda - will last untill the objectives of the propagandist are fulfilled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's called jingoism.
Usually, jingoism wears off after certain period of time - usually a week.
But some flavors of jingoism - especially the ones arising from propaganda - will last untill the objectives of the propagandist are fulfilled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579718</id>
	<title>Re:Different, but the same.</title>
	<author>ljgshkg</author>
	<datestamp>1269281460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those few/several Hong Kong politicians are not fighting to preserve the region's autonomy nor anywhere near that. Those few person are fighting for "real-election" for the city's mayor in 2012 instead of the determined 2017 (which is writen in the Basic Law of Hong Kong, and is agreed upon by the mainland government). The exact situation is that Hong Kong does not have a law that allows *Referendum*, so they resign and claim that they'll use it as a *Referendum*, so if they get elect again, it means people support having "real-election" in 2012 instead of 2017.  Their action, even Hong Kong's biggest democratic party (The Democratic Party, it is actually called) oppose. Mainland government, Hong Kong government, and the Hong Kong political parties that maintain close relationship to the Communist Party are pretty much just saying that it is technically legal to resign and re-elect, but using that as *Referendum* is just not respecting the Basic Law and is affecting the operation of the Legistrative Council of Hong Kong (which is like the parliment of the city). But they didn't say much more than that, and what they say have no power on affecting the election etc and are far from meddling Hong Kong government's operation.
<br> <br>
Now on google's matter. They've a team in Taiwan already I think? I don't believe it matters so much even if they base themselves in Taiwan. Taiwan and HK have been a strategic place to land on when companies are eyesing mainland China anyway. And if they're really rebasing, Taiwan is actually much more reasonable than HK because it's still considered to be part of "Greater China Area" and I believe Taiwan business's reach in mainland is stronger than many of those from HK. TW also seem to have an edge in software/web-business also. I don't think any Chinese including the mainland government will see anything wrong with that.
<br> <br>
This, however, is just redirecting. Then of course, you'd redirect to somewhere within the same political power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those few/several Hong Kong politicians are not fighting to preserve the region 's autonomy nor anywhere near that .
Those few person are fighting for " real-election " for the city 's mayor in 2012 instead of the determined 2017 ( which is writen in the Basic Law of Hong Kong , and is agreed upon by the mainland government ) .
The exact situation is that Hong Kong does not have a law that allows * Referendum * , so they resign and claim that they 'll use it as a * Referendum * , so if they get elect again , it means people support having " real-election " in 2012 instead of 2017 .
Their action , even Hong Kong 's biggest democratic party ( The Democratic Party , it is actually called ) oppose .
Mainland government , Hong Kong government , and the Hong Kong political parties that maintain close relationship to the Communist Party are pretty much just saying that it is technically legal to resign and re-elect , but using that as * Referendum * is just not respecting the Basic Law and is affecting the operation of the Legistrative Council of Hong Kong ( which is like the parliment of the city ) .
But they did n't say much more than that , and what they say have no power on affecting the election etc and are far from meddling Hong Kong government 's operation .
Now on google 's matter .
They 've a team in Taiwan already I think ?
I do n't believe it matters so much even if they base themselves in Taiwan .
Taiwan and HK have been a strategic place to land on when companies are eyesing mainland China anyway .
And if they 're really rebasing , Taiwan is actually much more reasonable than HK because it 's still considered to be part of " Greater China Area " and I believe Taiwan business 's reach in mainland is stronger than many of those from HK .
TW also seem to have an edge in software/web-business also .
I do n't think any Chinese including the mainland government will see anything wrong with that .
This , however , is just redirecting .
Then of course , you 'd redirect to somewhere within the same political power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those few/several Hong Kong politicians are not fighting to preserve the region's autonomy nor anywhere near that.
Those few person are fighting for "real-election" for the city's mayor in 2012 instead of the determined 2017 (which is writen in the Basic Law of Hong Kong, and is agreed upon by the mainland government).
The exact situation is that Hong Kong does not have a law that allows *Referendum*, so they resign and claim that they'll use it as a *Referendum*, so if they get elect again, it means people support having "real-election" in 2012 instead of 2017.
Their action, even Hong Kong's biggest democratic party (The Democratic Party, it is actually called) oppose.
Mainland government, Hong Kong government, and the Hong Kong political parties that maintain close relationship to the Communist Party are pretty much just saying that it is technically legal to resign and re-elect, but using that as *Referendum* is just not respecting the Basic Law and is affecting the operation of the Legistrative Council of Hong Kong (which is like the parliment of the city).
But they didn't say much more than that, and what they say have no power on affecting the election etc and are far from meddling Hong Kong government's operation.
Now on google's matter.
They've a team in Taiwan already I think?
I don't believe it matters so much even if they base themselves in Taiwan.
Taiwan and HK have been a strategic place to land on when companies are eyesing mainland China anyway.
And if they're really rebasing, Taiwan is actually much more reasonable than HK because it's still considered to be part of "Greater China Area" and I believe Taiwan business's reach in mainland is stronger than many of those from HK.
TW also seem to have an edge in software/web-business also.
I don't think any Chinese including the mainland government will see anything wrong with that.
This, however, is just redirecting.
Then of course, you'd redirect to somewhere within the same political power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575290</id>
	<title>2nd round of attacks likely?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should we all back up your e-mail and documents on Google's services in case the Aurora attacks were by non-goverment-sponsored Chinese nationalists?  (I am assuming that the government would not be so stupid as to try to do something potentially incriminating for the second time in a row).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should we all back up your e-mail and documents on Google 's services in case the Aurora attacks were by non-goverment-sponsored Chinese nationalists ?
( I am assuming that the government would not be so stupid as to try to do something potentially incriminating for the second time in a row ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should we all back up your e-mail and documents on Google's services in case the Aurora attacks were by non-goverment-sponsored Chinese nationalists?
(I am assuming that the government would not be so stupid as to try to do something potentially incriminating for the second time in a row).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576388</id>
	<title>Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1269256500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the Basic Law in Hong Kong means the democratically elected Hong Kong government has the final say in these sorts of matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the Basic Law in Hong Kong means the democratically elected Hong Kong government has the final say in these sorts of matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the Basic Law in Hong Kong means the democratically elected Hong Kong government has the final say in these sorts of matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31585344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31581042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31578210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1958201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31581042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31578210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31585344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31577796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31575320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31576476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31580094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31579718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1958201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1958201.31574868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
