<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_1718241</id>
	<title>Microsoft Bing Search Launches Early Preview</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243885740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes to mention that Microsoft has rolled out a <a href="http://techfragments.com/news/839/Tech/Microsoft\_Bing\_Search\_Launches\_Early\_Preview.html">preview version of their Bing Search site</a> earlier than expected.  Microsoft's hope at putting a dent in Google's ubiquitous search presence, Bing has several new features including Bing Cashback, Bing Video, and Bing xRank.  <i>"Bing Video is really great because of the new thumbnail video feature. Try searching for E3 at Bing Video and you'll quickly see how it works. Simply hover over a video and it starts playing instantly.  This is fantastic from the consumer's point of view but what about the publisher? It's almost like Microsoft is stepping on their toes by deploying video search in this manner. Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results? Fair use definitely comes into mind here. Perhaps there should be a 30second limitation on the 'thumbnail preview?'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes to mention that Microsoft has rolled out a preview version of their Bing Search site earlier than expected .
Microsoft 's hope at putting a dent in Google 's ubiquitous search presence , Bing has several new features including Bing Cashback , Bing Video , and Bing xRank .
" Bing Video is really great because of the new thumbnail video feature .
Try searching for E3 at Bing Video and you 'll quickly see how it works .
Simply hover over a video and it starts playing instantly .
This is fantastic from the consumer 's point of view but what about the publisher ?
It 's almost like Microsoft is stepping on their toes by deploying video search in this manner .
Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results ?
Fair use definitely comes into mind here .
Perhaps there should be a 30second limitation on the 'thumbnail preview ?
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes to mention that Microsoft has rolled out a preview version of their Bing Search site earlier than expected.
Microsoft's hope at putting a dent in Google's ubiquitous search presence, Bing has several new features including Bing Cashback, Bing Video, and Bing xRank.
"Bing Video is really great because of the new thumbnail video feature.
Try searching for E3 at Bing Video and you'll quickly see how it works.
Simply hover over a video and it starts playing instantly.
This is fantastic from the consumer's point of view but what about the publisher?
It's almost like Microsoft is stepping on their toes by deploying video search in this manner.
Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results?
Fair use definitely comes into mind here.
Perhaps there should be a 30second limitation on the 'thumbnail preview?
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173521</id>
	<title>New phrase: You've been "binged".</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1243850160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fifth result from Bing on searching for the word "test", copied exactly:

<br>#
<br>    *
<br>      Domain Not Valid
<br>This domain is not valid. Hosted by Network Solutions.
<br>    * test.test.com
<br>    *   Cached page</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fifth result from Bing on searching for the word " test " , copied exactly : # * Domain Not Valid This domain is not valid .
Hosted by Network Solutions .
* test.test.com * Cached page</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fifth result from Bing on searching for the word "test", copied exactly:

#
    *
      Domain Not Valid
This domain is not valid.
Hosted by Network Solutions.
* test.test.com
    *   Cached page</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176613</id>
	<title>Re:bing is for porn</title>
	<author>Scroatzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1243867500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why didn't you just Google it?"</p><p>"To be honest with you, I was too busy Binging off!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why did n't you just Google it ?
" " To be honest with you , I was too busy Binging off !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why didn't you just Google it?
""To be honest with you, I was too busy Binging off!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174383</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Brad1138</author>
	<datestamp>1243853400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>just go Bing it!</p></div><p>

Is that Chandler Bing or Bing Crosby?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just go Bing it !
Is that Chandler Bing or Bing Crosby ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just go Bing it!
Is that Chandler Bing or Bing Crosby?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997</id>
	<title>Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft products?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed that also.</p><p>Here are the first four "Search suggestions" for when I type "linux":</p><p>linux<br>linux windows<br>linux microsoft<br>linux vista</p><p>Is this because Microsoft inserted itself into those search suggestions? Or is it because the majority of Bingers are using Microsoft products and thus the results are skewed ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that also.Here are the first four " Search suggestions " for when I type " linux " : linuxlinux windowslinux microsoftlinux vistaIs this because Microsoft inserted itself into those search suggestions ?
Or is it because the majority of Bingers are using Microsoft products and thus the results are skewed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that also.Here are the first four "Search suggestions" for when I type "linux":linuxlinux windowslinux microsoftlinux vistaIs this because Microsoft inserted itself into those search suggestions?
Or is it because the majority of Bingers are using Microsoft products and thus the results are skewed ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177573</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     I don't know if this would stop me from using another search engine, if the results are good... but...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You're absolutely right, and there's a reason for you finding the Google results so nice to use -- I read an article years back that Google spent LOTS of time, money, and effort, basically making small changes to the results pages, and using polls to see which people preferred... margin tweaks, font tweaks, adding and removing little bits of info.. I'm sure they still are.  They might not necessarily know WHY people prefer one version over another, but the stats don't lie, and google presumably goes with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this would stop me from using another search engine , if the results are good... but.. .           You 're absolutely right , and there 's a reason for you finding the Google results so nice to use -- I read an article years back that Google spent LOTS of time , money , and effort , basically making small changes to the results pages , and using polls to see which people preferred... margin tweaks , font tweaks , adding and removing little bits of info.. I 'm sure they still are .
They might not necessarily know WHY people prefer one version over another , but the stats do n't lie , and google presumably goes with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     I don't know if this would stop me from using another search engine, if the results are good... but...
          You're absolutely right, and there's a reason for you finding the Google results so nice to use -- I read an article years back that Google spent LOTS of time, money, and effort, basically making small changes to the results pages, and using polls to see which people preferred... margin tweaks, font tweaks, adding and removing little bits of info.. I'm sure they still are.
They might not necessarily know WHY people prefer one version over another, but the stats don't lie, and google presumably goes with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176375</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody needs to take on Google</title>
	<author>edgr</author>
	<datestamp>1243865460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For this reason I have changed my default search engine for the moment, to at least give bing a go. Competition is good, and if Google's monopoly continues, the technology will stagnate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For this reason I have changed my default search engine for the moment , to at least give bing a go .
Competition is good , and if Google 's monopoly continues , the technology will stagnate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this reason I have changed my default search engine for the moment, to at least give bing a go.
Competition is good, and if Google's monopoly continues, the technology will stagnate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173359</id>
	<title>Re:Huge amount of text ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's one ad and that's enough to push results down so that you only see two results?</p><p>Maybe you should upgrade that 10" monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one ad and that 's enough to push results down so that you only see two results ? Maybe you should upgrade that 10 " monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one ad and that's enough to push results down so that you only see two results?Maybe you should upgrade that 10" monitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176259</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243864500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; just go Bing it</p><p>While you do that, i'm going to go Wolfram Alpha it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; just go Bing itWhile you do that , i 'm going to go Wolfram Alpha it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; just go Bing itWhile you do that, i'm going to go Wolfram Alpha it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175917</id>
	<title>Re:HIJACKED!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243861740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a mistake - that's all.  If you read the Google thread you linked to, you'd see that it happens because auto.search.msn.com handles "address bar search" and uses the "prov" parameter to decide where to send it.  The new engine doesn't handle the "prov" parameter, which no doubt they'll fix.  They're not intentionally hijacking anything.  In fact, they're not even hijacking anything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a mistake - that 's all .
If you read the Google thread you linked to , you 'd see that it happens because auto.search.msn.com handles " address bar search " and uses the " prov " parameter to decide where to send it .
The new engine does n't handle the " prov " parameter , which no doubt they 'll fix .
They 're not intentionally hijacking anything .
In fact , they 're not even hijacking anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a mistake - that's all.
If you read the Google thread you linked to, you'd see that it happens because auto.search.msn.com handles "address bar search" and uses the "prov" parameter to decide where to send it.
The new engine doesn't handle the "prov" parameter, which no doubt they'll fix.
They're not intentionally hijacking anything.
In fact, they're not even hijacking anything!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175249</id>
	<title>This is why I hate these guys. . .</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1243857600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bing" - it just sounds like a group of guys tried to analyze the appeal of the name "Google" utilize the same formula for their own name. The name Google never particularly appealed to me, neither did their logo, but their service functioned better than the competitors. Copying an existing business model in every way and attempting to use marketing to gain the upper hand is just fucked up. I wish I could say that it didn't work, that quality and originality are important to consumers, but, well, it's worked for them so far. I really like how Google's handled them so far, so perhaps they keep ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bing " - it just sounds like a group of guys tried to analyze the appeal of the name " Google " utilize the same formula for their own name .
The name Google never particularly appealed to me , neither did their logo , but their service functioned better than the competitors .
Copying an existing business model in every way and attempting to use marketing to gain the upper hand is just fucked up .
I wish I could say that it did n't work , that quality and originality are important to consumers , but , well , it 's worked for them so far .
I really like how Google 's handled them so far , so perhaps they keep ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bing" - it just sounds like a group of guys tried to analyze the appeal of the name "Google" utilize the same formula for their own name.
The name Google never particularly appealed to me, neither did their logo, but their service functioned better than the competitors.
Copying an existing business model in every way and attempting to use marketing to gain the upper hand is just fucked up.
I wish I could say that it didn't work, that quality and originality are important to consumers, but, well, it's worked for them so far.
I really like how Google's handled them so far, so perhaps they keep ahead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175575</id>
	<title>Re:Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243859400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>years of experience say: "there are not accidents"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>years of experience say : " there are not accidents "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>years of experience say: "there are not accidents"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174105</id>
	<title>So far I like it</title>
	<author>phreakhead</author>
	<datestamp>1243852260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not trying to be anti-Slashdot here by not automatically bashing Microsoft, but the search results are pretty nice. On the left you can mouse over to see a preview of the page... seems to be helpful since Google *always* manages to cut off the description right before the part you need! The video search is awesome! I can mouse over and see if it's really the video I was looking for or just a poser. Also works great for porn.</p><p>The definition showing up right in the results is nice, instead of having to always click "define" and wait for another slow-ass dictionary site to load. However, their spell check sucks. I tried typing "pthisis" when I meant "phthisis" and then I had to go to Google to find the correct spelling!</p><p>Obviously it's not completely ready yet to compete with Google, but they have some pretty good interface improvements which I hope Google will copy one day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not trying to be anti-Slashdot here by not automatically bashing Microsoft , but the search results are pretty nice .
On the left you can mouse over to see a preview of the page... seems to be helpful since Google * always * manages to cut off the description right before the part you need !
The video search is awesome !
I can mouse over and see if it 's really the video I was looking for or just a poser .
Also works great for porn.The definition showing up right in the results is nice , instead of having to always click " define " and wait for another slow-ass dictionary site to load .
However , their spell check sucks .
I tried typing " pthisis " when I meant " phthisis " and then I had to go to Google to find the correct spelling ! Obviously it 's not completely ready yet to compete with Google , but they have some pretty good interface improvements which I hope Google will copy one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not trying to be anti-Slashdot here by not automatically bashing Microsoft, but the search results are pretty nice.
On the left you can mouse over to see a preview of the page... seems to be helpful since Google *always* manages to cut off the description right before the part you need!
The video search is awesome!
I can mouse over and see if it's really the video I was looking for or just a poser.
Also works great for porn.The definition showing up right in the results is nice, instead of having to always click "define" and wait for another slow-ass dictionary site to load.
However, their spell check sucks.
I tried typing "pthisis" when I meant "phthisis" and then I had to go to Google to find the correct spelling!Obviously it's not completely ready yet to compete with Google, but they have some pretty good interface improvements which I hope Google will copy one day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173035</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah but....</title>
	<author>jamesmcm</author>
	<datestamp>1243848480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has been using a lot of recursive, GNU-style acronyms recently like XNA - XNA's Not Acronymed and now Bing - Bing Is Not Google.<br> <br>
Maybe they think this is why everyone is using GNU now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has been using a lot of recursive , GNU-style acronyms recently like XNA - XNA 's Not Acronymed and now Bing - Bing Is Not Google .
Maybe they think this is why everyone is using GNU now ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has been using a lot of recursive, GNU-style acronyms recently like XNA - XNA's Not Acronymed and now Bing - Bing Is Not Google.
Maybe they think this is why everyone is using GNU now?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172945</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Mprx</author>
	<datestamp>1243848120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The left border definitely gives it a spammy feel.  If I came across a Bing results page unexpectedly I'd probably mistake it for a link farm and immediately close it by mouse gesture without even reading anything.  Would take less than a second.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The left border definitely gives it a spammy feel .
If I came across a Bing results page unexpectedly I 'd probably mistake it for a link farm and immediately close it by mouse gesture without even reading anything .
Would take less than a second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The left border definitely gives it a spammy feel.
If I came across a Bing results page unexpectedly I'd probably mistake it for a link farm and immediately close it by mouse gesture without even reading anything.
Would take less than a second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172853</id>
	<title>Did anonymous even try the video search?</title>
	<author>Jabrwock</author>
	<datestamp>1243847820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I moused over video results, it seemed to do "skip play", fading out and in between jumps, as it "sampled" the video in 7 second clips. After 3 clips (from throughout a 20 minute video), it looped. Very nice for getting a feel for the video contents and quality.
<br> <br>
So I don't understand the beef about <i>"Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results?"</i> because the user clearly can't watch the whole video from the search results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I moused over video results , it seemed to do " skip play " , fading out and in between jumps , as it " sampled " the video in 7 second clips .
After 3 clips ( from throughout a 20 minute video ) , it looped .
Very nice for getting a feel for the video contents and quality .
So I do n't understand the beef about " Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results ?
" because the user clearly ca n't watch the whole video from the search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I moused over video results, it seemed to do "skip play", fading out and in between jumps, as it "sampled" the video in 7 second clips.
After 3 clips (from throughout a 20 minute video), it looped.
Very nice for getting a feel for the video contents and quality.
So I don't understand the beef about "Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results?
" because the user clearly can't watch the whole video from the search results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28249325</id>
	<title>BING Is Not Google</title>
	<author>asdfndsagse</author>
	<datestamp>1244465160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="bingisnotgoogle.com" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">BING Is Not Google</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BING Is Not Google [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BING Is Not Google [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172969</id>
	<title>Bing is a bad choice of name...</title>
	<author>DontBlameCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1243848240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A common typo for me is hitting "o" instead of "i".</p><p>&gt;&gt; Bing has several new features including Bing Cashback, Bing Video, and Bing xRank.</p><p>A typo of that sort renders these, "Bong Cashback", "Bong Video" and "Bong xRank". Those search terms could easily result in fetching sites distinctly, NSFW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A common typo for me is hitting " o " instead of " i " . &gt; &gt; Bing has several new features including Bing Cashback , Bing Video , and Bing xRank.A typo of that sort renders these , " Bong Cashback " , " Bong Video " and " Bong xRank " .
Those search terms could easily result in fetching sites distinctly , NSFW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A common typo for me is hitting "o" instead of "i".&gt;&gt; Bing has several new features including Bing Cashback, Bing Video, and Bing xRank.A typo of that sort renders these, "Bong Cashback", "Bong Video" and "Bong xRank".
Those search terms could easily result in fetching sites distinctly, NSFW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178869</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like a parking site or a DNS redirect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243933440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like an uglier version of google with over 1/3 of the top of the page (all you see before scrolling) dedicated to advertisements</p></div><p>In addition to that, imagine that you are navigating such page in a Netbook (with a vertical resolution of 600 pixels) using <a href="http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8245/internetexplorer81.png" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">Internet Explorer </a> [imageshack.us] (look at the navigation bar).</p><p>I kinda liked the Microsoft maps version... however, I wonder if it is "too late" in the sense that, after playing with the maps interface (and thinking that it feels cool) I know I would just go to maps.google.com when I need something because my fingers know how to use it.</p><p>~xtracto<br>[anon. for I have modded in this thread]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like an uglier version of google with over 1/3 of the top of the page ( all you see before scrolling ) dedicated to advertisementsIn addition to that , imagine that you are navigating such page in a Netbook ( with a vertical resolution of 600 pixels ) using Internet Explorer [ imageshack.us ] ( look at the navigation bar ) .I kinda liked the Microsoft maps version... however , I wonder if it is " too late " in the sense that , after playing with the maps interface ( and thinking that it feels cool ) I know I would just go to maps.google.com when I need something because my fingers know how to use it. ~ xtracto [ anon .
for I have modded in this thread ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like an uglier version of google with over 1/3 of the top of the page (all you see before scrolling) dedicated to advertisementsIn addition to that, imagine that you are navigating such page in a Netbook (with a vertical resolution of 600 pixels) using Internet Explorer  [imageshack.us] (look at the navigation bar).I kinda liked the Microsoft maps version... however, I wonder if it is "too late" in the sense that, after playing with the maps interface (and thinking that it feels cool) I know I would just go to maps.google.com when I need something because my fingers know how to use it.~xtracto[anon.
for I have modded in this thread]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173055</id>
	<title>Re:And Slashdot couldn't even link to it?</title>
	<author>Drinking Bleach</author>
	<datestamp>1243848600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=microsoft+bing" title="justfuckinggoogleit.com">http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=microsoft+bing</a> [justfuckinggoogleit.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl ? query = microsoft + bing [ justfuckinggoogleit.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=microsoft+bing [justfuckinggoogleit.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172615</id>
	<title>bing is for porn</title>
	<author>Trivial\_Zeros</author>
	<datestamp>1243846920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/5423736/Microsofts-Bing-under-fire-for-porn-video-access.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/5423736/Microsofts-Bing-under-fire-for-porn-video-access.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk]

This might be how Bing will become popular - using Bing video to bypass porn filters!</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/5423736/Microsofts-Bing-under-fire-for-porn-video-access.html [ telegraph.co.uk ] This might be how Bing will become popular - using Bing video to bypass porn filters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/5423736/Microsofts-Bing-under-fire-for-porn-video-access.html [telegraph.co.uk]

This might be how Bing will become popular - using Bing video to bypass porn filters!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173491</id>
	<title>Bing is pretty pointless</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1243850040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried Bing for about ten seconds and saw no immediate reason to switch from Google.</p><p>Yawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried Bing for about ten seconds and saw no immediate reason to switch from Google.Yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried Bing for about ten seconds and saw no immediate reason to switch from Google.Yawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173573</id>
	<title>Re:In a word, it sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player. Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/5423736/Microsofts-Bing-under-fire-for-porn-video-access.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Stop trying to get around the filter.</a> [telegraph.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big surprise , the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player .
Despite the fact that I view wmv 's all over the net just fine with mplayer , yet somehow MS ca n't seem to make this work .
Stop trying to get around the filter .
[ telegraph.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.
Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.
Stop trying to get around the filter.
[telegraph.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173225</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BaddaBing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BaddaBing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BaddaBing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173765</id>
	<title>The Sound of Annoyance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243851120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Typical MSFT logic again. The official blog describes 'Bing' as "the sound of found". Problem is - I haven't started looking for anything yet, WHY IS THERE A SOUND? Furthermore, even MSFT admit that to compete with Google you need a name that can become a verb - so WHY DID THEY DESCRIBE 'BING' AS OFFICIALLY A SOUND (which is a noun)?? And then the name keeping chiming in your head - Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! - like a bad commercial jingle that is stuck there and makes you hate it, despise it, and swear never to touch it - no matter how good it actually is. I'm guessing that would be roughly 50\% of the population that MSFT still will not convince.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical MSFT logic again .
The official blog describes 'Bing ' as " the sound of found " .
Problem is - I have n't started looking for anything yet , WHY IS THERE A SOUND ?
Furthermore , even MSFT admit that to compete with Google you need a name that can become a verb - so WHY DID THEY DESCRIBE 'BING ' AS OFFICIALLY A SOUND ( which is a noun ) ? ?
And then the name keeping chiming in your head - Bing !
Bing ! Bing !
Bing ! - like a bad commercial jingle that is stuck there and makes you hate it , despise it , and swear never to touch it - no matter how good it actually is .
I 'm guessing that would be roughly 50 \ % of the population that MSFT still will not convince .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical MSFT logic again.
The official blog describes 'Bing' as "the sound of found".
Problem is - I haven't started looking for anything yet, WHY IS THERE A SOUND?
Furthermore, even MSFT admit that to compete with Google you need a name that can become a verb - so WHY DID THEY DESCRIBE 'BING' AS OFFICIALLY A SOUND (which is a noun)??
And then the name keeping chiming in your head - Bing!
Bing! Bing!
Bing! - like a bad commercial jingle that is stuck there and makes you hate it, despise it, and swear never to touch it - no matter how good it actually is.
I'm guessing that would be roughly 50\% of the population that MSFT still will not convince.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173981</id>
	<title>Re:In a word, it sucks</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1243851900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, your computer has problems.  I'm using Opera on Windows and have embedded Quicktime and WMV videos purposely disabled.  Guess what?  The video preview play just fine, sir.</p><p>Second, this is a video preview.  You do understand the concept of a preview, right?  Not only is the picture a quarter of the original size, it's only a clip that starts somewhere near the middle.  So why would you still visit YouTube?  To watch the other 75\%.</p><p>I'll tell you what <b>is</b> broken, Slashdot.  Your anti-Microsoft comment received "Interesting and Insightful" moderation when in fact your comments have no basis in fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , your computer has problems .
I 'm using Opera on Windows and have embedded Quicktime and WMV videos purposely disabled .
Guess what ?
The video preview play just fine , sir.Second , this is a video preview .
You do understand the concept of a preview , right ?
Not only is the picture a quarter of the original size , it 's only a clip that starts somewhere near the middle .
So why would you still visit YouTube ?
To watch the other 75 \ % .I 'll tell you what is broken , Slashdot .
Your anti-Microsoft comment received " Interesting and Insightful " moderation when in fact your comments have no basis in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, your computer has problems.
I'm using Opera on Windows and have embedded Quicktime and WMV videos purposely disabled.
Guess what?
The video preview play just fine, sir.Second, this is a video preview.
You do understand the concept of a preview, right?
Not only is the picture a quarter of the original size, it's only a clip that starts somewhere near the middle.
So why would you still visit YouTube?
To watch the other 75\%.I'll tell you what is broken, Slashdot.
Your anti-Microsoft comment received "Interesting and Insightful" moderation when in fact your comments have no basis in fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173583</id>
	<title>Re:Life, The Universe, And Everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On day 1, did Google have that response?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On day 1 , did Google have that response ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On day 1, did Google have that response?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173857</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243851480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I really, really hate about Bing: Gray on gray. They obviously did not design this for the contrast challenged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I really , really hate about Bing : Gray on gray .
They obviously did not design this for the contrast challenged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I really, really hate about Bing: Gray on gray.
They obviously did not design this for the contrast challenged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174305</id>
	<title>My Bingaling...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...my bingaling, won't you play with my bingaling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...my bingaling , wo n't you play with my bingaling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...my bingaling, won't you play with my bingaling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173235</id>
	<title>The knights</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1243849260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that said Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that said Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that said Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174291</id>
	<title>Apropos "Bing"...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1243853040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the Luxemburgish slang word for "jail". I kid you not, as I am Luxemburgish (genetically only half) myself.</p><p>Reminds me of the German school newspaper in my final school, that was called "Flapp" (pronounced "fluhpp")... which is Luxemburgish for "turd".</p><p>I'm eagerly awaiting Microsoft Flapp to come out too. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Luxemburgish slang word for " jail " .
I kid you not , as I am Luxemburgish ( genetically only half ) myself.Reminds me of the German school newspaper in my final school , that was called " Flapp " ( pronounced " fluhpp " ) ... which is Luxemburgish for " turd " .I 'm eagerly awaiting Microsoft Flapp to come out too .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Luxemburgish slang word for "jail".
I kid you not, as I am Luxemburgish (genetically only half) myself.Reminds me of the German school newspaper in my final school, that was called "Flapp" (pronounced "fluhpp")... which is Luxemburgish for "turd".I'm eagerly awaiting Microsoft Flapp to come out too.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175361</id>
	<title>Re:Bing, bong, binger, bang</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243858140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bing", "Zune",<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...? Where does Microsoft come up with these names? And why aren't they stopped before they leave the building? Is there really no one in the company who thought to say, "You know, that name sounds kind of stupid"?</p><p>On a related topic, can anyone else see the makers of <a href="http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm" title="radgametools.com" rel="nofollow">Bin<b>k</b> Video</a> [radgametools.com] getting a little bit leery about the creation of <a href="http://www.bing.com/?scope=video" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">Bin<b>g</b> Video</a> [bing.com]? Sure, they're different things, but Microsoft has sued other companies over similar trivial name differences. There's no way Microsoft will try that in this case -- Bink has been around too long, and the Bink codecs have been used in games published by Microsoft Games for years. But one still wonders whether Microsoft is trying to muddy the waters, or if they just don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bing " , " Zune " , ... ?
Where does Microsoft come up with these names ?
And why are n't they stopped before they leave the building ?
Is there really no one in the company who thought to say , " You know , that name sounds kind of stupid " ? On a related topic , can anyone else see the makers of Bink Video [ radgametools.com ] getting a little bit leery about the creation of Bing Video [ bing.com ] ?
Sure , they 're different things , but Microsoft has sued other companies over similar trivial name differences .
There 's no way Microsoft will try that in this case -- Bink has been around too long , and the Bink codecs have been used in games published by Microsoft Games for years .
But one still wonders whether Microsoft is trying to muddy the waters , or if they just do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bing", "Zune", ...?
Where does Microsoft come up with these names?
And why aren't they stopped before they leave the building?
Is there really no one in the company who thought to say, "You know, that name sounds kind of stupid"?On a related topic, can anyone else see the makers of Bink Video [radgametools.com] getting a little bit leery about the creation of Bing Video [bing.com]?
Sure, they're different things, but Microsoft has sued other companies over similar trivial name differences.
There's no way Microsoft will try that in this case -- Bink has been around too long, and the Bink codecs have been used in games published by Microsoft Games for years.
But one still wonders whether Microsoft is trying to muddy the waters, or if they just don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172801</id>
	<title>Somebody needs to take on Google</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1243847640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may as well be Microsoft.  Right now, Google has no real competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may as well be Microsoft .
Right now , Google has no real competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may as well be Microsoft.
Right now, Google has no real competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173155</id>
	<title>Re:You want to know something funny?</title>
	<author>warriorpostman</author>
	<datestamp>1243848960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Just rastify him by about 15\% or so"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just rastify him by about 15 \ % or so "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Just rastify him by about 15\% or so"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173179</id>
	<title>Interesting behavior on my linux box</title>
	<author>dvh.tosomja</author>
	<datestamp>1243849020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu 8.04 all updates, Intel Atom 230, Intel GMA 945, Firefox, Noscript, Adblock Plus, Gnome, No compiz, sk\_SK locale.<br>When I search "foo" on bing.com and then click for search images, Xorg suddenly get 98\% load.<br>When I switch to another tab load go back to 0\%.<br>Anyone has same behavior?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu 8.04 all updates , Intel Atom 230 , Intel GMA 945 , Firefox , Noscript , Adblock Plus , Gnome , No compiz , sk \ _SK locale.When I search " foo " on bing.com and then click for search images , Xorg suddenly get 98 \ % load.When I switch to another tab load go back to 0 \ % .Anyone has same behavior ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu 8.04 all updates, Intel Atom 230, Intel GMA 945, Firefox, Noscript, Adblock Plus, Gnome, No compiz, sk\_SK locale.When I search "foo" on bing.com and then click for search images, Xorg suddenly get 98\% load.When I switch to another tab load go back to 0\%.Anyone has same behavior?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821</id>
	<title>Guess what microsoft did</title>
	<author>Conspiracy\_Of\_Doves</author>
	<datestamp>1243847700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, Microsoft has acquired the domain bingsucks.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , Microsoft has acquired the domain bingsucks.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, Microsoft has acquired the domain bingsucks.com.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177517</id>
	<title>Bing sucks (here's why)</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1243875120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, I just clicked on bing.com and got a page, then typed in my search in English, click "only English" and search, and I get taken to a page of Chinese search results.  Did I mention my IP is in the PRC?  I fucking hate idiot web pages that try to guess who I am, and I even more hate web pages with no English option.  A whole page with nothing on it to say "click here for relief" except for sign up for an account, which I'm damned if I'll do just to complete a web search.<p>Oh, and instead of searching for what I typed in, it "helpfully" translated it to Chinese and searched for that instead.  Conclusion: bing sucks, it's totally unusable - I'd rather use baidu.  My &yen;0.01.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I just clicked on bing.com and got a page , then typed in my search in English , click " only English " and search , and I get taken to a page of Chinese search results .
Did I mention my IP is in the PRC ?
I fucking hate idiot web pages that try to guess who I am , and I even more hate web pages with no English option .
A whole page with nothing on it to say " click here for relief " except for sign up for an account , which I 'm damned if I 'll do just to complete a web search.Oh , and instead of searching for what I typed in , it " helpfully " translated it to Chinese and searched for that instead .
Conclusion : bing sucks , it 's totally unusable - I 'd rather use baidu .
My   0.01 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I just clicked on bing.com and got a page, then typed in my search in English, click "only English" and search, and I get taken to a page of Chinese search results.
Did I mention my IP is in the PRC?
I fucking hate idiot web pages that try to guess who I am, and I even more hate web pages with no English option.
A whole page with nothing on it to say "click here for relief" except for sign up for an account, which I'm damned if I'll do just to complete a web search.Oh, and instead of searching for what I typed in, it "helpfully" translated it to Chinese and searched for that instead.
Conclusion: bing sucks, it's totally unusable - I'd rather use baidu.
My ¥0.01.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172859</id>
	<title>I really exist</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1243847880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I Binged (Bung?) and found myself, which indicates that Bing works well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;). I got approximately the same stuff as with Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Binged ( Bung ?
) and found myself , which indicates that Bing works well ; ) .
I got approximately the same stuff as with Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Binged (Bung?
) and found myself, which indicates that Bing works well ;).
I got approximately the same stuff as with Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172845</id>
	<title>Typo that stuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243847820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was just a typo that stuck.  What happened was bill typed a message to some underling searching for his Bong that he misplaced and typed bing instead of bong.  Someone saw the word "Search" and Bing" in the same email and had a brain fart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was just a typo that stuck .
What happened was bill typed a message to some underling searching for his Bong that he misplaced and typed bing instead of bong .
Someone saw the word " Search " and Bing " in the same email and had a brain fart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was just a typo that stuck.
What happened was bill typed a message to some underling searching for his Bong that he misplaced and typed bing instead of bong.
Someone saw the word "Search" and Bing" in the same email and had a brain fart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173199</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>castorvx</author>
	<datestamp>1243849080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think your signature makes that statement have more meaning than you want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your signature makes that statement have more meaning than you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your signature makes that statement have more meaning than you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172759</id>
	<title>Nice try!</title>
	<author>HommeDeJava</author>
	<datestamp>1243847400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rather than trying to compete on general research against Google, Bing's strategy is to select the targeted queries as the search for goods and services (travels, restaurants, cars, etc). I cannot comment on the outcome but the idea is very good especially since such queries are the most
likely to bring the $ dollars from advertisers. However, the trick is good but I see nothing that Google cannot ultimately counter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than trying to compete on general research against Google , Bing 's strategy is to select the targeted queries as the search for goods and services ( travels , restaurants , cars , etc ) .
I can not comment on the outcome but the idea is very good especially since such queries are the most likely to bring the $ dollars from advertisers .
However , the trick is good but I see nothing that Google can not ultimately counter .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than trying to compete on general research against Google, Bing's strategy is to select the targeted queries as the search for goods and services (travels, restaurants, cars, etc).
I cannot comment on the outcome but the idea is very good especially since such queries are the most
likely to bring the $ dollars from advertisers.
However, the trick is good but I see nothing that Google cannot ultimately counter ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173723</id>
	<title>Has anyone else noticed this?</title>
	<author>powerslave12r</author>
	<datestamp>1243851000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Under the www.bing.com/xrank page, when you look under the 'Politicians', number one for today is Melissa Hart, and clicking on her takes me to a page with all three links for the actress Melissa Joan Hart and not the politician.

<br> bing has some homework to do. The preview seems a little pre-mature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the www.bing.com/xrank page , when you look under the 'Politicians ' , number one for today is Melissa Hart , and clicking on her takes me to a page with all three links for the actress Melissa Joan Hart and not the politician .
bing has some homework to do .
The preview seems a little pre-mature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the www.bing.com/xrank page, when you look under the 'Politicians', number one for today is Melissa Hart, and clicking on her takes me to a page with all three links for the actress Melissa Joan Hart and not the politician.
bing has some homework to do.
The preview seems a little pre-mature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173631</id>
	<title>My prediction</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I predict this will be every bit as useful and well received as other Microsoft innovations like Microsoft Soundsmith and Bob! I'm sure plenty of people will use it just as long as they are paid to do so... but that isn't a very viable business model for a search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict this will be every bit as useful and well received as other Microsoft innovations like Microsoft Soundsmith and Bob !
I 'm sure plenty of people will use it just as long as they are paid to do so... but that is n't a very viable business model for a search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict this will be every bit as useful and well received as other Microsoft innovations like Microsoft Soundsmith and Bob!
I'm sure plenty of people will use it just as long as they are paid to do so... but that isn't a very viable business model for a search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174679</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1243854720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Bing results page looks like one of those fake domain-parked search result pages. I saw it on a few customers' machines today and honestly thought that it was some new malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Bing results page looks like one of those fake domain-parked search result pages .
I saw it on a few customers ' machines today and honestly thought that it was some new malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Bing results page looks like one of those fake domain-parked search result pages.
I saw it on a few customers' machines today and honestly thought that it was some new malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176659</id>
	<title>Re:Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see above discussion. It is more likely be the result of the fact that, most of users of the pre-released Bing are Microsoft employees. Not many of them have searched for your favorite distro. Broader user base now may shift the algorithm to display different phases in near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see above discussion .
It is more likely be the result of the fact that , most of users of the pre-released Bing are Microsoft employees .
Not many of them have searched for your favorite distro .
Broader user base now may shift the algorithm to display different phases in near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see above discussion.
It is more likely be the result of the fact that, most of users of the pre-released Bing are Microsoft employees.
Not many of them have searched for your favorite distro.
Broader user base now may shift the algorithm to display different phases in near future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181895</id>
	<title>Re:Bing sucks (here's why)</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1243956360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"I fucking hate idiot web pages that try to guess who I am...</i></p><p>Agreed.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...and I even more hate web pages with no English option."</i></p><p>Um...maybe not everybody writes web pages in English. Maybe they don't know English, and don't care about you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I fucking hate idiot web pages that try to guess who I am...Agreed .
...and I even more hate web pages with no English option .
" Um...maybe not everybody writes web pages in English .
Maybe they do n't know English , and do n't care about you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I fucking hate idiot web pages that try to guess who I am...Agreed.
...and I even more hate web pages with no English option.
"Um...maybe not everybody writes web pages in English.
Maybe they don't know English, and don't care about you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173839</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1243851360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. I did. And <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=your+mama&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [bing.com] is my proof.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I did .
And here [ bing.com ] is my proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I did.
And here [bing.com] is my proof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172609</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243846860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't feel weird clicking it's results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't feel weird clicking it 's results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't feel weird clicking it's results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173365</id>
	<title>Not to worry</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1243849620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody has registered <a href="http://www.bingsucksballs.com/" title="bingsucksballs.com">bingsucksballs.com</a> [bingsucksballs.com] yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody has registered bingsucksballs.com [ bingsucksballs.com ] yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody has registered bingsucksballs.com [bingsucksballs.com] yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175767</id>
	<title>The video use is interesting and rasies a question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243860780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you search google for videos, clicking the link will take you to the owner's webpage (or whatever page the video is hosted on).</p><p>I searched for "SCCA", and while it does show the hosting domain (IE&gt; Youtube, etc), when you click to watch the video opens IN BING, it doesn't open the content hosters home page.</p><p>Personally I can see content owners getting pissed by this and possibly suing. It's no different than if google shows a summary of a news site article, but when you click the link, instead of pulling up that news service page, google loads the full article in THEIR OWN PAGE without any credit, etc going to the news service. Plus the hosting site loses any revenue from ads.</p><p>If Microsoft doesn't correct this, I can see a robots.txt file going up on a good number of sites. How long until Bing crawls Hulu and other sites of that nature and starts issues with Hulu and content owners/providers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you search google for videos , clicking the link will take you to the owner 's webpage ( or whatever page the video is hosted on ) .I searched for " SCCA " , and while it does show the hosting domain ( IE &gt; Youtube , etc ) , when you click to watch the video opens IN BING , it does n't open the content hosters home page.Personally I can see content owners getting pissed by this and possibly suing .
It 's no different than if google shows a summary of a news site article , but when you click the link , instead of pulling up that news service page , google loads the full article in THEIR OWN PAGE without any credit , etc going to the news service .
Plus the hosting site loses any revenue from ads.If Microsoft does n't correct this , I can see a robots.txt file going up on a good number of sites .
How long until Bing crawls Hulu and other sites of that nature and starts issues with Hulu and content owners/providers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you search google for videos, clicking the link will take you to the owner's webpage (or whatever page the video is hosted on).I searched for "SCCA", and while it does show the hosting domain (IE&gt; Youtube, etc), when you click to watch the video opens IN BING, it doesn't open the content hosters home page.Personally I can see content owners getting pissed by this and possibly suing.
It's no different than if google shows a summary of a news site article, but when you click the link, instead of pulling up that news service page, google loads the full article in THEIR OWN PAGE without any credit, etc going to the news service.
Plus the hosting site loses any revenue from ads.If Microsoft doesn't correct this, I can see a robots.txt file going up on a good number of sites.
How long until Bing crawls Hulu and other sites of that nature and starts issues with Hulu and content owners/providers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173295</id>
	<title>Looks like a parking site or a DNS redirect.</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1243849440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'd hit your link on accident I'd have assumed it was just another domineer squatting a high value (?) name. Who ever designed the page layout probably doesn't know the first thing about composition, my eyes can't seem to decide where to focus because all the blocks seem to be competing. Like an uglier version of google with over 1/3 of the top of the page (all you see before scrolling) dedicated to advertisements with not one, but TWO search boxes (the second simply to search within microsoft.com) which will probably frustrate and confuse as many users as it might help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'd hit your link on accident I 'd have assumed it was just another domineer squatting a high value ( ?
) name .
Who ever designed the page layout probably does n't know the first thing about composition , my eyes ca n't seem to decide where to focus because all the blocks seem to be competing .
Like an uglier version of google with over 1/3 of the top of the page ( all you see before scrolling ) dedicated to advertisements with not one , but TWO search boxes ( the second simply to search within microsoft.com ) which will probably frustrate and confuse as many users as it might help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'd hit your link on accident I'd have assumed it was just another domineer squatting a high value (?
) name.
Who ever designed the page layout probably doesn't know the first thing about composition, my eyes can't seem to decide where to focus because all the blocks seem to be competing.
Like an uglier version of google with over 1/3 of the top of the page (all you see before scrolling) dedicated to advertisements with not one, but TWO search boxes (the second simply to search within microsoft.com) which will probably frustrate and confuse as many users as it might help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173319</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Rhabarber</author>
	<datestamp>1243849560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, did it and clicked the sponsored link. <br>
I wonder how much $$ flows from MS to Google per click. <br> <br>
<b>I guess I'll have to repeat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , did it and clicked the sponsored link .
I wonder how much $ $ flows from MS to Google per click .
I guess I 'll have to repeat ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, did it and clicked the sponsored link.
I wonder how much $$ flows from MS to Google per click.
I guess I'll have to repeat ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173503</id>
	<title>Re:I really exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many people are going to Bing Badda for their first search?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people are going to Bing Badda for their first search ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people are going to Bing Badda for their first search?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179881</id>
	<title>Bing maps aren't as well thought out</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1243944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Maps seems to do a better job than Bing - I had a bit of trouble getting Bing to point out a street address.  It pointed out the nearest freeway offramp, which is kind of useful, but I had to find the map point of the street address myself.  It took a bit of mousewheeling to find the right scale for it too.  Google just does it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Maps seems to do a better job than Bing - I had a bit of trouble getting Bing to point out a street address .
It pointed out the nearest freeway offramp , which is kind of useful , but I had to find the map point of the street address myself .
It took a bit of mousewheeling to find the right scale for it too .
Google just does it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Maps seems to do a better job than Bing - I had a bit of trouble getting Bing to point out a street address.
It pointed out the nearest freeway offramp, which is kind of useful, but I had to find the map point of the street address myself.
It took a bit of mousewheeling to find the right scale for it too.
Google just does it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175513</id>
	<title>A better name</title>
	<author>cjsm</author>
	<datestamp>1243858980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone else think Bing is a stupid sounding name?</p><p>I have a better one.</p><p>Bling!</p><p>Use Microsoft's new search and get all the Bling! you've been missing with other search engines.</p><p>That says it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else think Bing is a stupid sounding name ? I have a better one.Bling ! Use Microsoft 's new search and get all the Bling !
you 've been missing with other search engines.That says it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else think Bing is a stupid sounding name?I have a better one.Bling!Use Microsoft's new search and get all the Bling!
you've been missing with other search engines.That says it all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174445</id>
	<title>Bug already found: allinurl</title>
	<author>s1lentslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243853700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you search for allinurl you get a white page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you search for allinurl you get a white page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you search for allinurl you get a white page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176107</id>
	<title>Re:Bing, bong, binger, bang</title>
	<author>illumin8</author>
	<datestamp>1243863180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>* A person who searches on Bing: A binger (or is 'banger' a better word?)</p></div></blockquote><p>How about bunghole?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* A person who searches on Bing : A binger ( or is 'banger ' a better word ?
) How about bunghole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* A person who searches on Bing: A binger (or is 'banger' a better word?
)How about bunghole?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172941</id>
	<title>Re:Google and Bing side by side..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try a side-by-side of "antitrust m", too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try a side-by-side of " antitrust m " , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try a side-by-side of "antitrust m", too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173069</id>
	<title>They copied google, proved they cant innovate</title>
	<author>Stu101</author>
	<datestamp>1243848660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just had a look. Man what utter dogshit. It has pretty much copied Googles thinking on minimalist, but even fucked that up with a picture background. Morons.</p><p>To my mind, it's just a bad copy. And the name, man, which tard thought that up.</p><p>I really hope MSN stays were it is, insignificant. Only because it would be nice to see MS NOT win due to $$$ for once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a look .
Man what utter dogshit .
It has pretty much copied Googles thinking on minimalist , but even fucked that up with a picture background .
Morons.To my mind , it 's just a bad copy .
And the name , man , which tard thought that up.I really hope MSN stays were it is , insignificant .
Only because it would be nice to see MS NOT win due to $ $ $ for once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a look.
Man what utter dogshit.
It has pretty much copied Googles thinking on minimalist, but even fucked that up with a picture background.
Morons.To my mind, it's just a bad copy.
And the name, man, which tard thought that up.I really hope MSN stays were it is, insignificant.
Only because it would be nice to see MS NOT win due to $$$ for once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178851</id>
	<title>not.</title>
	<author>slashmojo</author>
	<datestamp>1243933260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All works fine for me on centos with firefox.. I'm quite liking it so far. Its nice to have a usable alternative to Google at last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All works fine for me on centos with firefox.. I 'm quite liking it so far .
Its nice to have a usable alternative to Google at last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All works fine for me on centos with firefox.. I'm quite liking it so far.
Its nice to have a usable alternative to Google at last.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175537</id>
	<title>What can they offer ? Monopoly leverage !</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1243859160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What can Microsoft's search engine add to this stunningly rich resource that millions of us can't live without?  What killer features does Microsoft give us?</p></div><p>Make it the default search engine on Windows 7's Internet Explorer 8 (or whatever is the latest version <i>du jour</i> once Bing matures beyond beta).<br>Thus the 80\% market share who keep using the broken IE because it does their job, they are used to it, and they don't want going through the hassle of installing something new, will automatically start using bing.<br>(And won't bother going to google, as bing does their job and they don't want going through the hassle of trying to understand how you configure a new search engine in a browser or what the hell are Mycroft plugins)</p><p>Being a monopoly, Microsoft has the immense advantage of being able to leverage the laziness and fear of efforts of changing of the sheeple.</p><p>Meanwhile, some EU politicians will probably burst an aneurysm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can Microsoft 's search engine add to this stunningly rich resource that millions of us ca n't live without ?
What killer features does Microsoft give us ? Make it the default search engine on Windows 7 's Internet Explorer 8 ( or whatever is the latest version du jour once Bing matures beyond beta ) .Thus the 80 \ % market share who keep using the broken IE because it does their job , they are used to it , and they do n't want going through the hassle of installing something new , will automatically start using bing .
( And wo n't bother going to google , as bing does their job and they do n't want going through the hassle of trying to understand how you configure a new search engine in a browser or what the hell are Mycroft plugins ) Being a monopoly , Microsoft has the immense advantage of being able to leverage the laziness and fear of efforts of changing of the sheeple.Meanwhile , some EU politicians will probably burst an aneurysm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can Microsoft's search engine add to this stunningly rich resource that millions of us can't live without?
What killer features does Microsoft give us?Make it the default search engine on Windows 7's Internet Explorer 8 (or whatever is the latest version du jour once Bing matures beyond beta).Thus the 80\% market share who keep using the broken IE because it does their job, they are used to it, and they don't want going through the hassle of installing something new, will automatically start using bing.
(And won't bother going to google, as bing does their job and they don't want going through the hassle of trying to understand how you configure a new search engine in a browser or what the hell are Mycroft plugins)Being a monopoly, Microsoft has the immense advantage of being able to leverage the laziness and fear of efforts of changing of the sheeple.Meanwhile, some EU politicians will probably burst an aneurysm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179481</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>McDutchie</author>
	<datestamp>1243940640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's interesting, I had the exact opposite feeling. Seems to me that Bing blatantly stole Google's layout: search results, preferences page, cache header are all virtually identical (except for that left margin).

But on second thought, I can actually see how copying Google except for a few details makes them seem like a fake Google. They probably would have felt less spammy/fraudulent if they had actually made a whole new layout of their own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's interesting , I had the exact opposite feeling .
Seems to me that Bing blatantly stole Google 's layout : search results , preferences page , cache header are all virtually identical ( except for that left margin ) .
But on second thought , I can actually see how copying Google except for a few details makes them seem like a fake Google .
They probably would have felt less spammy/fraudulent if they had actually made a whole new layout of their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's interesting, I had the exact opposite feeling.
Seems to me that Bing blatantly stole Google's layout: search results, preferences page, cache header are all virtually identical (except for that left margin).
But on second thought, I can actually see how copying Google except for a few details makes them seem like a fake Google.
They probably would have felt less spammy/fraudulent if they had actually made a whole new layout of their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174891</id>
	<title>Re:Huge amount of text ads</title>
	<author>Fleeced</author>
	<datestamp>1243855560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results. Searching for "<a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=\%22sql+server\%22&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH" title="bing.com">sql server</a> [bing.com]" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.</p></div><p>
So, no different to Google then?
</p><p>
Doing a comparison in my current window, Google is indeed more compressed, but both show 8 non-ad results before I scroll down (Google is more compressed, so gets extra ads at top... and Bing seems to have a "Best match" category in addition to ads).  Searching for something more commercially competitive (like "web hosting") produces more ads (for both engines), but again, I can see 8 not ads on each.
</p><p>
That said, it will take some work to oust Google as #1 search engine... competition can't hurt though
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results .
Searching for " sql server [ bing.com ] " I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page , from the real results .
So , no different to Google then ?
Doing a comparison in my current window , Google is indeed more compressed , but both show 8 non-ad results before I scroll down ( Google is more compressed , so gets extra ads at top... and Bing seems to have a " Best match " category in addition to ads ) .
Searching for something more commercially competitive ( like " web hosting " ) produces more ads ( for both engines ) , but again , I can see 8 not ads on each .
That said , it will take some work to oust Google as # 1 search engine... competition ca n't hurt though</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results.
Searching for "sql server [bing.com]" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.
So, no different to Google then?
Doing a comparison in my current window, Google is indeed more compressed, but both show 8 non-ad results before I scroll down (Google is more compressed, so gets extra ads at top... and Bing seems to have a "Best match" category in addition to ads).
Searching for something more commercially competitive (like "web hosting") produces more ads (for both engines), but again, I can see 8 not ads on each.
That said, it will take some work to oust Google as #1 search engine... competition can't hurt though

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174135</id>
	<title>Automatic fail...</title>
	<author>Diabolus Advocatus</author>
	<datestamp>1243852380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an automatic fail for me...</p><p>I live in Ireland, and quite often I like to search only within Ireland. Google and Yahoo detects that I'm in Ireland. Bing automatically redirects to the UK. <b>ROI != UK</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an automatic fail for me...I live in Ireland , and quite often I like to search only within Ireland .
Google and Yahoo detects that I 'm in Ireland .
Bing automatically redirects to the UK .
ROI ! = UK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an automatic fail for me...I live in Ireland, and quite often I like to search only within Ireland.
Google and Yahoo detects that I'm in Ireland.
Bing automatically redirects to the UK.
ROI != UK </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176091</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>MrMunkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243863060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to Bing myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to Bing myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to Bing myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172797</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1243847640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They look pretty similar to me.  I know what you are talking about, but Bing does a pretty good job of mimicking Google.</p><p>I did the "cheeseburger" test on it - if on Google, I search for Cheeseburger and the first page of links are all people trying to get me to buy cheeseburgers, I know Google's evilling up the results.  If on the other hand I get all kinds of cool interesting things about cheeseburgers, I know I'm getting the "truth."</p><p>The result sets look almost the same to me and the output is bland enough.  The margin and images don't bug me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They look pretty similar to me .
I know what you are talking about , but Bing does a pretty good job of mimicking Google.I did the " cheeseburger " test on it - if on Google , I search for Cheeseburger and the first page of links are all people trying to get me to buy cheeseburgers , I know Google 's evilling up the results .
If on the other hand I get all kinds of cool interesting things about cheeseburgers , I know I 'm getting the " truth .
" The result sets look almost the same to me and the output is bland enough .
The margin and images do n't bug me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They look pretty similar to me.
I know what you are talking about, but Bing does a pretty good job of mimicking Google.I did the "cheeseburger" test on it - if on Google, I search for Cheeseburger and the first page of links are all people trying to get me to buy cheeseburgers, I know Google's evilling up the results.
If on the other hand I get all kinds of cool interesting things about cheeseburgers, I know I'm getting the "truth.
"The result sets look almost the same to me and the output is bland enough.
The margin and images don't bug me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713</id>
	<title>Google and Bing side by side..</title>
	<author>Wescotte</author>
	<datestamp>1243847280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3585051300\_d23a37a32e\_o.png" title="flickr.com">comparison</a> [flickr.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>comparison [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>comparison [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175319</id>
	<title>Re:Google and Bing side by side..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243857900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried searching for "microsoft is shit" in both?</p><p>Google result #1: "Microsoft is shit magnet"<br>
Bing result #1:     "Microsoft is the shit"</p><p>What about "vista joke"</p><p>Google's results on page 1 all discuss what a joke Vista is.<br>
Bing gives you jokes about vista.</p><p>"Google useless"</p><p>Google's results are mostly concerned with decreasing quality of google results these days<br>
Bings results mostly link to pages describing things as being useless, and mentioning google in them.</p><p>I think with two word queries like these, Bing looks like it picks out a word it considers the most relevant, and returns results on that word, prioritising pages that include or reference the other. Google on the other hand seems to have a better understanding of how the words in my queries fit together and, here at least, returned results more relevant to the interest that drove me to enter those search terms in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried searching for " microsoft is shit " in both ? Google result # 1 : " Microsoft is shit magnet " Bing result # 1 : " Microsoft is the shit " What about " vista joke " Google 's results on page 1 all discuss what a joke Vista is .
Bing gives you jokes about vista .
" Google useless " Google 's results are mostly concerned with decreasing quality of google results these days Bings results mostly link to pages describing things as being useless , and mentioning google in them.I think with two word queries like these , Bing looks like it picks out a word it considers the most relevant , and returns results on that word , prioritising pages that include or reference the other .
Google on the other hand seems to have a better understanding of how the words in my queries fit together and , here at least , returned results more relevant to the interest that drove me to enter those search terms in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried searching for "microsoft is shit" in both?Google result #1: "Microsoft is shit magnet"
Bing result #1:     "Microsoft is the shit"What about "vista joke"Google's results on page 1 all discuss what a joke Vista is.
Bing gives you jokes about vista.
"Google useless"Google's results are mostly concerned with decreasing quality of google results these days
Bings results mostly link to pages describing things as being useless, and mentioning google in them.I think with two word queries like these, Bing looks like it picks out a word it considers the most relevant, and returns results on that word, prioritising pages that include or reference the other.
Google on the other hand seems to have a better understanding of how the words in my queries fit together and, here at least, returned results more relevant to the interest that drove me to enter those search terms in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173231</id>
	<title>Redundant results</title>
	<author>Via\_Patrino</author>
	<datestamp>1243849260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't merge results from a same website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't merge results from a same website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't merge results from a same website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</id>
	<title>Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's interesting, for me, about other search engines and their "usability" is the fact that my eyes are trained to parse google results. Google search results look official and informative. I can't use Yahoo or MSN (or Bing for this matter) because their search results look sterile. <br> <br>Sometimes it's the lack of information- as little as giving me the page size (7kb). Sometimes it's the margins. Bing has a left margin. Google doesn't.<br> <br>I'm not saying that these differences make a BAD difference, except this: Internet users learn quickly about scams. The first time I accidentally clicked on those fake search results on an ad-search mis-direction page, I learned to pick up on these differences quickly.<br> <br> In fact, it's subtle, but you can usually tell when a computer has an infection that hijacks your google results- because they don't look right (older infections changed the results, new ones redirect REAL results.. but that's a different conversation).<br> <br>The point is- my mouse won't go near, let alone click, on things that I think are tricks or advertisements. For some reason, I trust google a lot. So much that my eyes are trained to see it's results and disregard others. I'm reluctant to click on bing results.<br> <br>I encourage slashdot users to try bing out, and tell me it doesn't look foreign to you! Tell me you don't feel weird clicking it's results! The internet trains you quickly that you are to embrace familiarity, because you will be quickly punished for not doing so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's interesting , for me , about other search engines and their " usability " is the fact that my eyes are trained to parse google results .
Google search results look official and informative .
I ca n't use Yahoo or MSN ( or Bing for this matter ) because their search results look sterile .
Sometimes it 's the lack of information- as little as giving me the page size ( 7kb ) .
Sometimes it 's the margins .
Bing has a left margin .
Google does n't .
I 'm not saying that these differences make a BAD difference , except this : Internet users learn quickly about scams .
The first time I accidentally clicked on those fake search results on an ad-search mis-direction page , I learned to pick up on these differences quickly .
In fact , it 's subtle , but you can usually tell when a computer has an infection that hijacks your google results- because they do n't look right ( older infections changed the results , new ones redirect REAL results.. but that 's a different conversation ) .
The point is- my mouse wo n't go near , let alone click , on things that I think are tricks or advertisements .
For some reason , I trust google a lot .
So much that my eyes are trained to see it 's results and disregard others .
I 'm reluctant to click on bing results .
I encourage slashdot users to try bing out , and tell me it does n't look foreign to you !
Tell me you do n't feel weird clicking it 's results !
The internet trains you quickly that you are to embrace familiarity , because you will be quickly punished for not doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's interesting, for me, about other search engines and their "usability" is the fact that my eyes are trained to parse google results.
Google search results look official and informative.
I can't use Yahoo or MSN (or Bing for this matter) because their search results look sterile.
Sometimes it's the lack of information- as little as giving me the page size (7kb).
Sometimes it's the margins.
Bing has a left margin.
Google doesn't.
I'm not saying that these differences make a BAD difference, except this: Internet users learn quickly about scams.
The first time I accidentally clicked on those fake search results on an ad-search mis-direction page, I learned to pick up on these differences quickly.
In fact, it's subtle, but you can usually tell when a computer has an infection that hijacks your google results- because they don't look right (older infections changed the results, new ones redirect REAL results.. but that's a different conversation).
The point is- my mouse won't go near, let alone click, on things that I think are tricks or advertisements.
For some reason, I trust google a lot.
So much that my eyes are trained to see it's results and disregard others.
I'm reluctant to click on bing results.
I encourage slashdot users to try bing out, and tell me it doesn't look foreign to you!
Tell me you don't feel weird clicking it's results!
The internet trains you quickly that you are to embrace familiarity, because you will be quickly punished for not doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178101</id>
	<title>The search results aren't too good</title>
	<author>HonestButCurious</author>
	<datestamp>1243882320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried searching for this phrase (don't ask why):<br>"six seven eight triple nine eight two one-by two"</p><p>Google gave me the correct results, Bing gave me something totally bizarre about the Oshkosh Titans.</p><p>I can add bells and whistles to the results myself using Greasemonkey, thank you.  The server's responsible for good, relevant results, and this is not happening right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried searching for this phrase ( do n't ask why ) : " six seven eight triple nine eight two one-by two " Google gave me the correct results , Bing gave me something totally bizarre about the Oshkosh Titans.I can add bells and whistles to the results myself using Greasemonkey , thank you .
The server 's responsible for good , relevant results , and this is not happening right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried searching for this phrase (don't ask why):"six seven eight triple nine eight two one-by two"Google gave me the correct results, Bing gave me something totally bizarre about the Oshkosh Titans.I can add bells and whistles to the results myself using Greasemonkey, thank you.
The server's responsible for good, relevant results, and this is not happening right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179025</id>
	<title>What the acronym "BING" means?</title>
	<author>gsasha</author>
	<datestamp>1243935360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But It's Not Google</htmltext>
<tokenext>But It 's Not Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But It's Not Google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175147</id>
	<title>Re:Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft product</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1243857000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Or is it because the majority of Bingers are using Microsoft products and thus the results are skewed ?</p></div></blockquote><p>Probably.  If MS had seeded Bing, it's unlikely that the first site from "Linux Vista" would produce a pro-Linux site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is it because the majority of Bingers are using Microsoft products and thus the results are skewed ? Probably .
If MS had seeded Bing , it 's unlikely that the first site from " Linux Vista " would produce a pro-Linux site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Or is it because the majority of Bingers are using Microsoft products and thus the results are skewed ?Probably.
If MS had seeded Bing, it's unlikely that the first site from "Linux Vista" would produce a pro-Linux site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174427</id>
	<title>Re:In a word, it sucks</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243853580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.</i></p><p>Wrong. They're using Flash, like everybody doing video on the web.</p><p><i>Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.</i></p><p>It's your computer at fault, not Microsoft.</p><p><i>MS needs to get a clue and realize that they can't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly.</i></p><p>They're using Flash, you gigantic ass. It doesn't even query for the Silverlight plug-in-- Bing is *all Flash*.</p><p><i>Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows?</i></p><p>No they don't. Which is why their video previews has the same requirement YouTube has: Flash installed.</p><p>How did your retarded posting get modded up? Christ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big surprise , the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.Wrong .
They 're using Flash , like everybody doing video on the web.Despite the fact that I view wmv 's all over the net just fine with mplayer , yet somehow MS ca n't seem to make this work.It 's your computer at fault , not Microsoft.MS needs to get a clue and realize that they ca n't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly.They 're using Flash , you gigantic ass .
It does n't even query for the Silverlight plug-in-- Bing is * all Flash * .Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows ? No they do n't .
Which is why their video previews has the same requirement YouTube has : Flash installed.How did your retarded posting get modded up ?
Christ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.Wrong.
They're using Flash, like everybody doing video on the web.Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.It's your computer at fault, not Microsoft.MS needs to get a clue and realize that they can't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly.They're using Flash, you gigantic ass.
It doesn't even query for the Silverlight plug-in-- Bing is *all Flash*.Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows?No they don't.
Which is why their video previews has the same requirement YouTube has: Flash installed.How did your retarded posting get modded up?
Christ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172653</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>qoncept</author>
	<datestamp>1243847040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya betta Bing it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya betta Bing it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya betta Bing it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172471</id>
	<title>cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gotta binge.  IF anyone needs me, I'll be in the bathroom dropping an obama.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got ta binge .
IF anyone needs me , I 'll be in the bathroom dropping an obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gotta binge.
IF anyone needs me, I'll be in the bathroom dropping an obama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176555</id>
	<title>Re:Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The search suggestions are related searches<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Download<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Ubuntu Linux<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Operating System<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Mint<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Software<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Puppy Linux<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux XP<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Damn Small Linux<br>Not what you mentioned.</p><p>Either MS staff is looking at slashdot comments in realtime and redefining the priority<br>or the decision engine learns very quickly about the search trends<br>or you lied.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The search suggestions are related searches         * Linux Download         * Ubuntu Linux         * Linux Operating System         * Linux Mint         * Linux Software         * Puppy Linux         * Linux XP         * Damn Small LinuxNot what you mentioned.Either MS staff is looking at slashdot comments in realtime and redefining the priorityor the decision engine learns very quickly about the search trendsor you lied .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The search suggestions are related searches
        * Linux Download
        * Ubuntu Linux
        * Linux Operating System
        * Linux Mint
        * Linux Software
        * Puppy Linux
        * Linux XP
        * Damn Small LinuxNot what you mentioned.Either MS staff is looking at slashdot comments in realtime and redefining the priorityor the decision engine learns very quickly about the search trendsor you lied.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172855</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>pornserver</author>
	<datestamp>1243847820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The page loads quickly, they have a nice little side thing that gives you more info on the page.  Looks fine.  Definitely will use this with google search.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The page loads quickly , they have a nice little side thing that gives you more info on the page .
Looks fine .
Definitely will use this with google search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The page loads quickly, they have a nice little side thing that gives you more info on the page.
Looks fine.
Definitely will use this with google search.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173403</id>
	<title>Who needs Bing?  Google works.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing's OK.  But it's nothing special.  Even if it's technically superior in certain ways to Google--I can't tell so I'll leave that for the intellectuals to tease out--there's no particular reason to switch.</p><p>I have NEVER had a problem finding stuff on Google.  Usually what I'm looking for appears in the first 10 hits.  About 10\% of the time, I need to rephrase my search, or add some "-" keywords to weed out some signal noise.  But Google does the job, I'm used to it, and it seems to just keep getting better.</p><p>There is so much power hidden inside Google's engine--stock quotes, mathematical calculations, language translation, mapping, document conversion, caches of deleted pages, paid links that I actually find useful, typo correction--the list goes on and on and on!</p><p>What can Microsoft's search engine add to this stunningly rich resource that millions of us can't live without?  What killer features does Microsoft give us?  Some little tweaks here and there in the UI that may or may not make much difference.  Some good ideas on supplemental information such as the "related searches" column on the left.</p><p>Sorry, Microsoft, but Bing looks like MSN Search that's been tweaked a little.  If Google didn't exist, you might have a winner on your hands, but this is just another "me, too" search system that will survive only as a niche product, funded by profits from the MS Office and Windows divisions.</p><p>Any market penetration by Bing will probably come from super-glueing it to the Windows 7 desktop and Windows mobile handhelds, defaulting it on IE searching, and otherwise forcing it down customers' throats in whatever way they can, hoping a large enough population will be ignorant enough to just use the defaults.  But now that "google" is a verb in the dictionary, Microsoft has its work cut out for it to hold and expand its little piece of the search market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing 's OK. But it 's nothing special .
Even if it 's technically superior in certain ways to Google--I ca n't tell so I 'll leave that for the intellectuals to tease out--there 's no particular reason to switch.I have NEVER had a problem finding stuff on Google .
Usually what I 'm looking for appears in the first 10 hits .
About 10 \ % of the time , I need to rephrase my search , or add some " - " keywords to weed out some signal noise .
But Google does the job , I 'm used to it , and it seems to just keep getting better.There is so much power hidden inside Google 's engine--stock quotes , mathematical calculations , language translation , mapping , document conversion , caches of deleted pages , paid links that I actually find useful , typo correction--the list goes on and on and on ! What can Microsoft 's search engine add to this stunningly rich resource that millions of us ca n't live without ?
What killer features does Microsoft give us ?
Some little tweaks here and there in the UI that may or may not make much difference .
Some good ideas on supplemental information such as the " related searches " column on the left.Sorry , Microsoft , but Bing looks like MSN Search that 's been tweaked a little .
If Google did n't exist , you might have a winner on your hands , but this is just another " me , too " search system that will survive only as a niche product , funded by profits from the MS Office and Windows divisions.Any market penetration by Bing will probably come from super-glueing it to the Windows 7 desktop and Windows mobile handhelds , defaulting it on IE searching , and otherwise forcing it down customers ' throats in whatever way they can , hoping a large enough population will be ignorant enough to just use the defaults .
But now that " google " is a verb in the dictionary , Microsoft has its work cut out for it to hold and expand its little piece of the search market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing's OK.  But it's nothing special.
Even if it's technically superior in certain ways to Google--I can't tell so I'll leave that for the intellectuals to tease out--there's no particular reason to switch.I have NEVER had a problem finding stuff on Google.
Usually what I'm looking for appears in the first 10 hits.
About 10\% of the time, I need to rephrase my search, or add some "-" keywords to weed out some signal noise.
But Google does the job, I'm used to it, and it seems to just keep getting better.There is so much power hidden inside Google's engine--stock quotes, mathematical calculations, language translation, mapping, document conversion, caches of deleted pages, paid links that I actually find useful, typo correction--the list goes on and on and on!What can Microsoft's search engine add to this stunningly rich resource that millions of us can't live without?
What killer features does Microsoft give us?
Some little tweaks here and there in the UI that may or may not make much difference.
Some good ideas on supplemental information such as the "related searches" column on the left.Sorry, Microsoft, but Bing looks like MSN Search that's been tweaked a little.
If Google didn't exist, you might have a winner on your hands, but this is just another "me, too" search system that will survive only as a niche product, funded by profits from the MS Office and Windows divisions.Any market penetration by Bing will probably come from super-glueing it to the Windows 7 desktop and Windows mobile handhelds, defaulting it on IE searching, and otherwise forcing it down customers' throats in whatever way they can, hoping a large enough population will be ignorant enough to just use the defaults.
But now that "google" is a verb in the dictionary, Microsoft has its work cut out for it to hold and expand its little piece of the search market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172921</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1243848060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you feel at risk clicking on things, then certainly Bing's mini preview window should make you feel even more safe, not less. With that said, I'll probably be sticking with Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you feel at risk clicking on things , then certainly Bing 's mini preview window should make you feel even more safe , not less .
With that said , I 'll probably be sticking with Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you feel at risk clicking on things, then certainly Bing's mini preview window should make you feel even more safe, not less.
With that said, I'll probably be sticking with Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755</id>
	<title>In a word, it sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243847400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player. Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work. Typical. MS needs to get a clue and realize that they can't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly. They don't seem to be able to see the flip side of their reasoning, which is that loss of OS market share will be amplified in their other products rather than mitigated.

Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big surprise , the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player .
Despite the fact that I view wmv 's all over the net just fine with mplayer , yet somehow MS ca n't seem to make this work .
Typical. MS needs to get a clue and realize that they ca n't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly .
They do n't seem to be able to see the flip side of their reasoning , which is that loss of OS market share will be amplified in their other products rather than mitigated .
Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.
Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.
Typical. MS needs to get a clue and realize that they can't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly.
They don't seem to be able to see the flip side of their reasoning, which is that loss of OS market share will be amplified in their other products rather than mitigated.
Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172495</id>
	<title>Microsoft Bing Search Launches Early Preview,</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1243889760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and no one uses it after a quick burst right after it is announced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and no one uses it after a quick burst right after it is announced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and no one uses it after a quick burst right after it is announced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173181</id>
	<title>Video search blows up the the Flash debug player</title>
	<author>kingcool1432</author>
	<datestamp>1243849020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The video site is unusable (literally) if you have the debug version of Flash Player installed. I keep getting this error popup which says

Error #2044: Unhandled AsyncErrorEvent:. text=Error #2095: SmartPreviewNetStream was unable to invoke callback onMetaData. error=ReferenceError: Error #1069: Property onMetaData not found on SmartPreviewNetStream and there is no default value.
	at SmartPreview()
	at SmartPreview\_fla::MainTimeline/frame1()</htmltext>
<tokenext>The video site is unusable ( literally ) if you have the debug version of Flash Player installed .
I keep getting this error popup which says Error # 2044 : Unhandled AsyncErrorEvent : .
text = Error # 2095 : SmartPreviewNetStream was unable to invoke callback onMetaData .
error = ReferenceError : Error # 1069 : Property onMetaData not found on SmartPreviewNetStream and there is no default value .
at SmartPreview ( ) at SmartPreview \ _fla : : MainTimeline/frame1 ( )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The video site is unusable (literally) if you have the debug version of Flash Player installed.
I keep getting this error popup which says

Error #2044: Unhandled AsyncErrorEvent:.
text=Error #2095: SmartPreviewNetStream was unable to invoke callback onMetaData.
error=ReferenceError: Error #1069: Property onMetaData not found on SmartPreviewNetStream and there is no default value.
at SmartPreview()
	at SmartPreview\_fla::MainTimeline/frame1()</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176003</id>
	<title>Habits are hard to break</title>
	<author>MahariBalzitch</author>
	<datestamp>1243862280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've played with it a little and Bing seems to be pretty decent. The problem is that I am so used to using Google for searching that it is a hard habit to break. I don't see myself using Bing like I use Google unless I make it my default search engine and force myself to use it (which I'm not really willing to do since Google does the job just fine). The only way I would make the switch is if Bing provides better search results. This has yet to be seen from any Google competitor...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've played with it a little and Bing seems to be pretty decent .
The problem is that I am so used to using Google for searching that it is a hard habit to break .
I do n't see myself using Bing like I use Google unless I make it my default search engine and force myself to use it ( which I 'm not really willing to do since Google does the job just fine ) .
The only way I would make the switch is if Bing provides better search results .
This has yet to be seen from any Google competitor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've played with it a little and Bing seems to be pretty decent.
The problem is that I am so used to using Google for searching that it is a hard habit to break.
I don't see myself using Bing like I use Google unless I make it my default search engine and force myself to use it (which I'm not really willing to do since Google does the job just fine).
The only way I would make the switch is if Bing provides better search results.
This has yet to be seen from any Google competitor...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184317</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs Bing? Google works.</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1243965420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past 2 decades we gave Microsoft the keys to the whole software universe.  This was the absolute wrong thing to do.  We did this by supporting their technologies blindly.  We didn't look forward enough into the future, and Microsoft's own eye toward the future wasn't disclosed to us.  As a result we end up with a company that has become a criminal monopolist in no less than 3 continents and 4 nations.</p><p>I know, personally, that the use of embrace, extend, extinguish is a very bad thing for our industry and it has killed more competition and closed more markets in favor of Microsoft than anything else.  Lock in technologies are a bad thing.  Trade journals are trying to sweeten it up by calling them lock in of defacto standards.  This shows a skewer in Microsoft's favor.  Why?  Because trade journals rely on advertising and through advertising they make their money to pay salaries, and Microsoft has the money to make that a little easier on the trade journals.</p><p>The problem lies in that we the consumer gave them the keys by giving them the ideas that they could implement within the scope of their embrace, extend, extinguish--and in the end cost us dearly in the area of competition, which is supposed to bring innovation along with it.</p><p>To watch Microsoft's bing give biased results skewered in their favor is not a positive thing.  It is a very harmful thing.</p><p>For this reason, and for their past indiscretions, we should not be giving them the formula to solve their problems.  Let their products fail without us telling them how to succeed at destroying more competition.  Bing is not important.  We've been finding what we need on google just fine for a long time.  We don't need to have another product concocted by a criminal monopolist which is showing straight out of the gate that they are baised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past 2 decades we gave Microsoft the keys to the whole software universe .
This was the absolute wrong thing to do .
We did this by supporting their technologies blindly .
We did n't look forward enough into the future , and Microsoft 's own eye toward the future was n't disclosed to us .
As a result we end up with a company that has become a criminal monopolist in no less than 3 continents and 4 nations.I know , personally , that the use of embrace , extend , extinguish is a very bad thing for our industry and it has killed more competition and closed more markets in favor of Microsoft than anything else .
Lock in technologies are a bad thing .
Trade journals are trying to sweeten it up by calling them lock in of defacto standards .
This shows a skewer in Microsoft 's favor .
Why ? Because trade journals rely on advertising and through advertising they make their money to pay salaries , and Microsoft has the money to make that a little easier on the trade journals.The problem lies in that we the consumer gave them the keys by giving them the ideas that they could implement within the scope of their embrace , extend , extinguish--and in the end cost us dearly in the area of competition , which is supposed to bring innovation along with it.To watch Microsoft 's bing give biased results skewered in their favor is not a positive thing .
It is a very harmful thing.For this reason , and for their past indiscretions , we should not be giving them the formula to solve their problems .
Let their products fail without us telling them how to succeed at destroying more competition .
Bing is not important .
We 've been finding what we need on google just fine for a long time .
We do n't need to have another product concocted by a criminal monopolist which is showing straight out of the gate that they are baised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past 2 decades we gave Microsoft the keys to the whole software universe.
This was the absolute wrong thing to do.
We did this by supporting their technologies blindly.
We didn't look forward enough into the future, and Microsoft's own eye toward the future wasn't disclosed to us.
As a result we end up with a company that has become a criminal monopolist in no less than 3 continents and 4 nations.I know, personally, that the use of embrace, extend, extinguish is a very bad thing for our industry and it has killed more competition and closed more markets in favor of Microsoft than anything else.
Lock in technologies are a bad thing.
Trade journals are trying to sweeten it up by calling them lock in of defacto standards.
This shows a skewer in Microsoft's favor.
Why?  Because trade journals rely on advertising and through advertising they make their money to pay salaries, and Microsoft has the money to make that a little easier on the trade journals.The problem lies in that we the consumer gave them the keys by giving them the ideas that they could implement within the scope of their embrace, extend, extinguish--and in the end cost us dearly in the area of competition, which is supposed to bring innovation along with it.To watch Microsoft's bing give biased results skewered in their favor is not a positive thing.
It is a very harmful thing.For this reason, and for their past indiscretions, we should not be giving them the formula to solve their problems.
Let their products fail without us telling them how to succeed at destroying more competition.
Bing is not important.
We've been finding what we need on google just fine for a long time.
We don't need to have another product concocted by a criminal monopolist which is showing straight out of the gate that they are baised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177547</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is nice video.<br>Damion<br><a href="http://www.legalx.net/" title="legalx.net" rel="nofollow">find lawyer</a> [legalx.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is nice video.Damionfind lawyer [ legalx.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is nice video.Damionfind lawyer [legalx.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175993</id>
	<title>Re:bing is for porn</title>
	<author>hawkingradiation</author>
	<datestamp>1243862280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
They told them don't you ever search around here
Your not as good as google you'd better disappear
The porn is in their eyes
And the search results aren't really clear
So Bing it! Just Bing it!
U'd better run you'd better do what ur told
Ur search results won't satisfy a two year old
But u wanna be google
Better do what you can
So Bing it! Just Bing it!
Showin' how funky, Strong is your search
It doesn't matter if your popular or not
Just Bing it! Bing it!
No one wants to	be defeated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They told them do n't you ever search around here Your not as good as google you 'd better disappear The porn is in their eyes And the search results are n't really clear So Bing it !
Just Bing it !
U 'd better run you 'd better do what ur told Ur search results wo n't satisfy a two year old But u wan na be google Better do what you can So Bing it !
Just Bing it !
Showin ' how funky , Strong is your search It does n't matter if your popular or not Just Bing it !
Bing it !
No one wants to be defeated .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They told them don't you ever search around here
Your not as good as google you'd better disappear
The porn is in their eyes
And the search results aren't really clear
So Bing it!
Just Bing it!
U'd better run you'd better do what ur told
Ur search results won't satisfy a two year old
But u wanna be google
Better do what you can
So Bing it!
Just Bing it!
Showin' how funky, Strong is your search
It doesn't matter if your popular or not
Just Bing it!
Bing it!
No one wants to	be defeated ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28185105</id>
	<title>Linux rulez</title>
	<author>gphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1243968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=\%2Blinux+rulez&amp;FORM=RCRE" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">188,000 results</a> [bing.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>188,000 results [ bing.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>188,000 results [bing.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184249</id>
	<title>Funny thing...</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1243965180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually did the search for "linux" on both engines and compared... and I liked the results I got from bing.com over google.com =X.<br> <br>

Related Searches and Search History are very neatly placed and are far more useful than Google's ads.<br> <br>

It would be nice to add a calculator to Bing, but that seems trivial.<br> <br>

They DO have maps as well O\_O bing.com/maps/<br> <br>

This could be a very legit competitor to Google.  Competition is good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually did the search for " linux " on both engines and compared... and I liked the results I got from bing.com over google.com = X .
Related Searches and Search History are very neatly placed and are far more useful than Google 's ads .
It would be nice to add a calculator to Bing , but that seems trivial .
They DO have maps as well O \ _O bing.com/maps/ This could be a very legit competitor to Google .
Competition is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually did the search for "linux" on both engines and compared... and I liked the results I got from bing.com over google.com =X.
Related Searches and Search History are very neatly placed and are far more useful than Google's ads.
It would be nice to add a calculator to Bing, but that seems trivial.
They DO have maps as well O\_O bing.com/maps/ 

This could be a very legit competitor to Google.
Competition is good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177783</id>
	<title>Doesn't Microsoft ever fucking learn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243878180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Plays instantly" means "will be used to publish viruses within a week of being introduced."</p><p>Idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Plays instantly " means " will be used to publish viruses within a week of being introduced .
" Idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Plays instantly" means "will be used to publish viruses within a week of being introduced.
"Idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172535</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never jumped on the Google bandwagon because Altavista was always good enough for me.<br>
<br>
The results look almost identical to Altavista results.<br>
<br>
No paradigm shift for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never jumped on the Google bandwagon because Altavista was always good enough for me .
The results look almost identical to Altavista results .
No paradigm shift for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never jumped on the Google bandwagon because Altavista was always good enough for me.
The results look almost identical to Altavista results.
No paradigm shift for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28180737</id>
	<title>The sound of "found": Bob Hope</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1243950960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This morning, our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service, <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/05/28/the-sound-of-found-bob-hope/" title="today.com">unrelated to anything we at Microsoft have ever done before</a> [today.com]: Bob Hope.

</p><p>We spent lots of time listening to you, except when you told us how much MSN Search^W^W Live Search^W^W Kumo sucked &rsquo;cause you're just <i>wrong</i> about that, to learn which buzzwordy Web 2.0 thingies you use search for today. Finding a webpage that has anything to do with the search terms you entered is so <i>pass&eacute;</i>, dahling.

</p><p>So today we're introducing a new kind of search, that goes beyond traditional search engines that do tedious things like find stuff, to <i>instead</i> help you make faster, more informed decisions. (Windows 7 is <i>peachy keen</i>, by the way.) We think of Bob Hope as a <i>Decision Engine</i>. We've sued Stephen Wolfram into atomic dust using our patents on FAT and Mono, co-opted the Wolfram Alpha engine and swapped Mathematica for Visual Basic and Wolfram's brain for the exhumed corpse of Bob Hope.

</p><p>So why did we pick Bob Hope as the new core of our search? We needed a brand that was as fresh and new as our approach. It needed to be like the product: optimized for the Internet. A name that was memorable, short, easy to spell, and that would function well as a URL around the world.

</p><p>And just look at these results!

</p><p> <i>What do we want?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>When do we want them?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>What do I need to run Windows 7?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>What's Bill Gates got that means you should buy everything you can from the company he founded?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>What's the final proof of Steve Ballmer's equal genius to Steve Jobs?</i> <br> <b>Vistaaa.</b>

</p><p>This is something new, something improved! You need to try it! It'll give so much more betterer results than that other search engine we can't name because Steve will wedge another chair up our butts! Please, come and try our new and improved service! FOR GOD'S SAKE TRY THE DAMN SERVICE. <b>OR THE PUPPY GETS IT.</b> We're Microsoft. We're <i>serious as a heart attack</i> on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This morning , our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service , unrelated to anything we at Microsoft have ever done before [ today.com ] : Bob Hope .
We spent lots of time listening to you , except when you told us how much MSN Search ^ W ^ W Live Search ^ W ^ W Kumo sucked    cause you 're just wrong about that , to learn which buzzwordy Web 2.0 thingies you use search for today .
Finding a webpage that has anything to do with the search terms you entered is so pass   , dahling .
So today we 're introducing a new kind of search , that goes beyond traditional search engines that do tedious things like find stuff , to instead help you make faster , more informed decisions .
( Windows 7 is peachy keen , by the way .
) We think of Bob Hope as a Decision Engine .
We 've sued Stephen Wolfram into atomic dust using our patents on FAT and Mono , co-opted the Wolfram Alpha engine and swapped Mathematica for Visual Basic and Wolfram 's brain for the exhumed corpse of Bob Hope .
So why did we pick Bob Hope as the new core of our search ?
We needed a brand that was as fresh and new as our approach .
It needed to be like the product : optimized for the Internet .
A name that was memorable , short , easy to spell , and that would function well as a URL around the world .
And just look at these results !
What do we want ?
Braaains. When do we want them ?
Braaains. What do I need to run Windows 7 ?
Braaains. What 's Bill Gates got that means you should buy everything you can from the company he founded ?
Braaains. What 's the final proof of Steve Ballmer 's equal genius to Steve Jobs ?
Vistaaa . This is something new , something improved !
You need to try it !
It 'll give so much more betterer results than that other search engine we ca n't name because Steve will wedge another chair up our butts !
Please , come and try our new and improved service !
FOR GOD 'S SAKE TRY THE DAMN SERVICE .
OR THE PUPPY GETS IT .
We 're Microsoft .
We 're serious as a heart attack on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This morning, our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service, unrelated to anything we at Microsoft have ever done before [today.com]: Bob Hope.
We spent lots of time listening to you, except when you told us how much MSN Search^W^W Live Search^W^W Kumo sucked ’cause you're just wrong about that, to learn which buzzwordy Web 2.0 thingies you use search for today.
Finding a webpage that has anything to do with the search terms you entered is so passé, dahling.
So today we're introducing a new kind of search, that goes beyond traditional search engines that do tedious things like find stuff, to instead help you make faster, more informed decisions.
(Windows 7 is peachy keen, by the way.
) We think of Bob Hope as a Decision Engine.
We've sued Stephen Wolfram into atomic dust using our patents on FAT and Mono, co-opted the Wolfram Alpha engine and swapped Mathematica for Visual Basic and Wolfram's brain for the exhumed corpse of Bob Hope.
So why did we pick Bob Hope as the new core of our search?
We needed a brand that was as fresh and new as our approach.
It needed to be like the product: optimized for the Internet.
A name that was memorable, short, easy to spell, and that would function well as a URL around the world.
And just look at these results!
What do we want?
Braaains.  When do we want them?
Braaains.  What do I need to run Windows 7?
Braaains.  What's Bill Gates got that means you should buy everything you can from the company he founded?
Braaains.  What's the final proof of Steve Ballmer's equal genius to Steve Jobs?
Vistaaa.

This is something new, something improved!
You need to try it!
It'll give so much more betterer results than that other search engine we can't name because Steve will wedge another chair up our butts!
Please, come and try our new and improved service!
FOR GOD'S SAKE TRY THE DAMN SERVICE.
OR THE PUPPY GETS IT.
We're Microsoft.
We're serious as a heart attack on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173301</id>
	<title>To close to Bung, the anus of slaughtered animals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bung</p><p>2: the cecum or anus especially of a slaughtered animal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it is http : //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bung2 : the cecum or anus especially of a slaughtered animal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bung2: the cecum or anus especially of a slaughtered animal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174409</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google finds more porn.<br>234 million vs 230 million results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google finds more porn.234 million vs 230 million results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google finds more porn.234 million vs 230 million results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173325</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sterile? the look the same</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sterile ?
the look the same</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sterile?
the look the same</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172621</id>
	<title>Yah. Just find the stuff I want you to find</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1243846920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clicking or hovering over a video is inane crap. Do the hard stuff please, it involves some rather advanced mathematics and shit load of computers, not flash/javascript.</p><p>Google are btw getting worse at finding the stuff I need, so there's an opening there.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clicking or hovering over a video is inane crap .
Do the hard stuff please , it involves some rather advanced mathematics and shit load of computers , not flash/javascript.Google are btw getting worse at finding the stuff I need , so there 's an opening there .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clicking or hovering over a video is inane crap.
Do the hard stuff please, it involves some rather advanced mathematics and shit load of computers, not flash/javascript.Google are btw getting worse at finding the stuff I need, so there's an opening there.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173469</id>
	<title>video preview is already limited</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1243849980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about trying before complaining? The video preview only shows excerpts of the video it links to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about trying before complaining ?
The video preview only shows excerpts of the video it links to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about trying before complaining?
The video preview only shows excerpts of the video it links to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173715</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>mu22le</author>
	<datestamp>1243850940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you wish it was google</p><p>take a look at this</p><p><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3585051300\_d23a37a32e\_o.png" title="flickr.com">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3585051300\_d23a37a32e\_o.png</a> [flickr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you wish it was googletake a look at thishttp : //farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3585051300 \ _d23a37a32e \ _o.png [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you wish it was googletake a look at thishttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3585051300\_d23a37a32e\_o.png [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179189</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1243937340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft really did embrace (phase 1 of embrace, extend, extinguish) Google's format here... The same size font on result headings, the url (without the protocol identifier, in green) and even the "cached" link.</p> </div><p>It's not just Bing - if you look around, most search engines these days look quite similar. It shows that Google has really set <em>the</em> standard when it comes to web search UI. You can add the fancy stuff, but basic elements must be that exact way, down to the color of the links and their positioning - else a casual user will get confused and just go away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft really did embrace ( phase 1 of embrace , extend , extinguish ) Google 's format here... The same size font on result headings , the url ( without the protocol identifier , in green ) and even the " cached " link .
It 's not just Bing - if you look around , most search engines these days look quite similar .
It shows that Google has really set the standard when it comes to web search UI .
You can add the fancy stuff , but basic elements must be that exact way , down to the color of the links and their positioning - else a casual user will get confused and just go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft really did embrace (phase 1 of embrace, extend, extinguish) Google's format here... The same size font on result headings, the url (without the protocol identifier, in green) and even the "cached" link.
It's not just Bing - if you look around, most search engines these days look quite similar.
It shows that Google has really set the standard when it comes to web search UI.
You can add the fancy stuff, but basic elements must be that exact way, down to the color of the links and their positioning - else a casual user will get confused and just go away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172971</id>
	<title>Foreign alright.</title>
	<author>zonky</author>
	<datestamp>1243848240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing thinks I'm from the UK, presumably based on language settings, rather than in New Zealand, (which it could determine from IP.).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing thinks I 'm from the UK , presumably based on language settings , rather than in New Zealand , ( which it could determine from IP .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing thinks I'm from the UK, presumably based on language settings, rather than in New Zealand, (which it could determine from IP.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723</id>
	<title>Huge amount of text ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243847280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results. Searching for "<a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=\%22sql+server\%22&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH" title="bing.com">sql server</a> [bing.com]" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results .
Searching for " sql server [ bing.com ] " I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page , from the real results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results.
Searching for "sql server [bing.com]" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178801</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yet better:<br>Billy, Bing me up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet better : Billy , Bing me up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet better:Billy, Bing me up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173557</id>
	<title>I wanted to check out this thumbnail video thing..</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1243850280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and upon hovering over a video still, I get this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Error #2044: Unhandled AsyncErrorEvent:. text=Error #2095: SmartPreviewNetStream was unable to invoke callback onMetaData. error=ReferenceError: Error #1069: Property onMetaData not found on SmartPreviewNetStream and there is no default value.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; at SmartPreview()<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; at SmartPreview\_fla::MainTimeline/frame1()</p></div><p>I guess nobody at MS tested their results with the debug version of Flash Player?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and upon hovering over a video still , I get this : Error # 2044 : Unhandled AsyncErrorEvent : .
text = Error # 2095 : SmartPreviewNetStream was unable to invoke callback onMetaData .
error = ReferenceError : Error # 1069 : Property onMetaData not found on SmartPreviewNetStream and there is no default value .
        at SmartPreview ( )         at SmartPreview \ _fla : : MainTimeline/frame1 ( ) I guess nobody at MS tested their results with the debug version of Flash Player ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and upon hovering over a video still, I get this:Error #2044: Unhandled AsyncErrorEvent:.
text=Error #2095: SmartPreviewNetStream was unable to invoke callback onMetaData.
error=ReferenceError: Error #1069: Property onMetaData not found on SmartPreviewNetStream and there is no default value.
        at SmartPreview()
        at SmartPreview\_fla::MainTimeline/frame1()I guess nobody at MS tested their results with the debug version of Flash Player?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172579</id>
	<title>Let's watch thumbnails!</title>
	<author>drunken\_boxer777</author>
	<datestamp>1243846800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it might be useful to watch video thumbnails to quickly find something, I don't think I'd actually watch entire videos in thumbnail mode. There is a reason my monitor is larger than EGA and I no longer use a 56.6 kb modem. Why watch thumbnails?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it might be useful to watch video thumbnails to quickly find something , I do n't think I 'd actually watch entire videos in thumbnail mode .
There is a reason my monitor is larger than EGA and I no longer use a 56.6 kb modem .
Why watch thumbnails ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it might be useful to watch video thumbnails to quickly find something, I don't think I'd actually watch entire videos in thumbnail mode.
There is a reason my monitor is larger than EGA and I no longer use a 56.6 kb modem.
Why watch thumbnails?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177447</id>
	<title>Holy Google Goggles Batman!</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1243874520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That interface is so close to google it's kinda eerie. Try the image search, down a layer etc... Well what part of this surprises me?
None.
I mean, c'mon, it's about time after all the Vista fiasco etc..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.that they (M$oft) got back to the business model that works for them. Find a good product, copy it, then offer it free to drive the other guy out of the market, then charge for "features and addons".
M$oft FTW</htmltext>
<tokenext>That interface is so close to google it 's kinda eerie .
Try the image search , down a layer etc... Well what part of this surprises me ?
None . I mean , c'mon , it 's about time after all the Vista fiasco etc.. .that they ( M $ oft ) got back to the business model that works for them .
Find a good product , copy it , then offer it free to drive the other guy out of the market , then charge for " features and addons " .
M $ oft FTW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That interface is so close to google it's kinda eerie.
Try the image search, down a layer etc... Well what part of this surprises me?
None.
I mean, c'mon, it's about time after all the Vista fiasco etc.. .that they (M$oft) got back to the business model that works for them.
Find a good product, copy it, then offer it free to drive the other guy out of the market, then charge for "features and addons".
M$oft FTW</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174941</id>
	<title>Do Not Want</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1243855860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I Do Not Want to have a video start playing when my mouse happens to hover over it.</p><p>Vibrant adspam is bad enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Do Not Want to have a video start playing when my mouse happens to hover over it.Vibrant adspam is bad enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Do Not Want to have a video start playing when my mouse happens to hover over it.Vibrant adspam is bad enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255</id>
	<title>HIJACKED!</title>
	<author>Wisconsingod</author>
	<datestamp>1243852860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else notice this ? <br>
some users of IE6, including yours truely, have had their systems "Hijacked" by Bing. No matter what registry settings are switched, Bing has become the default search engine. We cannot "Customise" the search settings. I wonder how many others have this problem or if anyone has a solution.

<br>
Hopefully Slashdot will pick up on my story below (help me out, and comment on it)
<br>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1011681/Microsoft-Forcing-Bing-on-Users" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/submission/1011681/Microsoft-Forcing-Bing-on-Users</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else notice this ?
some users of IE6 , including yours truely , have had their systems " Hijacked " by Bing .
No matter what registry settings are switched , Bing has become the default search engine .
We can not " Customise " the search settings .
I wonder how many others have this problem or if anyone has a solution .
Hopefully Slashdot will pick up on my story below ( help me out , and comment on it ) http : //slashdot.org/submission/1011681/Microsoft-Forcing-Bing-on-Users [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else notice this ?
some users of IE6, including yours truely, have had their systems "Hijacked" by Bing.
No matter what registry settings are switched, Bing has become the default search engine.
We cannot "Customise" the search settings.
I wonder how many others have this problem or if anyone has a solution.
Hopefully Slashdot will pick up on my story below (help me out, and comment on it)

http://slashdot.org/submission/1011681/Microsoft-Forcing-Bing-on-Users [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176929</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken like a true user who didn't want to adopt from green-screen to mouse-driven GUI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like a true user who did n't want to adopt from green-screen to mouse-driven GUI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like a true user who didn't want to adopt from green-screen to mouse-driven GUI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173643</id>
	<title>Re:In a word, it sucks</title>
	<author>therealmorris</author>
	<datestamp>1243850640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you really think Microsoft would re encode every video on the internet into wmv just for this? It's flash. +5 interesting?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think Microsoft would re encode every video on the internet into wmv just for this ?
It 's flash .
+ 5 interesting ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think Microsoft would re encode every video on the internet into wmv just for this?
It's flash.
+5 interesting?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173813</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1243851300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My take on it is this: If it defeats the SEO bullcrap that gums up the first 2-3 pages of most Google results, then I think it will be a useful tool to me.</p><p>SEO bullcrap= When I search for HP 4600 troubleshooting, I am not searching for:<br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p> "Tired of <b>troubleshooting</b> your old <b> HP 4600</b>? Come to <i>CrazyJimbosPrinters.com</i> and replace that <b>HP 4600</b> and stop <b>troubleshooting</b>! HP HEWLETTPACKARD HP PRINTER 4600 4500 3500 2840 PRINTER LASERJET</p></div><p>I shouldn't have to make a "-$NOUN" string a mile long just to find pertinent information. If Bing cuts out some of this fat, then they have a new user.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My take on it is this : If it defeats the SEO bullcrap that gums up the first 2-3 pages of most Google results , then I think it will be a useful tool to me.SEO bullcrap = When I search for HP 4600 troubleshooting , I am not searching for :   " Tired of troubleshooting your old HP 4600 ?
Come to CrazyJimbosPrinters.com and replace that HP 4600 and stop troubleshooting !
HP HEWLETTPACKARD HP PRINTER 4600 4500 3500 2840 PRINTER LASERJETI should n't have to make a " - $ NOUN " string a mile long just to find pertinent information .
If Bing cuts out some of this fat , then they have a new user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My take on it is this: If it defeats the SEO bullcrap that gums up the first 2-3 pages of most Google results, then I think it will be a useful tool to me.SEO bullcrap= When I search for HP 4600 troubleshooting, I am not searching for:
   "Tired of troubleshooting your old  HP 4600?
Come to CrazyJimbosPrinters.com and replace that HP 4600 and stop troubleshooting!
HP HEWLETTPACKARD HP PRINTER 4600 4500 3500 2840 PRINTER LASERJETI shouldn't have to make a "-$NOUN" string a mile long just to find pertinent information.
If Bing cuts out some of this fat, then they have a new user.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173275</id>
	<title>With apologies to Dennis Miller...</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1243849380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To learn more about Bing, type "bing search engine" into Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To learn more about Bing , type " bing search engine " into Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To learn more about Bing, type "bing search engine" into Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172425</id>
	<title>And Slashdot couldn't even link to it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I'll just have to Google it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'll just have to Google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'll just have to Google it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173023</id>
	<title>Does anyone else...</title>
	<author>phillymjs</author>
	<datestamp>1243848420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...hear Stephen Tobolowsky as Ned Ryerson in Groundhog Day exclaiming "BING!" every time they read the word?</p><p>Also, does anyone else ponder why Microsoft's product names are either really generic and boring, or totally cheesy and cringe-worthy?</p><p>~Philly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...hear Stephen Tobolowsky as Ned Ryerson in Groundhog Day exclaiming " BING !
" every time they read the word ? Also , does anyone else ponder why Microsoft 's product names are either really generic and boring , or totally cheesy and cringe-worthy ? ~ Philly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...hear Stephen Tobolowsky as Ned Ryerson in Groundhog Day exclaiming "BING!
" every time they read the word?Also, does anyone else ponder why Microsoft's product names are either really generic and boring, or totally cheesy and cringe-worthy?~Philly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181449</id>
	<title>Re:Life, The Universe, And Everything</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1243954800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damnit, why do people keep editing the question.</p><p>It is not, "what is the answer to life the universe and everything."  which is "bleach.  Lots of it."</p><p>It is "what is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything."  which is, apparently, the either the number 42 or a word composed of the arabic numerals 4 and 2, and the question is something we're still trying to figure out, but possibly has something to do with the multiplicative factors of the number and something about an english nightclub.  Frankly, I'm also interested in the penultimate and antepenultimate questions as well, and no one have given either even a passing thought...</p><p>So, google didn't get it right either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damnit , why do people keep editing the question.It is not , " what is the answer to life the universe and everything .
" which is " bleach .
Lots of it .
" It is " what is the answer to the ultimate question of life , the universe and everything .
" which is , apparently , the either the number 42 or a word composed of the arabic numerals 4 and 2 , and the question is something we 're still trying to figure out , but possibly has something to do with the multiplicative factors of the number and something about an english nightclub .
Frankly , I 'm also interested in the penultimate and antepenultimate questions as well , and no one have given either even a passing thought...So , google did n't get it right either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damnit, why do people keep editing the question.It is not, "what is the answer to life the universe and everything.
"  which is "bleach.
Lots of it.
"It is "what is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything.
"  which is, apparently, the either the number 42 or a word composed of the arabic numerals 4 and 2, and the question is something we're still trying to figure out, but possibly has something to do with the multiplicative factors of the number and something about an english nightclub.
Frankly, I'm also interested in the penultimate and antepenultimate questions as well, and no one have given either even a passing thought...So, google didn't get it right either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176483</id>
	<title>Linux vs Microsoft</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1243866360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Type in Linux vs Microsoft in the search field and watch what it brings up.  Just enough to laugh at if it wasn't so skewered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Type in Linux vs Microsoft in the search field and watch what it brings up .
Just enough to laugh at if it was n't so skewered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Type in Linux vs Microsoft in the search field and watch what it brings up.
Just enough to laugh at if it wasn't so skewered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178131</id>
	<title>xRank</title>
	<author>noz</author>
	<datestamp>1243882800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>xRank: when all else fails, put an "x" in front of the name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>xRank : when all else fails , put an " x " in front of the name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xRank: when all else fails, put an "x" in front of the name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175709</id>
	<title>Re:Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243860420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call BS.</p><p>Before 'rating' something mods may want to try it first!</p><p>Actual "search suggestions" when you type linux are:<br>Linux Download<br>Ubuntu Linux<br>Linux Operating System<br>Linux Mint</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call BS.Before 'rating ' something mods may want to try it first ! Actual " search suggestions " when you type linux are : Linux DownloadUbuntu LinuxLinux Operating SystemLinux Mint</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call BS.Before 'rating' something mods may want to try it first!Actual "search suggestions" when you type linux are:Linux DownloadUbuntu LinuxLinux Operating SystemLinux Mint</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943</id>
	<title>Life, The Universe, And Everything</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1243848120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=what's+the+answer+to+life,+the+universe,+and+everything" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">fails</a> [bing.com] to answer this important question!<br> <br>Notice how Google <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+answer+to+life,+the+universe,+and+everything" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">gets it right</a> [google.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it fails [ bing.com ] to answer this important question !
Notice how Google gets it right [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it fails [bing.com] to answer this important question!
Notice how Google gets it right [google.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175501</id>
	<title>Where do I turn off the obnoxious background?</title>
	<author>Dutchmang</author>
	<datestamp>1243858920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought I might have found the switch with the "back/forward" button at the lower right.... but it was just there to urge me to install Silverlight.  Grrrr.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought I might have found the switch with the " back/forward " button at the lower right.... but it was just there to urge me to install Silverlight .
Grrrr.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought I might have found the switch with the "back/forward" button at the lower right.... but it was just there to urge me to install Silverlight.
Grrrr.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172673</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243847160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I binged your mama!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I binged your mama !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I binged your mama!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177691</id>
	<title>Re:Did anonymous even try the video search?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243876920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the submitter devoted about a third of the supposed summary to raising this pet peeve issue of his. That's what the comments are for. Why is it so hard to hold one's tongue and submit an objective summary of the subject?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the submitter devoted about a third of the supposed summary to raising this pet peeve issue of his .
That 's what the comments are for .
Why is it so hard to hold one 's tongue and submit an objective summary of the subject ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the submitter devoted about a third of the supposed summary to raising this pet peeve issue of his.
That's what the comments are for.
Why is it so hard to hold one's tongue and submit an objective summary of the subject?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1243889700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's google with a background image, a flashy video preview and a not quite right page layout.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's google with a background image , a flashy video preview and a not quite right page layout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's google with a background image, a flashy video preview and a not quite right page layout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174591</id>
	<title>Re:Google and Bing side by side..</title>
	<author>Sj0</author>
	<datestamp>1243854300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, thanks.</p><p>I've always avoided Live search and its predecessors because they're fucking useless.</p><p>I was wondering if they'd made this new search engine less fucking useless. Obviously they haven't.</p><p>It's a shame they didn't learn anything with the Vista debacle -- it doesn't matter how much you spend on marketing if your product is shit. It's still shit, and unless you're selling to farmers who actually want to buy shit, you're not going to sell your shit to anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , thanks.I 've always avoided Live search and its predecessors because they 're fucking useless.I was wondering if they 'd made this new search engine less fucking useless .
Obviously they have n't.It 's a shame they did n't learn anything with the Vista debacle -- it does n't matter how much you spend on marketing if your product is shit .
It 's still shit , and unless you 're selling to farmers who actually want to buy shit , you 're not going to sell your shit to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, thanks.I've always avoided Live search and its predecessors because they're fucking useless.I was wondering if they'd made this new search engine less fucking useless.
Obviously they haven't.It's a shame they didn't learn anything with the Vista debacle -- it doesn't matter how much you spend on marketing if your product is shit.
It's still shit, and unless you're selling to farmers who actually want to buy shit, you're not going to sell your shit to anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175601</id>
	<title>Here what I first tought when I heard "Bing"</title>
	<author>jeanph01</author>
	<datestamp>1243859580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Memorable quotes for Groundhog Day (1993)</p><p>Ned: Phil? Hey, Phil? Phil! Phil Connors? Phil Connors, I thought that was you!<br>Phil: Hi, how you doing? Thanks for watching.<br>[Starts to walk away]<br>Ned: Hey, hey! Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.<br>Phil: Not a chance.<br>Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore? Well?<br>Phil: Ned Ryerson?<br>Ned: Bing!<br>Phil: Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Memorable quotes for Groundhog Day ( 1993 ) Ned : Phil ?
Hey , Phil ?
Phil ! Phil Connors ?
Phil Connors , I thought that was you ! Phil : Hi , how you doing ?
Thanks for watching .
[ Starts to walk away ] Ned : Hey , hey !
Now , do n't you tell me you do n't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.Phil : Not a chance.Ned : Ned... Ryerson. " Needlenose Ned " ?
" Ned the Head " ?
C'mon , buddy .
Case Western High .
Ned Ryerson : I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show ?
Bing ! Ned Ryerson : got the shingles real bad senior year , almost did n't graduate ?
Bing , again .
Ned Ryerson : I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore ?
Well ? Phil : Ned Ryerson ? Ned : Bing ! Phil : Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memorable quotes for Groundhog Day (1993)Ned: Phil?
Hey, Phil?
Phil! Phil Connors?
Phil Connors, I thought that was you!Phil: Hi, how you doing?
Thanks for watching.
[Starts to walk away]Ned: Hey, hey!
Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.Phil: Not a chance.Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"?
"Ned the Head"?
C'mon, buddy.
Case Western High.
Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show?
Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate?
Bing, again.
Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore?
Well?Phil: Ned Ryerson?Ned: Bing!Phil: Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179437</id>
	<title>I find just the opposite...</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1243940040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, the first think I thought when I tried a search on Bing was: they copied Google's layout entirely. The search results are formatted similarly, adverts with a colored background appear at the top, other text adverts at the top-right. The only substantive difference is the area on the left with "related searches".

</p><p>The Google results remain qualitatively better, at least in my quick test. Google tends to give the home-page of a useful site at the first hit. Bing's top results seem to be either sites that link to a useful site, or else content pages deep within a site. Frankly, the same kind of poor results that I associate with MSN. Perhaps Bing nothing but a new face on an old search engine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , the first think I thought when I tried a search on Bing was : they copied Google 's layout entirely .
The search results are formatted similarly , adverts with a colored background appear at the top , other text adverts at the top-right .
The only substantive difference is the area on the left with " related searches " .
The Google results remain qualitatively better , at least in my quick test .
Google tends to give the home-page of a useful site at the first hit .
Bing 's top results seem to be either sites that link to a useful site , or else content pages deep within a site .
Frankly , the same kind of poor results that I associate with MSN .
Perhaps Bing nothing but a new face on an old search engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, the first think I thought when I tried a search on Bing was: they copied Google's layout entirely.
The search results are formatted similarly, adverts with a colored background appear at the top, other text adverts at the top-right.
The only substantive difference is the area on the left with "related searches".
The Google results remain qualitatively better, at least in my quick test.
Google tends to give the home-page of a useful site at the first hit.
Bing's top results seem to be either sites that link to a useful site, or else content pages deep within a site.
Frankly, the same kind of poor results that I associate with MSN.
Perhaps Bing nothing but a new face on an old search engine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179423</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I went to try Bing. Clicked in the search box, and got a dropdown, with all my Google searches from last week.</p><p>WTF?</p><p>How did they even get hold of those data in the first place? The browser should prevent that. And no, I'm not using IE, but Chrome.</p><p>Addendum: Ok, tried the same thing in Firefox. It doesn't happen there. So it might be a (serious, imho) bug in Chrome, perhaps related to the name of the text field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I went to try Bing .
Clicked in the search box , and got a dropdown , with all my Google searches from last week.WTF ? How did they even get hold of those data in the first place ?
The browser should prevent that .
And no , I 'm not using IE , but Chrome.Addendum : Ok , tried the same thing in Firefox .
It does n't happen there .
So it might be a ( serious , imho ) bug in Chrome , perhaps related to the name of the text field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I went to try Bing.
Clicked in the search box, and got a dropdown, with all my Google searches from last week.WTF?How did they even get hold of those data in the first place?
The browser should prevent that.
And no, I'm not using IE, but Chrome.Addendum: Ok, tried the same thing in Firefox.
It doesn't happen there.
So it might be a (serious, imho) bug in Chrome, perhaps related to the name of the text field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173223</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft Bing Search Launches Early Preview,</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1243849200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure I'll be using it periodically for years, just to make jokes about how I'm using the search engine that goes 'Bing'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I 'll be using it periodically for years , just to make jokes about how I 'm using the search engine that goes 'Bing' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I'll be using it periodically for years, just to make jokes about how I'm using the search engine that goes 'Bing'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179231</id>
	<title>'Fair use'</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1243937940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fair use has got nothing to do with it. If a site makes a video publicly available, they're implicitly granting permission for anyone to download and play it. Whether that's directly, or through an intermediate site, is neither here or there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair use has got nothing to do with it .
If a site makes a video publicly available , they 're implicitly granting permission for anyone to download and play it .
Whether that 's directly , or through an intermediate site , is neither here or there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair use has got nothing to do with it.
If a site makes a video publicly available, they're implicitly granting permission for anyone to download and play it.
Whether that's directly, or through an intermediate site, is neither here or there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177871</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>OrigamiMarie</author>
	<datestamp>1243879260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't trust that they are telling me which ones are paid advertisements and which ones are normal search results.  I never click the paid ads at the top of the list on Google, because I don't actually trust any ad on the internet (we all know how easy it is to buy an ad for nefarious purposes -- it's harder to get that kind of link-love and then turn bad).  So Bing doesn't tell me the cut-off line between {ad, potentially worrying, not what the crowd chose} and {chosen by link love, only as dangerous as average -- maybe a little less}.<br> <br>

The little previews are kind of cute, and a reasonably neat idea.  I like that they don't go for the mini-page-rendering, because those (a) are too heavy and (b) don't actually tell you anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust that they are telling me which ones are paid advertisements and which ones are normal search results .
I never click the paid ads at the top of the list on Google , because I do n't actually trust any ad on the internet ( we all know how easy it is to buy an ad for nefarious purposes -- it 's harder to get that kind of link-love and then turn bad ) .
So Bing does n't tell me the cut-off line between { ad , potentially worrying , not what the crowd chose } and { chosen by link love , only as dangerous as average -- maybe a little less } .
The little previews are kind of cute , and a reasonably neat idea .
I like that they do n't go for the mini-page-rendering , because those ( a ) are too heavy and ( b ) do n't actually tell you anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust that they are telling me which ones are paid advertisements and which ones are normal search results.
I never click the paid ads at the top of the list on Google, because I don't actually trust any ad on the internet (we all know how easy it is to buy an ad for nefarious purposes -- it's harder to get that kind of link-love and then turn bad).
So Bing doesn't tell me the cut-off line between {ad, potentially worrying, not what the crowd chose} and {chosen by link love, only as dangerous as average -- maybe a little less}.
The little previews are kind of cute, and a reasonably neat idea.
I like that they don't go for the mini-page-rendering, because those (a) are too heavy and (b) don't actually tell you anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178279</id>
	<title>Results censored on german bing</title>
	<author>toffi</author>
	<datestamp>1243884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The german version of <a href="http://www.bing.de/" title="www.bing.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.de/</a> [www.bing.de] is censored by default and so far I couldn't find an option to turn it off.</p><p>Even search results for words like Strumpfhose(tights) are censored and not displayed.</p><p>So this makes the decision easy....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The german version of http : //www.bing.de/ [ www.bing.de ] is censored by default and so far I could n't find an option to turn it off.Even search results for words like Strumpfhose ( tights ) are censored and not displayed.So this makes the decision easy... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The german version of http://www.bing.de/ [www.bing.de] is censored by default and so far I couldn't find an option to turn it off.Even search results for words like Strumpfhose(tights) are censored and not displayed.So this makes the decision easy....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178969</id>
	<title>Searched for "search engines"</title>
	<author>gsasha</author>
	<datestamp>1243934640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess what, Google is not mentioned there.
<br>
Haha
<br>
Even nicer, try to search "google" and "microsoft" on bing. Compare.
<br>
I for one wouldn't trust a search engine so biased.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what , Google is not mentioned there .
Haha Even nicer , try to search " google " and " microsoft " on bing .
Compare . I for one would n't trust a search engine so biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what, Google is not mentioned there.
Haha

Even nicer, try to search "google" and "microsoft" on bing.
Compare.

I for one wouldn't trust a search engine so biased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175129</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243856880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, Bing has background images... why?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , Bing has background images.. .
why ? !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, Bing has background images...
why?!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176033</id>
	<title>Re:Huge amount of text ads</title>
	<author>Flyskippy1</author>
	<datestamp>1243862580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um... what advertisements?  There are no advertisements on that page that I see.  (I even turned off my ad-blocker to be sure I wasn't missing any.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... what advertisements ?
There are no advertisements on that page that I see .
( I even turned off my ad-blocker to be sure I was n't missing any .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... what advertisements?
There are no advertisements on that page that I see.
(I even turned off my ad-blocker to be sure I wasn't missing any.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176229</id>
	<title>Re:HIJACKED!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243864200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, fuck you for using IE6.  Second, you probably don't use IE6, you just have IE6 for web development testing and were looking for some way to bitch about Bing + IE6.  Congrats, you're a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , fuck you for using IE6 .
Second , you probably do n't use IE6 , you just have IE6 for web development testing and were looking for some way to bitch about Bing + IE6 .
Congrats , you 're a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, fuck you for using IE6.
Second, you probably don't use IE6, you just have IE6 for web development testing and were looking for some way to bitch about Bing + IE6.
Congrats, you're a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172555</id>
	<title>To disable tracking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add www.bing.com/fd/ls/* to your filters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add www.bing.com/fd/ls/ * to your filters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add www.bing.com/fd/ls/* to your filters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175829</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243861200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i just installed a userscript for grease monkey from userscripts.org (just search for bing) and it moves the left margin to the right side of the screen... i am slightly happier now, but i still prefer google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i just installed a userscript for grease monkey from userscripts.org ( just search for bing ) and it moves the left margin to the right side of the screen... i am slightly happier now , but i still prefer google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i just installed a userscript for grease monkey from userscripts.org (just search for bing) and it moves the left margin to the right side of the screen... i am slightly happier now, but i still prefer google</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174471</id>
	<title>help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been "bung" !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been " bung " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been "bung" !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172641</id>
	<title>It's nice and all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243846980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... But It's Not Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... But It 's Not Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... But It's Not Google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</id>
	<title>I'll be the first never to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>just go Bing it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>just go Bing it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just go Bing it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174003</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what microsoft did</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243851960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>guess what they missed?</p><p>bing-sucks.com<br>Registrant: Till Backhaus<br>created: 2009-06-01</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>guess what they missed ? bing-sucks.comRegistrant : Till Backhauscreated : 2009-06-01</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guess what they missed?bing-sucks.comRegistrant: Till Backhauscreated: 2009-06-01</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172913</id>
	<title>Pitiful</title>
	<author>mrawl</author>
	<datestamp>1243848060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truly awful. Very annoying layout. It's just a cynical marketing rebranding to attract eyeballs to the miserable failure that was live.com. Vintage M$, absolutely pathetic and contemptible. "Bing" yeh, right - well done boys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truly awful .
Very annoying layout .
It 's just a cynical marketing rebranding to attract eyeballs to the miserable failure that was live.com .
Vintage M $ , absolutely pathetic and contemptible .
" Bing " yeh , right - well done boys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truly awful.
Very annoying layout.
It's just a cynical marketing rebranding to attract eyeballs to the miserable failure that was live.com.
Vintage M$, absolutely pathetic and contemptible.
"Bing" yeh, right - well done boys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172843</id>
	<title>slashdot scientology</title>
	<author>jpules</author>
	<datestamp>1243847760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>hi slashdot<br> <br>

wtf, scientology ads on the site now?<br> <br>

i rock up and see the gaudy thing to the right
<br> <br>
fail
<br> <br>
it's not april first, so that's out. maybe some other joke I don't quite get?</htmltext>
<tokenext>hi slashdot wtf , scientology ads on the site now ?
i rock up and see the gaudy thing to the right fail it 's not april first , so that 's out .
maybe some other joke I do n't quite get ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hi slashdot 

wtf, scientology ads on the site now?
i rock up and see the gaudy thing to the right
 
fail
 
it's not april first, so that's out.
maybe some other joke I don't quite get?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173183</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The point is- my mouse won't go near, let alone click, on things that I think are tricks or advertisements."<br><br>Sometimes I'm the opposite, it's been so long since I've had any malware I forget what it's like. Maybe I should use my XP partition more huh? It'd cure that feeling without me trying to force it manually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The point is- my mouse wo n't go near , let alone click , on things that I think are tricks or advertisements .
" Sometimes I 'm the opposite , it 's been so long since I 've had any malware I forget what it 's like .
Maybe I should use my XP partition more huh ?
It 'd cure that feeling without me trying to force it manually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The point is- my mouse won't go near, let alone click, on things that I think are tricks or advertisements.
"Sometimes I'm the opposite, it's been so long since I've had any malware I forget what it's like.
Maybe I should use my XP partition more huh?
It'd cure that feeling without me trying to force it manually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174517</id>
	<title>Re:I really exist</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1243854000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I binged my domain name, and after four pages, it still had not come up as a result.  When I googled my domain name: first hit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I binged my domain name , and after four pages , it still had not come up as a result .
When I googled my domain name : first hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I binged my domain name, and after four pages, it still had not come up as a result.
When I googled my domain name: first hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184389</id>
	<title>Re:Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft product</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1243965840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, it shows completely different results for me. I still get the same list today.</p><p>Your bing search profile may behave different from mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , it shows completely different results for me .
I still get the same list today.Your bing search profile may behave different from mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, it shows completely different results for me.
I still get the same list today.Your bing search profile may behave different from mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173961</id>
	<title>Re:Life, The Universe, And Everything</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1243851840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But it <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=what's+the+answer+to+life,+the+universe,+and+everything" title="bing.com">fails</a> [bing.com] to answer this important question!</p><p>Notice how Google <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+answer+to+life,+the+universe,+and+everything" title="google.com">gets it right</a> [google.com].</p></div><p>You just have to <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=answer+to+life+the+universe+and+everything&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE&amp;filt=all" title="bing.com">phrase it right</a> [bing.com].</p><p>It seems it does <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=100+usd+in+cad&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE&amp;filt=all" title="bing.com">other</a> [bing.com] <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=100+km+in+mi&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE&amp;filt=all" title="bing.com">calculations</a> [bing.com] <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=sqrt(42)&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE&amp;filt=all" title="bing.com">too</a> [bing.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it fails [ bing.com ] to answer this important question ! Notice how Google gets it right [ google.com ] .You just have to phrase it right [ bing.com ] .It seems it does other [ bing.com ] calculations [ bing.com ] too [ bing.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it fails [bing.com] to answer this important question!Notice how Google gets it right [google.com].You just have to phrase it right [bing.com].It seems it does other [bing.com] calculations [bing.com] too [bing.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1243846860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What's interesting, for me, about other search engines and their "usability" is the fact that my eyes are trained to parse google results. Google search results look official and informative. I can't use Yahoo or MSN (or Bing for this matter) because their search results look sterile.</p></div></blockquote><p>I just tried Bing (Did Chandler approve of this?) and it does look like Google, with the exception of the left border as you state (and that weird mouseover line-with-a-dot on the right hand side)
</p><p>
Microsoft really did embrace (phase 1 of embrace, extend, extinguish) Google's format here... The same size font on result headings, the url (without the protocol identifier, in green) and even the "cached" link.  And I don't think it looks bad, since many sites basically embed google site-search within their frame, as a quick and easy way of searching their site, and the results look similar to Bing.
</p><p>That said, it does say a lot that Bing UI look just like Google's search UI embedded/framed within Bing's page... it isn't bad or good, but it does show that MSFT realizes they are NOT the big fish in the pond here, and that they are going for a low-profile look-alike entry so people aren't too scared off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's interesting , for me , about other search engines and their " usability " is the fact that my eyes are trained to parse google results .
Google search results look official and informative .
I ca n't use Yahoo or MSN ( or Bing for this matter ) because their search results look sterile.I just tried Bing ( Did Chandler approve of this ?
) and it does look like Google , with the exception of the left border as you state ( and that weird mouseover line-with-a-dot on the right hand side ) Microsoft really did embrace ( phase 1 of embrace , extend , extinguish ) Google 's format here... The same size font on result headings , the url ( without the protocol identifier , in green ) and even the " cached " link .
And I do n't think it looks bad , since many sites basically embed google site-search within their frame , as a quick and easy way of searching their site , and the results look similar to Bing .
That said , it does say a lot that Bing UI look just like Google 's search UI embedded/framed within Bing 's page... it is n't bad or good , but it does show that MSFT realizes they are NOT the big fish in the pond here , and that they are going for a low-profile look-alike entry so people are n't too scared off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's interesting, for me, about other search engines and their "usability" is the fact that my eyes are trained to parse google results.
Google search results look official and informative.
I can't use Yahoo or MSN (or Bing for this matter) because their search results look sterile.I just tried Bing (Did Chandler approve of this?
) and it does look like Google, with the exception of the left border as you state (and that weird mouseover line-with-a-dot on the right hand side)

Microsoft really did embrace (phase 1 of embrace, extend, extinguish) Google's format here... The same size font on result headings, the url (without the protocol identifier, in green) and even the "cached" link.
And I don't think it looks bad, since many sites basically embed google site-search within their frame, as a quick and easy way of searching their site, and the results look similar to Bing.
That said, it does say a lot that Bing UI look just like Google's search UI embedded/framed within Bing's page... it isn't bad or good, but it does show that MSFT realizes they are NOT the big fish in the pond here, and that they are going for a low-profile look-alike entry so people aren't too scared off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179395</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what microsoft did</title>
	<author>sjorford</author>
	<datestamp>1243939620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.whois.net/whois/bingsucks.com" title="whois.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.whois.net/whois/bingsucks.com</a> [whois.net]</p><p>Available Domains</p><p>easybingsucks.com<br>bestbingsuckslive.com<br>mybingsuckspro.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.whois.net/whois/bingsucks.com [ whois.net ] Available Domainseasybingsucks.combestbingsuckslive.commybingsuckspro.com .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.whois.net/whois/bingsucks.com [whois.net]Available Domainseasybingsucks.combestbingsuckslive.commybingsuckspro.com ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172513</id>
	<title>bing live bam boom bust balls clusterfuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is like blackwater changing their name to somthing else</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is like blackwater changing their name to somthing else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is like blackwater changing their name to somthing else</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176187</id>
	<title>try "bing sucks"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243863780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>awesome results with the default "moderate" safe search enabled.</p><p>hah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>awesome results with the default " moderate " safe search enabled.hah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>awesome results with the default "moderate" safe search enabled.hah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175365</id>
	<title>I don't want the sound to play when I hover</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243858200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aack! It makes noise if I hover in the wrong place!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Which is to say, it plays the sound for the video when I hover over the clip that's been found. You'd expect that, and you'd want it in a situation where noise isn't a problem, but it would mean muting my speaker whenever I do a search at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aack !
It makes noise if I hover in the wrong place !
.... Which is to say , it plays the sound for the video when I hover over the clip that 's been found .
You 'd expect that , and you 'd want it in a situation where noise is n't a problem , but it would mean muting my speaker whenever I do a search at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aack!
It makes noise if I hover in the wrong place!
.... Which is to say, it plays the sound for the video when I hover over the clip that's been found.
You'd expect that, and you'd want it in a situation where noise isn't a problem, but it would mean muting my speaker whenever I do a search at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175107</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1243856760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even the colours of the search results are identical, it's hilarious. Looking forward to June 21st when they spell out 'Bing' with little pictures related to summer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the colours of the search results are identical , it 's hilarious .
Looking forward to June 21st when they spell out 'Bing ' with little pictures related to summer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the colours of the search results are identical, it's hilarious.
Looking forward to June 21st when they spell out 'Bing' with little pictures related to summer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174055</id>
	<title>It's kinda cute in a way</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1243852080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The way it's trying so hard to ape Google. In a way, it's a bit like those netbook distros that try to disguise Linux as Windows.... sweet irony.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way it 's trying so hard to ape Google .
In a way , it 's a bit like those netbook distros that try to disguise Linux as Windows.... sweet irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way it's trying so hard to ape Google.
In a way, it's a bit like those netbook distros that try to disguise Linux as Windows.... sweet irony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172761</id>
	<title>You want to know something funny?</title>
	<author>E. Edward Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1243847460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realized just now that if some other company had started up and created a new search engine called "Bing" I would probably find it really charming.  But when Microsoft does it, it just seems like The Itchy &amp; Scratchy &amp; Poochie Show.  The human subconscious is a player-hater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realized just now that if some other company had started up and created a new search engine called " Bing " I would probably find it really charming .
But when Microsoft does it , it just seems like The Itchy &amp; Scratchy &amp; Poochie Show .
The human subconscious is a player-hater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realized just now that if some other company had started up and created a new search engine called "Bing" I would probably find it really charming.
But when Microsoft does it, it just seems like The Itchy &amp; Scratchy &amp; Poochie Show.
The human subconscious is a player-hater.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28193487</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>Ginger Unicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1244027460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>according to ballmer, bing <em>is</em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing\_(search\_engine)#Name\_origin" title="wikipedia.org">named after chandler bing</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>according to ballmer , bing is named after chandler bing [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>according to ballmer, bing is named after chandler bing [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172637</id>
	<title>Yeah but....</title>
	<author>Utopia Tree</author>
	<datestamp>1243846980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>www.BingIsNotGoogle.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>www.BingIsNotGoogle.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.BingIsNotGoogle.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174521</id>
	<title>Re:Huge amount of text ads</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243854000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only one placement at the top of the page, one placement at the bottom, and a single text ad in the right column.</p><p>Compare to the Google search of the same term: <a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=\%22sql+server\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10&amp;fp=2Inaafc1UxE" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=\%22sql+server\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10&amp;fp=2Inaafc1UxE</a> [google.com]</p><p>Google has the one placement at the top of the page, virtually identical to Bing's. It has no placement at the bottom, given, but it has 8 placements in the right column.</p><p>So Bing's total placements: 3. Google's: 9.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only one placement at the top of the page , one placement at the bottom , and a single text ad in the right column.Compare to the Google search of the same term : http : //www.google.com/ # hl = en&amp;q = \ % 22sql + server \ % 22&amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = g10&amp;fp = 2Inaafc1UxE [ google.com ] Google has the one placement at the top of the page , virtually identical to Bing 's .
It has no placement at the bottom , given , but it has 8 placements in the right column.So Bing 's total placements : 3 .
Google 's : 9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only one placement at the top of the page, one placement at the bottom, and a single text ad in the right column.Compare to the Google search of the same term: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=\%22sql+server\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10&amp;fp=2Inaafc1UxE [google.com]Google has the one placement at the top of the page, virtually identical to Bing's.
It has no placement at the bottom, given, but it has 8 placements in the right column.So Bing's total placements: 3.
Google's: 9.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173595</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243850400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...not quite right page layout.</i> It is your own fault; shame on you for using Firefox instead of IE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...not quite right page layout .
It is your own fault ; shame on you for using Firefox instead of IE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...not quite right page layout.
It is your own fault; shame on you for using Firefox instead of IE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172963</id>
	<title>Bing, bong, binger, bang</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* The reponse from a Bing search: "Bong" (like 'Ping' and 'Pong')</p><p>* A person who searches on Bing: A binger (or is 'banger' a better word?)</p><p>* When referring to Bing search results in the past tense, it's a "Bang", like "Ring" and "Rang". Or maybe it's "Bung", like "Ring" and "Rung".</p><p>Hm... I didn't mean to make rude comments about Bing, but the name kind of lends itself to some bad nicknames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* The reponse from a Bing search : " Bong " ( like 'Ping ' and 'Pong ' ) * A person who searches on Bing : A binger ( or is 'banger ' a better word ?
) * When referring to Bing search results in the past tense , it 's a " Bang " , like " Ring " and " Rang " .
Or maybe it 's " Bung " , like " Ring " and " Rung " .Hm... I did n't mean to make rude comments about Bing , but the name kind of lends itself to some bad nicknames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* The reponse from a Bing search: "Bong" (like 'Ping' and 'Pong')* A person who searches on Bing: A binger (or is 'banger' a better word?
)* When referring to Bing search results in the past tense, it's a "Bang", like "Ring" and "Rang".
Or maybe it's "Bung", like "Ring" and "Rung".Hm... I didn't mean to make rude comments about Bing, but the name kind of lends itself to some bad nicknames.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181299</id>
	<title>Re:HIJACKED!</title>
	<author>Wisconsingod</author>
	<datestamp>1243954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh, but they are... Just like you said from the linked comments "Bing stopped acknowledging provider requests."
<br>
<br>
Microsoft Owns IE, Microsoft owns Bing, IE6 uses Microsoft search options from it's own servers to provide service to third party search engines.  They have now stopped providing that option, which I believe is grounds for a violation of their previous anti-trust case.... part of the settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies, part of which was this feature of the web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , but they are... Just like you said from the linked comments " Bing stopped acknowledging provider requests .
" Microsoft Owns IE , Microsoft owns Bing , IE6 uses Microsoft search options from it 's own servers to provide service to third party search engines .
They have now stopped providing that option , which I believe is grounds for a violation of their previous anti-trust case.... part of the settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies , part of which was this feature of the web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, but they are... Just like you said from the linked comments "Bing stopped acknowledging provider requests.
"


Microsoft Owns IE, Microsoft owns Bing, IE6 uses Microsoft search options from it's own servers to provide service to third party search engines.
They have now stopped providing that option, which I believe is grounds for a violation of their previous anti-trust case.... part of the settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies, part of which was this feature of the web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181957</id>
	<title>Re:Apropos "Bing"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In chinese, bing means ill/sick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In chinese , bing means ill/sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In chinese, bing means ill/sick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175969</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1243862040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Appearance-wise it is very google-like.  Spend some time searching though and you can quickly see bias.....</p><p>I just spent some time doing very specific technical searches for info about aspects of solaris.  I kept getting msdn results in the top 5....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Appearance-wise it is very google-like .
Spend some time searching though and you can quickly see bias.....I just spent some time doing very specific technical searches for info about aspects of solaris .
I kept getting msdn results in the top 5... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appearance-wise it is very google-like.
Spend some time searching though and you can quickly see bias.....I just spent some time doing very specific technical searches for info about aspects of solaris.
I kept getting msdn results in the top 5....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173143</id>
	<title>Re:You want to know something funny?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Word.  It's like how we all get super tired of the overexposure of music and celebrities--same thing with software products.  Eventually I just wanted JLo to just go away and die and now I really want the same thing to happen to Beyonce/Rhianna-I just get tired of the same old thing being thrown at me.  As far as products go, I wanted GM to die for making ugly shitty cars. And for the past 10 years, I've wanted microsoft to die for ugly shitty software.  Also, the queen of england has to go too-but that's just because she's too damn old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Word .
It 's like how we all get super tired of the overexposure of music and celebrities--same thing with software products .
Eventually I just wanted JLo to just go away and die and now I really want the same thing to happen to Beyonce/Rhianna-I just get tired of the same old thing being thrown at me .
As far as products go , I wanted GM to die for making ugly shitty cars .
And for the past 10 years , I 've wanted microsoft to die for ugly shitty software .
Also , the queen of england has to go too-but that 's just because she 's too damn old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Word.
It's like how we all get super tired of the overexposure of music and celebrities--same thing with software products.
Eventually I just wanted JLo to just go away and die and now I really want the same thing to happen to Beyonce/Rhianna-I just get tired of the same old thing being thrown at me.
As far as products go, I wanted GM to die for making ugly shitty cars.
And for the past 10 years, I've wanted microsoft to die for ugly shitty software.
Also, the queen of england has to go too-but that's just because she's too damn old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28183877</id>
	<title>Porno for the win?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Microsoft taking learning from the Beta/VHS war?  VHS took the lead with support of the adult industry.  As an underdog in the search war, Bing seems to play very well with X-rated search results.</p><p>If you click on Bing Videos and search for a graphic term (such as "Sasha Grey" or "double anal") you'll get unsolicited access to hundreds and thousands of videos.  Which ARE playable right then and there bypassing ads and pop-ups.  Similar to wankspider and the other porn search engines out, Bing actually works...</p><p>Methinks MS is aware of how well Bing works with porn.  Has there been a major Search engine that has been this Sex-friendly before?  I don't believe so and this might give Bing a strange edge and actually gain some market share.  If teen males start using Bing to find porn, I'm sure they'll still use Bing occasionally as college students and working adults.</p><p>Btw, try searching for "Vixta."  It's a Linux distro and Bing will return the Vista home page as the first result, whereas all other engines return the Vixta source-forge page...  Hmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Microsoft taking learning from the Beta/VHS war ?
VHS took the lead with support of the adult industry .
As an underdog in the search war , Bing seems to play very well with X-rated search results.If you click on Bing Videos and search for a graphic term ( such as " Sasha Grey " or " double anal " ) you 'll get unsolicited access to hundreds and thousands of videos .
Which ARE playable right then and there bypassing ads and pop-ups .
Similar to wankspider and the other porn search engines out , Bing actually works...Methinks MS is aware of how well Bing works with porn .
Has there been a major Search engine that has been this Sex-friendly before ?
I do n't believe so and this might give Bing a strange edge and actually gain some market share .
If teen males start using Bing to find porn , I 'm sure they 'll still use Bing occasionally as college students and working adults.Btw , try searching for " Vixta .
" It 's a Linux distro and Bing will return the Vista home page as the first result , whereas all other engines return the Vixta source-forge page... Hmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Microsoft taking learning from the Beta/VHS war?
VHS took the lead with support of the adult industry.
As an underdog in the search war, Bing seems to play very well with X-rated search results.If you click on Bing Videos and search for a graphic term (such as "Sasha Grey" or "double anal") you'll get unsolicited access to hundreds and thousands of videos.
Which ARE playable right then and there bypassing ads and pop-ups.
Similar to wankspider and the other porn search engines out, Bing actually works...Methinks MS is aware of how well Bing works with porn.
Has there been a major Search engine that has been this Sex-friendly before?
I don't believe so and this might give Bing a strange edge and actually gain some market share.
If teen males start using Bing to find porn, I'm sure they'll still use Bing occasionally as college students and working adults.Btw, try searching for "Vixta.
"  It's a Linux distro and Bing will return the Vista home page as the first result, whereas all other engines return the Vixta source-forge page...  Hmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28180295</id>
	<title>Re:HIJACKED!</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1243948200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Serves you right for using IE6.</p><p>Do you complain you can't get fidelity out of your wax discs music recordings too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Serves you right for using IE6.Do you complain you ca n't get fidelity out of your wax discs music recordings too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Serves you right for using IE6.Do you complain you can't get fidelity out of your wax discs music recordings too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175475</id>
	<title>1997 called back...</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1243858740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all this fuss is for a search engine?? Well, Google is doing a Web browser so I guess this completes the ying yang of the industry...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all this fuss is for a search engine ? ?
Well , Google is doing a Web browser so I guess this completes the ying yang of the industry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all this fuss is for a search engine??
Well, Google is doing a Web browser so I guess this completes the ying yang of the industry...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28193487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28180295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1718241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28180295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28181449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28184249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28178851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1718241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28176929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28174679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28193487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28177573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28179481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28175829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28172797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1718241.28173521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
