<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_29_1625230</id>
	<title>Google Claims They "Just Aren't That Big"</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246297560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The New York Times is reporting that Google is making the case that they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/companies/29google.html?\_r=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">just aren't that big</a>, especially from an anti-trust point of view.  While they certainly corner the market in search, advertising, and online video, Dana Wagner, Google's "senior competition counsel," is working hard to convince the public that "competition is a click away."  <i>"None of the investigations take aim at Google's core advertising business. And unlike other technology giants in years past, Google has not been accused of anticompetitive tactics. But the investigations and carping from competitors and critics have Google fighting to dispel the notion that it has a lock on its market, even as it increases its share of search and online advertising.  Eyes are rolling, especially in reaction to the idea that Google is a relatively small player in a giant market. 'They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that doesn't reflect their dominance of key sectors,' said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. 'Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The New York Times is reporting that Google is making the case that they just are n't that big , especially from an anti-trust point of view .
While they certainly corner the market in search , advertising , and online video , Dana Wagner , Google 's " senior competition counsel , " is working hard to convince the public that " competition is a click away .
" " None of the investigations take aim at Google 's core advertising business .
And unlike other technology giants in years past , Google has not been accused of anticompetitive tactics .
But the investigations and carping from competitors and critics have Google fighting to dispel the notion that it has a lock on its market , even as it increases its share of search and online advertising .
Eyes are rolling , especially in reaction to the idea that Google is a relatively small player in a giant market .
'They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that does n't reflect their dominance of key sectors, ' said Jeff Chester , executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy .
'Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The New York Times is reporting that Google is making the case that they just aren't that big, especially from an anti-trust point of view.
While they certainly corner the market in search, advertising, and online video, Dana Wagner, Google's "senior competition counsel," is working hard to convince the public that "competition is a click away.
"  "None of the investigations take aim at Google's core advertising business.
And unlike other technology giants in years past, Google has not been accused of anticompetitive tactics.
But the investigations and carping from competitors and critics have Google fighting to dispel the notion that it has a lock on its market, even as it increases its share of search and online advertising.
Eyes are rolling, especially in reaction to the idea that Google is a relatively small player in a giant market.
'They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that doesn't reflect their dominance of key sectors,' said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
'Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516921</id>
	<title>Re:they're not that big by most measures</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1246302300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about market cap?</p><p>$134 billion for Google.com<br>$139 billion  for IBM<br>$211 billionfor Microsoft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about market cap ? $ 134 billion for Google.com $ 139 billion for IBM $ 211 billionfor Microsoft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about market cap?$134 billion for Google.com$139 billion  for IBM$211 billionfor Microsoft</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517187</id>
	<title>Why do they need to defend themselves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246303320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another company we should be looking at when it comes to anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior far before we even consider Google.  We all know which company this is.  For those of you completely oblivious to the past few decades, it is obviously Microsoft.  There is not a day that goes by that I am not angry about their dominance in the computer industry.  The disgusting nature of their rise to power and the fact that they have not stopped damaging the very industry I had fallen in love with when I was young makes me feel sick and drains my hope that this country is about freedom.</p><p>Anyone attacking Google needs to step back and seriously take another look at history.  Success means nothing when you are inflicting serious harm to others and doing a bad job at what you are supposed to be doing in the first place.  Microsoft and its cronies from the beginning had only one goal, power.   This unfortunately came at the expense of holding back progress in the entire industry.  Of course it is far more complicated, but overall, we all know the core of Microsoft is evil.</p><p>Will we ever see any serious action taken against Microsoft and its cronies?  Or will another competitor to Microsoft be taking the fire?</p><p>Google is not big enough.  And I hope some day they will be so that the Microsoft monopoly finally withers away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another company we should be looking at when it comes to anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior far before we even consider Google .
We all know which company this is .
For those of you completely oblivious to the past few decades , it is obviously Microsoft .
There is not a day that goes by that I am not angry about their dominance in the computer industry .
The disgusting nature of their rise to power and the fact that they have not stopped damaging the very industry I had fallen in love with when I was young makes me feel sick and drains my hope that this country is about freedom.Anyone attacking Google needs to step back and seriously take another look at history .
Success means nothing when you are inflicting serious harm to others and doing a bad job at what you are supposed to be doing in the first place .
Microsoft and its cronies from the beginning had only one goal , power .
This unfortunately came at the expense of holding back progress in the entire industry .
Of course it is far more complicated , but overall , we all know the core of Microsoft is evil.Will we ever see any serious action taken against Microsoft and its cronies ?
Or will another competitor to Microsoft be taking the fire ? Google is not big enough .
And I hope some day they will be so that the Microsoft monopoly finally withers away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another company we should be looking at when it comes to anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior far before we even consider Google.
We all know which company this is.
For those of you completely oblivious to the past few decades, it is obviously Microsoft.
There is not a day that goes by that I am not angry about their dominance in the computer industry.
The disgusting nature of their rise to power and the fact that they have not stopped damaging the very industry I had fallen in love with when I was young makes me feel sick and drains my hope that this country is about freedom.Anyone attacking Google needs to step back and seriously take another look at history.
Success means nothing when you are inflicting serious harm to others and doing a bad job at what you are supposed to be doing in the first place.
Microsoft and its cronies from the beginning had only one goal, power.
This unfortunately came at the expense of holding back progress in the entire industry.
Of course it is far more complicated, but overall, we all know the core of Microsoft is evil.Will we ever see any serious action taken against Microsoft and its cronies?
Or will another competitor to Microsoft be taking the fire?Google is not big enough.
And I hope some day they will be so that the Microsoft monopoly finally withers away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517299</id>
	<title>better than altavista?</title>
	<author>fyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1246303680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, has someone come up with a search engine that's better than <a href="http://altavista.com/" title="altavista.com" rel="nofollow">altavista</a> [altavista.com]?  Sorry, just getting up from a nap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , has someone come up with a search engine that 's better than altavista [ altavista.com ] ?
Sorry , just getting up from a nap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, has someone come up with a search engine that's better than altavista [altavista.com]?
Sorry, just getting up from a nap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517945</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1246306380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft dominates because businesses don't mind too much, and the basic equation of domination hasn't changed enough, yet. The business defines the tools you must work with. If I went to work for Ubisoft as a 3D designer, should I be pissed that they force me to use 3DS Max, and that I can't use Blender? Even though Blender has 3DS and FBX export? Is Autodesk a monopoly if 90\% of game shops use it?</p><p>In both cases, I say no: the enemy of change is being good enough. The world just isn't yet convinced MS isn't good enough (though it came close with Vista).</p><p>And taking your email elsewhere isn't really a good example because it really isn't that easy. If I want to get my gmail through Yahoo, I'll be left wanting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft dominates because businesses do n't mind too much , and the basic equation of domination has n't changed enough , yet .
The business defines the tools you must work with .
If I went to work for Ubisoft as a 3D designer , should I be pissed that they force me to use 3DS Max , and that I ca n't use Blender ?
Even though Blender has 3DS and FBX export ?
Is Autodesk a monopoly if 90 \ % of game shops use it ? In both cases , I say no : the enemy of change is being good enough .
The world just is n't yet convinced MS is n't good enough ( though it came close with Vista ) .And taking your email elsewhere is n't really a good example because it really is n't that easy .
If I want to get my gmail through Yahoo , I 'll be left wanting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft dominates because businesses don't mind too much, and the basic equation of domination hasn't changed enough, yet.
The business defines the tools you must work with.
If I went to work for Ubisoft as a 3D designer, should I be pissed that they force me to use 3DS Max, and that I can't use Blender?
Even though Blender has 3DS and FBX export?
Is Autodesk a monopoly if 90\% of game shops use it?In both cases, I say no: the enemy of change is being good enough.
The world just isn't yet convinced MS isn't good enough (though it came close with Vista).And taking your email elsewhere isn't really a good example because it really isn't that easy.
If I want to get my gmail through Yahoo, I'll be left wanting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517261</id>
	<title>Re:they're not that big by most measures</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1246303560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're dominant but not because of ANTICOMPETITIVE measures, they dominate the market because (imho, ofc) their shit is just that good that I want to use it instead of anything else.</p><p>If bing maps turns out to be better than google maps I'll use it in a heartbeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're dominant but not because of ANTICOMPETITIVE measures , they dominate the market because ( imho , ofc ) their shit is just that good that I want to use it instead of anything else.If bing maps turns out to be better than google maps I 'll use it in a heartbeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're dominant but not because of ANTICOMPETITIVE measures, they dominate the market because (imho, ofc) their shit is just that good that I want to use it instead of anything else.If bing maps turns out to be better than google maps I'll use it in a heartbeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519211</id>
	<title>Google is *not* that big.</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1246267980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact is, google holds no position which is insurmountable. Yes they lead search technology, ad technology, and online video technology. However unlike other monopolistic companies they do not lock in vendors to only using their products. They don't sue anyone who starts developing a competing product. They have cool technology, but your computer will work just fine, as will your internet experience, with or without google.<div><p>
I mean, honestly, any one of us, given the willpower and time could develop an ad platform to compete with google's. The fact that no one has does not mean that it can't be done. Likewise, if someone is able to create a better search algorithm, it could overtake google search. There are a ton of video sites that compete with youtube as well. The fact is, no one holds a gun to anyone's head and says "USE THIS GOOGLE PRODUCT!" Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search, google docs was the default productivity package, chrome was the default browser, then maybe you would have a case. Ultimately, they are a big player, but they are not a monopoly.</p><div><p>
In my mind, a business becomes a monopoly when they completely bar entry into a market. Google does not do this. There aren't going to be henchmen showing up at your door if you start making mysweetvideohostingsite.com. Now make something that competes directly with Microsoft? Or apple? Yeah, you might have to watch your back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , google holds no position which is insurmountable .
Yes they lead search technology , ad technology , and online video technology .
However unlike other monopolistic companies they do not lock in vendors to only using their products .
They do n't sue anyone who starts developing a competing product .
They have cool technology , but your computer will work just fine , as will your internet experience , with or without google .
I mean , honestly , any one of us , given the willpower and time could develop an ad platform to compete with google 's .
The fact that no one has does not mean that it ca n't be done .
Likewise , if someone is able to create a better search algorithm , it could overtake google search .
There are a ton of video sites that compete with youtube as well .
The fact is , no one holds a gun to anyone 's head and says " USE THIS GOOGLE PRODUCT !
" Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM 's that their default search engine was google search , google docs was the default productivity package , chrome was the default browser , then maybe you would have a case .
Ultimately , they are a big player , but they are not a monopoly .
In my mind , a business becomes a monopoly when they completely bar entry into a market .
Google does not do this .
There are n't going to be henchmen showing up at your door if you start making mysweetvideohostingsite.com .
Now make something that competes directly with Microsoft ?
Or apple ?
Yeah , you might have to watch your back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, google holds no position which is insurmountable.
Yes they lead search technology, ad technology, and online video technology.
However unlike other monopolistic companies they do not lock in vendors to only using their products.
They don't sue anyone who starts developing a competing product.
They have cool technology, but your computer will work just fine, as will your internet experience, with or without google.
I mean, honestly, any one of us, given the willpower and time could develop an ad platform to compete with google's.
The fact that no one has does not mean that it can't be done.
Likewise, if someone is able to create a better search algorithm, it could overtake google search.
There are a ton of video sites that compete with youtube as well.
The fact is, no one holds a gun to anyone's head and says "USE THIS GOOGLE PRODUCT!
" Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search, google docs was the default productivity package, chrome was the default browser, then maybe you would have a case.
Ultimately, they are a big player, but they are not a monopoly.
In my mind, a business becomes a monopoly when they completely bar entry into a market.
Google does not do this.
There aren't going to be henchmen showing up at your door if you start making mysweetvideohostingsite.com.
Now make something that competes directly with Microsoft?
Or apple?
Yeah, you might have to watch your back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1246303200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right.  The difference between Google's market share and Microsoft's share is that I can take my email elsewhere, I can search another site, and I can go to any of 50 video sites.  I never have to look at another Google app the rest of my life and I'm not going to have to suffer to pay rent.  With Microsoft, you can't just pack up your Games, Office applications/Exchange app, and development suites and move to Linux.  You can't work in the business world without having to support Microsoft in one way or another... or find a job that has nothing to do with computers.</p><p>It's a matter of being able to leave if you don't like the service.  Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted.  Even though I use Linux daily, I still <b>have</b> to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
The difference between Google 's market share and Microsoft 's share is that I can take my email elsewhere , I can search another site , and I can go to any of 50 video sites .
I never have to look at another Google app the rest of my life and I 'm not going to have to suffer to pay rent .
With Microsoft , you ca n't just pack up your Games , Office applications/Exchange app , and development suites and move to Linux .
You ca n't work in the business world without having to support Microsoft in one way or another... or find a job that has nothing to do with computers.It 's a matter of being able to leave if you do n't like the service .
Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted .
Even though I use Linux daily , I still have to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
The difference between Google's market share and Microsoft's share is that I can take my email elsewhere, I can search another site, and I can go to any of 50 video sites.
I never have to look at another Google app the rest of my life and I'm not going to have to suffer to pay rent.
With Microsoft, you can't just pack up your Games, Office applications/Exchange app, and development suites and move to Linux.
You can't work in the business world without having to support Microsoft in one way or another... or find a job that has nothing to do with computers.It's a matter of being able to leave if you don't like the service.
Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted.
Even though I use Linux daily, I still have to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517635</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>windsleeper</author>
	<datestamp>1246305060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The problem with Google and competition is they have giant rivers of money coming in from their search/ad monopoly.</p> </div><p>
Google does not have a search ad monopoly.
<br> <br>
They do have 2 things that are competitive advantages, but neither is a monopoly.  First, they have the largest online search audience.  Much as in TV, this audience is not permanent, not locked in any way, not paying and subject to flight at any time, if any competitor builds a more compelling search experience.  Second, they have a very efficient advertising logic, that figures out how to pair up the advertiser with the best fit to a given search, thus allowing them to find the advertiser that has the most to gain and thus be willing to pay the most to advertise on a given search result page.  Again, this is not a monopoly, as any search engine could do something similar for each of their search results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Google and competition is they have giant rivers of money coming in from their search/ad monopoly .
Google does not have a search ad monopoly .
They do have 2 things that are competitive advantages , but neither is a monopoly .
First , they have the largest online search audience .
Much as in TV , this audience is not permanent , not locked in any way , not paying and subject to flight at any time , if any competitor builds a more compelling search experience .
Second , they have a very efficient advertising logic , that figures out how to pair up the advertiser with the best fit to a given search , thus allowing them to find the advertiser that has the most to gain and thus be willing to pay the most to advertise on a given search result page .
Again , this is not a monopoly , as any search engine could do something similar for each of their search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The problem with Google and competition is they have giant rivers of money coming in from their search/ad monopoly.
Google does not have a search ad monopoly.
They do have 2 things that are competitive advantages, but neither is a monopoly.
First, they have the largest online search audience.
Much as in TV, this audience is not permanent, not locked in any way, not paying and subject to flight at any time, if any competitor builds a more compelling search experience.
Second, they have a very efficient advertising logic, that figures out how to pair up the advertiser with the best fit to a given search, thus allowing them to find the advertiser that has the most to gain and thus be willing to pay the most to advertise on a given search result page.
Again, this is not a monopoly, as any search engine could do something similar for each of their search results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518915</id>
	<title>Re:Hi...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>R.I.P. Billy Mays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>R.I.P .
Billy Mays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>R.I.P.
Billy Mays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28525979</id>
	<title>Re:Must have?</title>
	<author>Daengbo</author>
	<datestamp>1246360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naver is a portal and search engine, despite what IamtheRealMike said. I've been living here in Korea for 5 1/2 years. <a href="http://naver.com/" title="naver.com" rel="nofollow">Naver</a> [naver.com] handles search, shopping, forums, maps, publics information like bus routes, and just about everything else in Korea.</p><p>It is so dominant that the <a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/#top" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">number one search on Google in Korea for 2008</a> [google.com] was "Naver" (in Hangul). That's right! Koreans only visited Google on accident and immediately went to Naver. If they didn't know the URL, they searched Google for it. What was the second-highest searched term? Daum, another Korean portal.</p><p>Not only do Koreans <i>not</i> use Google, they don't use MS OFfice much, either, favoring Hangul Office (.hwp files).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naver is a portal and search engine , despite what IamtheRealMike said .
I 've been living here in Korea for 5 1/2 years .
Naver [ naver.com ] handles search , shopping , forums , maps , publics information like bus routes , and just about everything else in Korea.It is so dominant that the number one search on Google in Korea for 2008 [ google.com ] was " Naver " ( in Hangul ) .
That 's right !
Koreans only visited Google on accident and immediately went to Naver .
If they did n't know the URL , they searched Google for it .
What was the second-highest searched term ?
Daum , another Korean portal.Not only do Koreans not use Google , they do n't use MS OFfice much , either , favoring Hangul Office ( .hwp files ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naver is a portal and search engine, despite what IamtheRealMike said.
I've been living here in Korea for 5 1/2 years.
Naver [naver.com] handles search, shopping, forums, maps, publics information like bus routes, and just about everything else in Korea.It is so dominant that the number one search on Google in Korea for 2008 [google.com] was "Naver" (in Hangul).
That's right!
Koreans only visited Google on accident and immediately went to Naver.
If they didn't know the URL, they searched Google for it.
What was the second-highest searched term?
Daum, another Korean portal.Not only do Koreans not use Google, they don't use MS OFfice much, either, favoring Hangul Office (.hwp files).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517611</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246304880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's all well and good.<br> <br>But it has nothing to do with the fact that abuse of their dominant position is undesirable, and the DoJ is tasked with ensuring they do not abuse their position, no matter how they got it.<br> <br>You can be the nicest kid on the block, and everyone buys candy from you because you're a nice guy, and you have low prices, and your quality is good.  But once all the other candy-sellers leave for greener pastures, you can't use your new-found dominance to keep them from coming back via defined uncompetive behavior, like paying the candy manufacturers to not sell to your competitors.<br> <br>Or something.  Dammit, my kingdom for a car analogy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all well and good .
But it has nothing to do with the fact that abuse of their dominant position is undesirable , and the DoJ is tasked with ensuring they do not abuse their position , no matter how they got it .
You can be the nicest kid on the block , and everyone buys candy from you because you 're a nice guy , and you have low prices , and your quality is good .
But once all the other candy-sellers leave for greener pastures , you ca n't use your new-found dominance to keep them from coming back via defined uncompetive behavior , like paying the candy manufacturers to not sell to your competitors .
Or something .
Dammit , my kingdom for a car analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all well and good.
But it has nothing to do with the fact that abuse of their dominant position is undesirable, and the DoJ is tasked with ensuring they do not abuse their position, no matter how they got it.
You can be the nicest kid on the block, and everyone buys candy from you because you're a nice guy, and you have low prices, and your quality is good.
But once all the other candy-sellers leave for greener pastures, you can't use your new-found dominance to keep them from coming back via defined uncompetive behavior, like paying the candy manufacturers to not sell to your competitors.
Or something.
Dammit, my kingdom for a car analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517897</id>
	<title>What a great idea!</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246306200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts, THAT is anti-competitive, not google</i></p><p>I never thought of that... that's an awesome idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts , THAT is anti-competitive , not googleI never thought of that... that 's an awesome idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts, THAT is anti-competitive, not googleI never thought of that... that's an awesome idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did google buy out the competition so they were #1? No.</p></div></blockquote><p>Er.. curious how you got to 'no'</p><p>Google did google video, it wasnt doing well, they bought Youtube and are now #1.</p><p>Google did maps, it was okay but not #1, they bought Keyhole(now google earth) and advanced their tech to become #1</p><p>They've also bought sketchup, grandcentral(google voice), and a few other smaller projects with varying success.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did google buy out the competition so they were # 1 ?
No.Er.. curious how you got to 'no'Google did google video , it wasnt doing well , they bought Youtube and are now # 1.Google did maps , it was okay but not # 1 , they bought Keyhole ( now google earth ) and advanced their tech to become # 1They 've also bought sketchup , grandcentral ( google voice ) , and a few other smaller projects with varying success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did google buy out the competition so they were #1?
No.Er.. curious how you got to 'no'Google did google video, it wasnt doing well, they bought Youtube and are now #1.Google did maps, it was okay but not #1, they bought Keyhole(now google earth) and advanced their tech to become #1They've also bought sketchup, grandcentral(google voice), and a few other smaller projects with varying success.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517687</id>
	<title>Re:Hi...</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1246305240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Odd I still thought it was funny and not disrespectful at all.  I mean the dude was a famous pitch man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd I still thought it was funny and not disrespectful at all .
I mean the dude was a famous pitch man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd I still thought it was funny and not disrespectful at all.
I mean the dude was a famous pitch man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517609</id>
	<title>Everything is relative.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246304880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as here, where the size, compared to the space to occupy, is the point. And in some areas, Google is the Internet equivalent of Photoshop's flood-fill tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as here , where the size , compared to the space to occupy , is the point .
And in some areas , Google is the Internet equivalent of Photoshop 's flood-fill tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as here, where the size, compared to the space to occupy, is the point.
And in some areas, Google is the Internet equivalent of Photoshop's flood-fill tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517041</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could not have said it better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could not have said it better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could not have said it better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518777</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key word here is "competition". Google has bought plenty of companies, but they don't buy out their competition in the search market, where they are dominant. Youtube is not a search engine. Keyhole is not a search engine. Grandcentral is not a search engine.</p><p>Google buys things to add entirely new services, not to discourage competition where they already dominate. Google does not use anti-competitive tactics, which is why people tend to trust them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word here is " competition " .
Google has bought plenty of companies , but they do n't buy out their competition in the search market , where they are dominant .
Youtube is not a search engine .
Keyhole is not a search engine .
Grandcentral is not a search engine.Google buys things to add entirely new services , not to discourage competition where they already dominate .
Google does not use anti-competitive tactics , which is why people tend to trust them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word here is "competition".
Google has bought plenty of companies, but they don't buy out their competition in the search market, where they are dominant.
Youtube is not a search engine.
Keyhole is not a search engine.
Grandcentral is not a search engine.Google buys things to add entirely new services, not to discourage competition where they already dominate.
Google does not use anti-competitive tactics, which is why people tend to trust them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520961</id>
	<title>The post office?</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1246274880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The Post Office has a monopoly. If you deliver mail you get arrested."</i> <br> <br>
Ever heard of FedEx?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Post Office has a monopoly .
If you deliver mail you get arrested .
" Ever heard of FedEx ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Post Office has a monopoly.
If you deliver mail you get arrested.
"  
Ever heard of FedEx?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28525189</id>
	<title>Re:Hi...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246393680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But wait, there's more! </p></div><p>I wish there was...
<br> <br>
RIP Billy Mays.
<br> <br>
What do you think he's trying to sell them in heaven? Maybe God could hire him to convince people that being good really is worth making it past St. Peter?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But wait , there 's more !
I wish there was.. . RIP Billy Mays .
What do you think he 's trying to sell them in heaven ?
Maybe God could hire him to convince people that being good really is worth making it past St. Peter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wait, there's more!
I wish there was...
 
RIP Billy Mays.
What do you think he's trying to sell them in heaven?
Maybe God could hire him to convince people that being good really is worth making it past St. Peter?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520989</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1246275060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is Google has absolutely no lockin?</p><p>Well, you are correct about that. The only reason you keep using Google stuff is the extra features over the competition.</p><p>What I dislike about Google's competitors is the tactics they use. Every few months (it seems) Microsoft releases an IE update that resets search providers and the default browser back to MSN/IE. Lately whenever I install programs, those installers try to set Ask.com or Yahoo to be the default search, and most of them try to install toolbar crap too. I support Google because they're the best, and they don't resort to tactics like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is Google has absolutely no lockin ? Well , you are correct about that .
The only reason you keep using Google stuff is the extra features over the competition.What I dislike about Google 's competitors is the tactics they use .
Every few months ( it seems ) Microsoft releases an IE update that resets search providers and the default browser back to MSN/IE .
Lately whenever I install programs , those installers try to set Ask.com or Yahoo to be the default search , and most of them try to install toolbar crap too .
I support Google because they 're the best , and they do n't resort to tactics like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is Google has absolutely no lockin?Well, you are correct about that.
The only reason you keep using Google stuff is the extra features over the competition.What I dislike about Google's competitors is the tactics they use.
Every few months (it seems) Microsoft releases an IE update that resets search providers and the default browser back to MSN/IE.
Lately whenever I install programs, those installers try to set Ask.com or Yahoo to be the default search, and most of them try to install toolbar crap too.
I support Google because they're the best, and they don't resort to tactics like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518921</id>
	<title>Float like a butterfly sting like a tack</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1246266900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, this is just Microsoft trying to throw everyone off their obvious continued anticompetitive monopolistic efforts.  Get you focused on someone else and they have a greater chance of being able to do all those things they want and not getting caught.</p><p>Microsoft is just dancing around hoping someone will fall on their butt while having some modicum of relief while everyone looks at the one that fell down.</p><p>Google is not anticompetitive.  There are no complaints that it is.  This is much different than holding hostage the industry to create a monopoly.  No one is alleging that Google has done anything of the sort.  Everyone that doesn't like Google's way of doing things can just click and go to any of a number of other search engines.</p><p>People chose Google not because they had no choice, they chose them because they were/are the best at what they do; which is to bring traffic to your business.</p><p>Windows became what it is because people and suppliers felt they didn't have a choice, and Microsoft's criminal activities tied them down.  Google has operated in the light of Microsoft's anticompetitive actions for the past 10 years and yet no one with oversight is claiming Google is anticompetitive or doing anything illegal.</p><p>Again, if you don't like Google then just find another search engine.  It's not Google's fault that the other search engine doesn't perform for you.</p><p>And for goodness sake you don't let someone who's a convicted criminal testify that you are committing the same crime you did all the while competing for that same domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , this is just Microsoft trying to throw everyone off their obvious continued anticompetitive monopolistic efforts .
Get you focused on someone else and they have a greater chance of being able to do all those things they want and not getting caught.Microsoft is just dancing around hoping someone will fall on their butt while having some modicum of relief while everyone looks at the one that fell down.Google is not anticompetitive .
There are no complaints that it is .
This is much different than holding hostage the industry to create a monopoly .
No one is alleging that Google has done anything of the sort .
Everyone that does n't like Google 's way of doing things can just click and go to any of a number of other search engines.People chose Google not because they had no choice , they chose them because they were/are the best at what they do ; which is to bring traffic to your business.Windows became what it is because people and suppliers felt they did n't have a choice , and Microsoft 's criminal activities tied them down .
Google has operated in the light of Microsoft 's anticompetitive actions for the past 10 years and yet no one with oversight is claiming Google is anticompetitive or doing anything illegal.Again , if you do n't like Google then just find another search engine .
It 's not Google 's fault that the other search engine does n't perform for you.And for goodness sake you do n't let someone who 's a convicted criminal testify that you are committing the same crime you did all the while competing for that same domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, this is just Microsoft trying to throw everyone off their obvious continued anticompetitive monopolistic efforts.
Get you focused on someone else and they have a greater chance of being able to do all those things they want and not getting caught.Microsoft is just dancing around hoping someone will fall on their butt while having some modicum of relief while everyone looks at the one that fell down.Google is not anticompetitive.
There are no complaints that it is.
This is much different than holding hostage the industry to create a monopoly.
No one is alleging that Google has done anything of the sort.
Everyone that doesn't like Google's way of doing things can just click and go to any of a number of other search engines.People chose Google not because they had no choice, they chose them because they were/are the best at what they do; which is to bring traffic to your business.Windows became what it is because people and suppliers felt they didn't have a choice, and Microsoft's criminal activities tied them down.
Google has operated in the light of Microsoft's anticompetitive actions for the past 10 years and yet no one with oversight is claiming Google is anticompetitive or doing anything illegal.Again, if you don't like Google then just find another search engine.
It's not Google's fault that the other search engine doesn't perform for you.And for goodness sake you don't let someone who's a convicted criminal testify that you are committing the same crime you did all the while competing for that same domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517159</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>MBoffin</author>
	<datestamp>1246303200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how strong my point will be here, since I haven't bothered to look up the data, but I wonder....</p><p>How many of the companies Google has bought out were publicly-traded companies? From first look, it doesn't seem like that many at all. And if that's the case, then the companies that <i>sold out</i> to Google, did so of their own volition and not because they were beholden to their public investors to make a decision that would make more money for the investors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how strong my point will be here , since I have n't bothered to look up the data , but I wonder....How many of the companies Google has bought out were publicly-traded companies ?
From first look , it does n't seem like that many at all .
And if that 's the case , then the companies that sold out to Google , did so of their own volition and not because they were beholden to their public investors to make a decision that would make more money for the investors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how strong my point will be here, since I haven't bothered to look up the data, but I wonder....How many of the companies Google has bought out were publicly-traded companies?
From first look, it doesn't seem like that many at all.
And if that's the case, then the companies that sold out to Google, did so of their own volition and not because they were beholden to their public investors to make a decision that would make more money for the investors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517207</id>
	<title>Too soon</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1246303380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on the guy only died yesterday.<br>
<a href="http://www.billymays.net/" title="billymays.net">http://www.billymays.net/</a> [billymays.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on the guy only died yesterday .
http : //www.billymays.net/ [ billymays.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on the guy only died yesterday.
http://www.billymays.net/ [billymays.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517135</id>
	<title>Google, what about not pushing it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246303080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, lets say Google is not that big, not evil but some people will be afraid from any company who has that kind of market share in information market.</p><p>So, people are a bit paranoid right? Human nature...</p><p>Why would that company ship a "updater" application/framework and code it in a way to run every 2 hours with (super user) Administrator powers on both Windows and OS X? Also, why wouldn`t it go away when all google apps removed? It is clear that you made the guy paranoid and guy got rid of all your software. You still push it by keeping the updater application (and its socket) open for 24 hours.</p><p>I hate to give Adobe as example but, even Adobe CS4 suite which people buy with their credit card, giving their phone and address to Adobe and pay more than thousand dollars runs updater application, in current user power only when the host applications (photoshop, reader etc) running.</p><p>I am speaking about paranoia here and it doesn`t really have to have a technical reason. People, especially Windows users are afraid of such behavior, ask any Windows developer out there. OS X users are not that paranoid yet but they are allergic to software needlessly using Admin powers. When OS X users ask, Google says "but our updater will also update kernel modules etc. in future", what a GREAT way to make guy totally nuts eh?</p><p>You really have a example in hand. Real Networks. Why repeat history? Also Real Networks isn`t running a huge search engine which easily finds personal data on web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , lets say Google is not that big , not evil but some people will be afraid from any company who has that kind of market share in information market.So , people are a bit paranoid right ?
Human nature...Why would that company ship a " updater " application/framework and code it in a way to run every 2 hours with ( super user ) Administrator powers on both Windows and OS X ?
Also , why wouldn ` t it go away when all google apps removed ?
It is clear that you made the guy paranoid and guy got rid of all your software .
You still push it by keeping the updater application ( and its socket ) open for 24 hours.I hate to give Adobe as example but , even Adobe CS4 suite which people buy with their credit card , giving their phone and address to Adobe and pay more than thousand dollars runs updater application , in current user power only when the host applications ( photoshop , reader etc ) running.I am speaking about paranoia here and it doesn ` t really have to have a technical reason .
People , especially Windows users are afraid of such behavior , ask any Windows developer out there .
OS X users are not that paranoid yet but they are allergic to software needlessly using Admin powers .
When OS X users ask , Google says " but our updater will also update kernel modules etc .
in future " , what a GREAT way to make guy totally nuts eh ? You really have a example in hand .
Real Networks .
Why repeat history ?
Also Real Networks isn ` t running a huge search engine which easily finds personal data on web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, lets say Google is not that big, not evil but some people will be afraid from any company who has that kind of market share in information market.So, people are a bit paranoid right?
Human nature...Why would that company ship a "updater" application/framework and code it in a way to run every 2 hours with (super user) Administrator powers on both Windows and OS X?
Also, why wouldn`t it go away when all google apps removed?
It is clear that you made the guy paranoid and guy got rid of all your software.
You still push it by keeping the updater application (and its socket) open for 24 hours.I hate to give Adobe as example but, even Adobe CS4 suite which people buy with their credit card, giving their phone and address to Adobe and pay more than thousand dollars runs updater application, in current user power only when the host applications (photoshop, reader etc) running.I am speaking about paranoia here and it doesn`t really have to have a technical reason.
People, especially Windows users are afraid of such behavior, ask any Windows developer out there.
OS X users are not that paranoid yet but they are allergic to software needlessly using Admin powers.
When OS X users ask, Google says "but our updater will also update kernel modules etc.
in future", what a GREAT way to make guy totally nuts eh?You really have a example in hand.
Real Networks.
Why repeat history?
Also Real Networks isn`t running a huge search engine which easily finds personal data on web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518633</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is a Click Away."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually open up google.com and search for "search engines" and google is number four.  interesting what they think about themselves.  number one is altavista followed by ask.com and dogpile.  However where they may have trouble as is noted is not with the search engine there does not seem to be concern about that.  the problem is with the advertising sold along side the search results.  if you want to show up on the page you have to pay what google wants to charge.  that is leveraging dominance in one market in another market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually open up google.com and search for " search engines " and google is number four .
interesting what they think about themselves .
number one is altavista followed by ask.com and dogpile .
However where they may have trouble as is noted is not with the search engine there does not seem to be concern about that .
the problem is with the advertising sold along side the search results .
if you want to show up on the page you have to pay what google wants to charge .
that is leveraging dominance in one market in another market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually open up google.com and search for "search engines" and google is number four.
interesting what they think about themselves.
number one is altavista followed by ask.com and dogpile.
However where they may have trouble as is noted is not with the search engine there does not seem to be concern about that.
the problem is with the advertising sold along side the search results.
if you want to show up on the page you have to pay what google wants to charge.
that is leveraging dominance in one market in another market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518349</id>
	<title>Get over it</title>
	<author>grendelkahn20001</author>
	<datestamp>1246308000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If people don' like google, DO NOT USE IT!!!! If the several other search sites can not give people what they want, it is not googles problem. Get over it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people don ' like google , DO NOT USE IT ! ! ! !
If the several other search sites can not give people what they want , it is not googles problem .
Get over it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people don' like google, DO NOT USE IT!!!!
If the several other search sites can not give people what they want, it is not googles problem.
Get over it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</id>
	<title>They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They only dominate the market because of one thing.</p><p>They made a search engine that works and doesn't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere!</p><p>Did google do anything to make all the other search engines suck ass?  No.</p><p>Did google buy out the competition so they were #1?   No.</p><p>Google just made a good service people CHOOSE to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They only dominate the market because of one thing.They made a search engine that works and does n't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere ! Did google do anything to make all the other search engines suck ass ?
No.Did google buy out the competition so they were # 1 ?
No.Google just made a good service people CHOOSE to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They only dominate the market because of one thing.They made a search engine that works and doesn't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere!Did google do anything to make all the other search engines suck ass?
No.Did google buy out the competition so they were #1?
No.Google just made a good service people CHOOSE to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28534275</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though I use Linux daily, I still <b>have</b> to use Windows at <b>work</b> and at home if I want to play the latest <b>game</b>.</p></div><p>Your jobs ROCKS!<br>(Don't get caught)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I use Linux daily , I still have to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game.Your jobs ROCKS !
( Do n't get caught )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I use Linux daily, I still have to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game.Your jobs ROCKS!
(Don't get caught)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518899</id>
	<title>Re:they're not that big by most measures</title>
	<author>elmartinos</author>
	<datestamp>1246266780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about number of letters?</p><p>3 letters for IBM<br>6 letters for Google<br>9 letters for Microsoft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about number of letters ? 3 letters for IBM6 letters for Google9 letters for Microsoft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about number of letters?3 letters for IBM6 letters for Google9 letters for Microsoft</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677</id>
	<title>The alternative is much worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's better than having a software monopolist tying their awful search engine into all their products and becoming number one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's better than having a software monopolist tying their awful search engine into all their products and becoming number one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's better than having a software monopolist tying their awful search engine into all their products and becoming number one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517027</id>
	<title>Re:they're not that big by most measures</title>
	<author>Freetardo Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1246302720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in what percentile of all corporations do they fall under with those stats? 99.999999999999999999th percentile?  To claim that they "aren't that big" just because they are behind IBM or Microsoft is an asinine argument when they are probably bigger than more than 99.99+\% of all US businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in what percentile of all corporations do they fall under with those stats ?
99.999999999999999999th percentile ?
To claim that they " are n't that big " just because they are behind IBM or Microsoft is an asinine argument when they are probably bigger than more than 99.99 + \ % of all US businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in what percentile of all corporations do they fall under with those stats?
99.999999999999999999th percentile?
To claim that they "aren't that big" just because they are behind IBM or Microsoft is an asinine argument when they are probably bigger than more than 99.99+\% of all US businesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517571</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1246304700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree with the coward, this time.  There are more than a dozen search engines out there, all of them trying to install themselves with each browser I download and install.  At least a dozen try to give me a freaking toolbar - I think that Yahoo and Ask are the two worst offenders.  I always just unclick the radio button, and tell them to go away.  Even when I run IE, I set my default to Google.  Who needs any of the rest of them?  If/when I actually need one, I can enter the freaking address myself, or I can Google for the address.</p><p>All the rest of them can just bite my bling bing bling.  If they want market share, they need to offer something as good as, or better than, what Google offers.  Til then, bling bing bling all of them, and the donkeys they rode up on as well!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with the coward , this time .
There are more than a dozen search engines out there , all of them trying to install themselves with each browser I download and install .
At least a dozen try to give me a freaking toolbar - I think that Yahoo and Ask are the two worst offenders .
I always just unclick the radio button , and tell them to go away .
Even when I run IE , I set my default to Google .
Who needs any of the rest of them ?
If/when I actually need one , I can enter the freaking address myself , or I can Google for the address.All the rest of them can just bite my bling bing bling .
If they want market share , they need to offer something as good as , or better than , what Google offers .
Til then , bling bing bling all of them , and the donkeys they rode up on as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with the coward, this time.
There are more than a dozen search engines out there, all of them trying to install themselves with each browser I download and install.
At least a dozen try to give me a freaking toolbar - I think that Yahoo and Ask are the two worst offenders.
I always just unclick the radio button, and tell them to go away.
Even when I run IE, I set my default to Google.
Who needs any of the rest of them?
If/when I actually need one, I can enter the freaking address myself, or I can Google for the address.All the rest of them can just bite my bling bing bling.
If they want market share, they need to offer something as good as, or better than, what Google offers.
Til then, bling bing bling all of them, and the donkeys they rode up on as well!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518785</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Open Office and Google Docs aren't suitable alternatives to MS Office?  It's not like you can convert MS documents to other formats...Oh wait!...no, you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Open Office and Google Docs are n't suitable alternatives to MS Office ?
It 's not like you can convert MS documents to other formats...Oh wait ! ...no , you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Open Office and Google Docs aren't suitable alternatives to MS Office?
It's not like you can convert MS documents to other formats...Oh wait!...no, you can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516759</id>
	<title>Competition is a Click Away."</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"competition is a click away."</i> <br> <br>
Yeah, just type the word competition in the search field and click on the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" competition is a click away .
" Yeah , just type the word competition in the search field and click on the " I 'm Feeling Lucky " button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"competition is a click away.
"  
Yeah, just type the word competition in the search field and click on the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517063</id>
	<title>If you have to tell us...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have to tell us that there is competition, then really there isn't any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to tell us that there is competition , then really there is n't any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to tell us that there is competition, then really there isn't any.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517685</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1246305240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google buys out the competition</p></div></blockquote><p>Except that all of your examples are not Google buying out competition, but Google buying out pioneers in new market spaces in which it does not yet operate.</p><p>Which is not the same as buying out the competition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google buys out the competitionExcept that all of your examples are not Google buying out competition , but Google buying out pioneers in new market spaces in which it does not yet operate.Which is not the same as buying out the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google buys out the competitionExcept that all of your examples are not Google buying out competition, but Google buying out pioneers in new market spaces in which it does not yet operate.Which is not the same as buying out the competition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521901</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>maglor\_83</author>
	<datestamp>1246279800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this is not a monopoly, as any search engine could do something similar</p></div><p>It is still a monopoly as long as it has a vast majority of the market share. This doesn't change just because it can be improved, only when the market share changes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is not a monopoly , as any search engine could do something similarIt is still a monopoly as long as it has a vast majority of the market share .
This does n't change just because it can be improved , only when the market share changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is not a monopoly, as any search engine could do something similarIt is still a monopoly as long as it has a vast majority of the market share.
This doesn't change just because it can be improved, only when the market share changes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520137</id>
	<title>Re:Google, what about not pushing it?</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1246271040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does go away if you uninstall Google software. It'll take a few hours for it to wake up and notice that all the software it's meant to update has gone, but it will leave eventually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does go away if you uninstall Google software .
It 'll take a few hours for it to wake up and notice that all the software it 's meant to update has gone , but it will leave eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does go away if you uninstall Google software.
It'll take a few hours for it to wake up and notice that all the software it's meant to update has gone, but it will leave eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517017</id>
	<title>Re:That's Weird, Because Fiscally ...</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1246302720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree.</p><p>Warning: Obvious Anecdote Ahead:</p><p>If you add to that a majority of sites I visit have Google Analytics and many of those have Google Syndication.  I know this because I have those scripts blocked.  I know this has nothing necessarily to do with spiders finding and ranking sites, but it does tie into the Google machine.  I have no doubt that Google analyzes and uses that data.  Google is integral to sites getting noticed and getting hits.</p><p>I don't see sites having to integrated any other search engines scripts.  I don't have to block Bing, Hotbot, Lycos, Alta Vista, or any of those other old search engines that virtually no one uses anymore.</p><p>Google is ubiquitous with the web the way Microsoft is with the desktop and IBM is with servers.  Just because their numbers aren't as big as the other two, in their respective domains, doesn't mean they aren't top dog on the internet, miles above everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree.Warning : Obvious Anecdote Ahead : If you add to that a majority of sites I visit have Google Analytics and many of those have Google Syndication .
I know this because I have those scripts blocked .
I know this has nothing necessarily to do with spiders finding and ranking sites , but it does tie into the Google machine .
I have no doubt that Google analyzes and uses that data .
Google is integral to sites getting noticed and getting hits.I do n't see sites having to integrated any other search engines scripts .
I do n't have to block Bing , Hotbot , Lycos , Alta Vista , or any of those other old search engines that virtually no one uses anymore.Google is ubiquitous with the web the way Microsoft is with the desktop and IBM is with servers .
Just because their numbers are n't as big as the other two , in their respective domains , does n't mean they are n't top dog on the internet , miles above everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree.Warning: Obvious Anecdote Ahead:If you add to that a majority of sites I visit have Google Analytics and many of those have Google Syndication.
I know this because I have those scripts blocked.
I know this has nothing necessarily to do with spiders finding and ranking sites, but it does tie into the Google machine.
I have no doubt that Google analyzes and uses that data.
Google is integral to sites getting noticed and getting hits.I don't see sites having to integrated any other search engines scripts.
I don't have to block Bing, Hotbot, Lycos, Alta Vista, or any of those other old search engines that virtually no one uses anymore.Google is ubiquitous with the web the way Microsoft is with the desktop and IBM is with servers.
Just because their numbers aren't as big as the other two, in their respective domains, doesn't mean they aren't top dog on the internet, miles above everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517889</id>
	<title>Hey, how's myspace doing?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246306140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty true.  Google destroyed altavista pretty quickly when altavista was the "cool" search engine out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty true .
Google destroyed altavista pretty quickly when altavista was the " cool " search engine out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty true.
Google destroyed altavista pretty quickly when altavista was the "cool" search engine out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516929</id>
	<title>Re:The alternative is much worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>jkjk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>jkjk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jkjk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517675</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhat</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246305240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And one other thing: they're absolutely right to be somewhat modest.  Why?  Yahoo was the unseat-able champion of search when they came along.  There were a raft of other options, too.  Lycos, Altavista, and more.  Google came along with, well, a cleaner interface, really, and suddenly they took over from all those places which had previously been vying to be the one-stop shop for all your Internet needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And one other thing : they 're absolutely right to be somewhat modest .
Why ? Yahoo was the unseat-able champion of search when they came along .
There were a raft of other options , too .
Lycos , Altavista , and more .
Google came along with , well , a cleaner interface , really , and suddenly they took over from all those places which had previously been vying to be the one-stop shop for all your Internet needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And one other thing: they're absolutely right to be somewhat modest.
Why?  Yahoo was the unseat-able champion of search when they came along.
There were a raft of other options, too.
Lycos, Altavista, and more.
Google came along with, well, a cleaner interface, really, and suddenly they took over from all those places which had previously been vying to be the one-stop shop for all your Internet needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517193</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1246303380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I agree with the statement that Google has not been anticompetitive AND with the statement that competition is "only a click away"*, Google does one thing that still makes them a large company on the order of Microsoft:</p><p> <b>Google buys out the competition</b> </p><p>Mergers and acquisitions are a matter of course for the technology industry. But when you build your portfolio by simply buying off the leader in a new market space, then you become a holding corporation. That's been the mark of Microsoft for two decades now and it's become the mark of Google as well. Google Groups (DejaNews), Google Docs (Writely), Youtube, Google Analytics (Urchin), Android, etc. all testify to this.</p><p>While I'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors, it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets. And that... that is a damning argument against their "we're not that big" statement.</p><p>* Ignoring the competitive advantage of Google's massive infrastructure for a moment.</p></div><p>Don't forget Google Earth (Keyhole), Google Privacy Invasion and Total Advertising Monopolization (Doubleclick), Picasa (Idealab), and SketchUp (@Last Software).</p><p>G's changes to purchased software aren't always for the better.  They improved Dejanews by indexing a lot of older posts that weren't previously covered, but they also made the search function less effective.  They made it easier to block web tracking by reducing the number of sites that need to be blacklisted (with the absorption of Doubleclick), but they then tied the data they collect to their own vast database of evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with the statement that Google has not been anticompetitive AND with the statement that competition is " only a click away " * , Google does one thing that still makes them a large company on the order of Microsoft : Google buys out the competition Mergers and acquisitions are a matter of course for the technology industry .
But when you build your portfolio by simply buying off the leader in a new market space , then you become a holding corporation .
That 's been the mark of Microsoft for two decades now and it 's become the mark of Google as well .
Google Groups ( DejaNews ) , Google Docs ( Writely ) , Youtube , Google Analytics ( Urchin ) , Android , etc .
all testify to this.While I 'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors , it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets .
And that... that is a damning argument against their " we 're not that big " statement .
* Ignoring the competitive advantage of Google 's massive infrastructure for a moment.Do n't forget Google Earth ( Keyhole ) , Google Privacy Invasion and Total Advertising Monopolization ( Doubleclick ) , Picasa ( Idealab ) , and SketchUp ( @ Last Software ) .G 's changes to purchased software are n't always for the better .
They improved Dejanews by indexing a lot of older posts that were n't previously covered , but they also made the search function less effective .
They made it easier to block web tracking by reducing the number of sites that need to be blacklisted ( with the absorption of Doubleclick ) , but they then tied the data they collect to their own vast database of evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with the statement that Google has not been anticompetitive AND with the statement that competition is "only a click away"*, Google does one thing that still makes them a large company on the order of Microsoft: Google buys out the competition Mergers and acquisitions are a matter of course for the technology industry.
But when you build your portfolio by simply buying off the leader in a new market space, then you become a holding corporation.
That's been the mark of Microsoft for two decades now and it's become the mark of Google as well.
Google Groups (DejaNews), Google Docs (Writely), Youtube, Google Analytics (Urchin), Android, etc.
all testify to this.While I'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors, it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets.
And that... that is a damning argument against their "we're not that big" statement.
* Ignoring the competitive advantage of Google's massive infrastructure for a moment.Don't forget Google Earth (Keyhole), Google Privacy Invasion and Total Advertising Monopolization (Doubleclick), Picasa (Idealab), and SketchUp (@Last Software).G's changes to purchased software aren't always for the better.
They improved Dejanews by indexing a lot of older posts that weren't previously covered, but they also made the search function less effective.
They made it easier to block web tracking by reducing the number of sites that need to be blacklisted (with the absorption of Doubleclick), but they then tied the data they collect to their own vast database of evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516979</id>
	<title>We'le Vely Smarr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google: "Googlee-uh penis-ah vely smarr. Amelican Govelnment penis-ah so big... sooo big."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : " Googlee-uh penis-ah vely smarr .
Amelican Govelnment penis-ah so big... sooo big .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: "Googlee-uh penis-ah vely smarr.
Amelican Govelnment penis-ah so big... sooo big.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517719</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1246305360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HA!<br>Do you know where Google Earth came from?<br>Youtube?<br>What about Google Voice?</p><p>Google NEVER buys anyone out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HA ! Do you know where Google Earth came from ? Youtube ? What about Google Voice ? Google NEVER buys anyone out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HA!Do you know where Google Earth came from?Youtube?What about Google Voice?Google NEVER buys anyone out!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28589047</id>
	<title>Books</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1246792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is about to own a monopoly on all published books.  This is a concern of anti-trust lawyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is about to own a monopoly on all published books .
This is a concern of anti-trust lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is about to own a monopoly on all published books.
This is a concern of anti-trust lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517183</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246303320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if everyone in the world stopped using their search engine tomorrow, their advertising network is still huge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if everyone in the world stopped using their search engine tomorrow , their advertising network is still huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if everyone in the world stopped using their search engine tomorrow, their advertising network is still huge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520039</id>
	<title>Re:Must have?</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1246270740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Naver isn't exactly a search engine per se. It's really a questions and answer service. It solved the problem the Korean market had at the time, which was that there wasn't much on the web written in Korean. Unfortunately they robots.txt out all their content so they are the only ones that can search it, thus Naver is the de-facto search engine in Korea now because they "own" peoples questions and answers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Naver is n't exactly a search engine per se .
It 's really a questions and answer service .
It solved the problem the Korean market had at the time , which was that there was n't much on the web written in Korean .
Unfortunately they robots.txt out all their content so they are the only ones that can search it , thus Naver is the de-facto search engine in Korea now because they " own " peoples questions and answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naver isn't exactly a search engine per se.
It's really a questions and answer service.
It solved the problem the Korean market had at the time, which was that there wasn't much on the web written in Korean.
Unfortunately they robots.txt out all their content so they are the only ones that can search it, thus Naver is the de-facto search engine in Korea now because they "own" peoples questions and answers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519349</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may buy companies but I cant think of a company that they bought that was wildly successfully before they bought it(other than youtube). And even if you count youtube you need to take into consideration that youtube was being sued at the time for a large amount of money. Plus if google wanted to act like a monopoly they would be making google video search only search google sites and not all the other video sharing websites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may buy companies but I cant think of a company that they bought that was wildly successfully before they bought it ( other than youtube ) .
And even if you count youtube you need to take into consideration that youtube was being sued at the time for a large amount of money .
Plus if google wanted to act like a monopoly they would be making google video search only search google sites and not all the other video sharing websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may buy companies but I cant think of a company that they bought that was wildly successfully before they bought it(other than youtube).
And even if you count youtube you need to take into consideration that youtube was being sued at the time for a large amount of money.
Plus if google wanted to act like a monopoly they would be making google video search only search google sites and not all the other video sharing websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518761</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>philgross</author>
	<datestamp>1246266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google did maps, it was okay but not #1, they bought Keyhole(now google earth) and advanced their tech to become #1</p></div></blockquote><p>

They hired the guys who made the Google Maps precursor, but it was a separate acquisition (and technology) from Keyhole / Google Earth.  They only recently got the two systems to use the same imagery data, I think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google did maps , it was okay but not # 1 , they bought Keyhole ( now google earth ) and advanced their tech to become # 1 They hired the guys who made the Google Maps precursor , but it was a separate acquisition ( and technology ) from Keyhole / Google Earth .
They only recently got the two systems to use the same imagery data , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google did maps, it was okay but not #1, they bought Keyhole(now google earth) and advanced their tech to become #1

They hired the guys who made the Google Maps precursor, but it was a separate acquisition (and technology) from Keyhole / Google Earth.
They only recently got the two systems to use the same imagery data, I think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519393</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1246268580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked you could use Bing or Yahoo for search.  I think that most people still use Google for one big reason. It doesn't suck.  If a product doesn't suck it is very hard to get them to move to another product even if it is better.<br>Heck Bing might be better but it isn't worth my time to change to it.  Google got where it is because it is a good service. Now the product that they sell is different. They sell ads and there you do have some real competition with FaceBook selling ads.  A lot of people spend a lot of time on FaceBook.<br>So I do not see it as a target for anti-trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked you could use Bing or Yahoo for search .
I think that most people still use Google for one big reason .
It does n't suck .
If a product does n't suck it is very hard to get them to move to another product even if it is better.Heck Bing might be better but it is n't worth my time to change to it .
Google got where it is because it is a good service .
Now the product that they sell is different .
They sell ads and there you do have some real competition with FaceBook selling ads .
A lot of people spend a lot of time on FaceBook.So I do not see it as a target for anti-trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked you could use Bing or Yahoo for search.
I think that most people still use Google for one big reason.
It doesn't suck.
If a product doesn't suck it is very hard to get them to move to another product even if it is better.Heck Bing might be better but it isn't worth my time to change to it.
Google got where it is because it is a good service.
Now the product that they sell is different.
They sell ads and there you do have some real competition with FaceBook selling ads.
A lot of people spend a lot of time on FaceBook.So I do not see it as a target for anti-trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516839</id>
	<title>What's their motto?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't\_be\_evil" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't\_be\_evil</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>They have certainly come a long way.  They have become too big, powerful and evil.  I have actually gone back to Yahoo, out of principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do n't \ _be \ _evil [ wikipedia.org ] They have certainly come a long way .
They have become too big , powerful and evil .
I have actually gone back to Yahoo , out of principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't\_be\_evil [wikipedia.org]They have certainly come a long way.
They have become too big, powerful and evil.
I have actually gone back to Yahoo, out of principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520913</id>
	<title>Re:The alternative is much worse</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1246274700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeedy. Google <i>is</i> a little guy, relatively speaking. That they're doing so well is a testament to their service and constant innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeedy .
Google is a little guy , relatively speaking .
That they 're doing so well is a testament to their service and constant innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeedy.
Google is a little guy, relatively speaking.
That they're doing so well is a testament to their service and constant innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517683</id>
	<title>Re:What's their motto?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246305240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friends, don't allow friends to yahoo.  Take the keys, steal the distributor, do SOMETHING.  Yahoo has no principles (or principals either).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friends , do n't allow friends to yahoo .
Take the keys , steal the distributor , do SOMETHING .
Yahoo has no principles ( or principals either ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friends, don't allow friends to yahoo.
Take the keys, steal the distributor, do SOMETHING.
Yahoo has no principles (or principals either).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783</id>
	<title>Must have?</title>
	<author>tenverras</author>
	<datestamp>1246301820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>a must have? Then why is it that every one of my Korean friends say that Google isn't as popular in Korea, which has been confirmed by friends that have gone there to teach and returned, and that the primary search engine used is Naver? It is a little difficult to see what all Naver offers without understanding Korean, but if Naver was to offer an english variant of all the services it offers, it would be a strong competitor to Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a must have ?
Then why is it that every one of my Korean friends say that Google is n't as popular in Korea , which has been confirmed by friends that have gone there to teach and returned , and that the primary search engine used is Naver ?
It is a little difficult to see what all Naver offers without understanding Korean , but if Naver was to offer an english variant of all the services it offers , it would be a strong competitor to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a must have?
Then why is it that every one of my Korean friends say that Google isn't as popular in Korea, which has been confirmed by friends that have gone there to teach and returned, and that the primary search engine used is Naver?
It is a little difficult to see what all Naver offers without understanding Korean, but if Naver was to offer an english variant of all the services it offers, it would be a strong competitor to Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520981</id>
	<title>Re:The alternative is much worse</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1246275000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, why is it better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , why is it better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, why is it better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517605</id>
	<title>Re:they're not that big by most measures</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246304880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Market cap is meaningless. It's what you can convince one idiot to pay for a share multiplied by the number of shares. It includes, not just the revenue in, but the value of any assets as well as the incredibly difficult to value cost of any IP they have. If Google were trading at a fair value, it would probably be a little over half that large. People are paying for impossible growth.<br> <br>

Worse still is that you couldn't liquidate the shares of any of those companies for anywhere near that amount of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Market cap is meaningless .
It 's what you can convince one idiot to pay for a share multiplied by the number of shares .
It includes , not just the revenue in , but the value of any assets as well as the incredibly difficult to value cost of any IP they have .
If Google were trading at a fair value , it would probably be a little over half that large .
People are paying for impossible growth .
Worse still is that you could n't liquidate the shares of any of those companies for anywhere near that amount of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Market cap is meaningless.
It's what you can convince one idiot to pay for a share multiplied by the number of shares.
It includes, not just the revenue in, but the value of any assets as well as the incredibly difficult to value cost of any IP they have.
If Google were trading at a fair value, it would probably be a little over half that large.
People are paying for impossible growth.
Worse still is that you couldn't liquidate the shares of any of those companies for anywhere near that amount of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</id>
	<title>Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with the statement that Google has not been anticompetitive AND with the statement that competition is "only a click away"*, Google does one thing that still makes them a large company on the order of Microsoft:</p><p><b>Google buys out the competition</b></p><p>Mergers and acquisitions are a matter of course for the technology industry. But when you build your portfolio by simply buying off the leader in a new market space, then you become a holding corporation. That's been the mark of Microsoft for two decades now and it's become the mark of Google as well. Google Groups (DejaNews), Google Docs (Writely), Youtube, Google Analytics (Urchin), Android, etc. all testify to this.</p><p>While I'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors, it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets. And that... that is a damning argument against their "we're not that big" statement.</p><p>* Ignoring the competitive advantage of Google's massive infrastructure for a moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with the statement that Google has not been anticompetitive AND with the statement that competition is " only a click away " * , Google does one thing that still makes them a large company on the order of Microsoft : Google buys out the competitionMergers and acquisitions are a matter of course for the technology industry .
But when you build your portfolio by simply buying off the leader in a new market space , then you become a holding corporation .
That 's been the mark of Microsoft for two decades now and it 's become the mark of Google as well .
Google Groups ( DejaNews ) , Google Docs ( Writely ) , Youtube , Google Analytics ( Urchin ) , Android , etc .
all testify to this.While I 'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors , it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets .
And that... that is a damning argument against their " we 're not that big " statement .
* Ignoring the competitive advantage of Google 's massive infrastructure for a moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with the statement that Google has not been anticompetitive AND with the statement that competition is "only a click away"*, Google does one thing that still makes them a large company on the order of Microsoft:Google buys out the competitionMergers and acquisitions are a matter of course for the technology industry.
But when you build your portfolio by simply buying off the leader in a new market space, then you become a holding corporation.
That's been the mark of Microsoft for two decades now and it's become the mark of Google as well.
Google Groups (DejaNews), Google Docs (Writely), Youtube, Google Analytics (Urchin), Android, etc.
all testify to this.While I'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors, it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets.
And that... that is a damning argument against their "we're not that big" statement.
* Ignoring the competitive advantage of Google's massive infrastructure for a moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520903</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246274640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>::Did google buy out the competition</p><p>&gt;&gt;Google did google video, it wasnt doing well, they bought Youtube and are now #1.</p><p>&gt;&gt;Google did maps, it was okay but not #1, they bought Keyhole(now google earth) and advanced their tech to become #1</p><p>&gt;&gt;They've also bought sketchup, grandcentral(google voice), and a few other smaller projects with varying success.</p><p>None of the things you cite were actually competing with google.  Save youtube.  And thats a big IF.  since youtube was just popular.  but not a viable business.   youtube wasnt a traded company either.  stockholders didnt push them into selling out to google.  they could have said no.   the same can be said for all the companys you cite.  none of them HAD to sell to google.  they could have all said no.</p><p>Buying new products and companys to get into other markets does NOT equal buying out the competition to shut them down the way microsoft has many many many times.</p><p>One is a good thing the world should actually encourage.  The other is the microsoft way and we should really stop that crap from happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: : Did google buy out the competition &gt; &gt; Google did google video , it wasnt doing well , they bought Youtube and are now # 1. &gt; &gt; Google did maps , it was okay but not # 1 , they bought Keyhole ( now google earth ) and advanced their tech to become # 1 &gt; &gt; They 've also bought sketchup , grandcentral ( google voice ) , and a few other smaller projects with varying success.None of the things you cite were actually competing with google .
Save youtube .
And thats a big IF .
since youtube was just popular .
but not a viable business .
youtube wasnt a traded company either .
stockholders didnt push them into selling out to google .
they could have said no .
the same can be said for all the companys you cite .
none of them HAD to sell to google .
they could have all said no.Buying new products and companys to get into other markets does NOT equal buying out the competition to shut them down the way microsoft has many many many times.One is a good thing the world should actually encourage .
The other is the microsoft way and we should really stop that crap from happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>::Did google buy out the competition&gt;&gt;Google did google video, it wasnt doing well, they bought Youtube and are now #1.&gt;&gt;Google did maps, it was okay but not #1, they bought Keyhole(now google earth) and advanced their tech to become #1&gt;&gt;They've also bought sketchup, grandcentral(google voice), and a few other smaller projects with varying success.None of the things you cite were actually competing with google.
Save youtube.
And thats a big IF.
since youtube was just popular.
but not a viable business.
youtube wasnt a traded company either.
stockholders didnt push them into selling out to google.
they could have said no.
the same can be said for all the companys you cite.
none of them HAD to sell to google.
they could have all said no.Buying new products and companys to get into other markets does NOT equal buying out the competition to shut them down the way microsoft has many many many times.One is a good thing the world should actually encourage.
The other is the microsoft way and we should really stop that crap from happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516695</id>
	<title>"competition is a click away."</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1246301460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So did Google pay Microsoft to make Bing, a la Microsoft and Apple?<p><div class="quote"><p>Slow Down Cowboy!<br>
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.<br>
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment</p></div><p>But, but... I almost had first post!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So did Google pay Microsoft to make Bing , a la Microsoft and Apple ? Slow Down Cowboy !
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment .
It 's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a commentBut , but... I almost had first post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So did Google pay Microsoft to make Bing, a la Microsoft and Apple?Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a commentBut, but... I almost had first post!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517673</id>
	<title>Re:Must have?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246305240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it's in a language that deviates greatly from the Western European character set and it's a small market. I have no doubt that they could do better, I'm just not sure how much time effort they're willing to allocate to the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's in a language that deviates greatly from the Western European character set and it 's a small market .
I have no doubt that they could do better , I 'm just not sure how much time effort they 're willing to allocate to the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's in a language that deviates greatly from the Western European character set and it's a small market.
I have no doubt that they could do better, I'm just not sure how much time effort they're willing to allocate to the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517485</id>
	<title>It's true!</title>
	<author>htwf\_and\_ip</author>
	<datestamp>1246304400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A quick google search for "Big, Monopolistic Search Engines who crush competition" comes up with one response:<br>
www.bing.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick google search for " Big , Monopolistic Search Engines who crush competition " comes up with one response : www.bing.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick google search for "Big, Monopolistic Search Engines who crush competition" comes up with one response:
www.bing.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517339</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1246303860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you watch video on Hulu or any of the other major video sites without installing Google software on your PC?  Yes.  Just because they own the domain name doesn't mean you are tied to use their service.  You can always use one of the other online document services as well.  You are not bound by the fact that you have to run Google specific software to operate competitively in this world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you watch video on Hulu or any of the other major video sites without installing Google software on your PC ?
Yes. Just because they own the domain name does n't mean you are tied to use their service .
You can always use one of the other online document services as well .
You are not bound by the fact that you have to run Google specific software to operate competitively in this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you watch video on Hulu or any of the other major video sites without installing Google software on your PC?
Yes.  Just because they own the domain name doesn't mean you are tied to use their service.
You can always use one of the other online document services as well.
You are not bound by the fact that you have to run Google specific software to operate competitively in this world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520679</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1246273440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand how that's a bad thing, actually, whether Microsoft or Google do it.
<br> <br>
Smaller companies are more nimble, they can afford to make mistakes or radically adjust product lines.  At the end of the day the worst that happens is they burn through their VC.  Google on the other hand has huge assets to lose, a reputation/brand to protect, and many avenues of business to keep employees focused on.
<br> <br>
So, while Google *could* innovate by doing something new in house (Google Wave anyone?), they're more efficient when they let the little guy develop the market, and then purchase, refine, and integrate it when it becomes a plausible product.  I understand how Slashdotters may not see anything but bare-handed engineering to be innovation, but business decisions can be as well.
<br> <br>
And, yes, that means Google is a big company.  They should man up and admit it, even if they are still youngsters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how that 's a bad thing , actually , whether Microsoft or Google do it .
Smaller companies are more nimble , they can afford to make mistakes or radically adjust product lines .
At the end of the day the worst that happens is they burn through their VC .
Google on the other hand has huge assets to lose , a reputation/brand to protect , and many avenues of business to keep employees focused on .
So , while Google * could * innovate by doing something new in house ( Google Wave anyone ?
) , they 're more efficient when they let the little guy develop the market , and then purchase , refine , and integrate it when it becomes a plausible product .
I understand how Slashdotters may not see anything but bare-handed engineering to be innovation , but business decisions can be as well .
And , yes , that means Google is a big company .
They should man up and admit it , even if they are still youngsters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how that's a bad thing, actually, whether Microsoft or Google do it.
Smaller companies are more nimble, they can afford to make mistakes or radically adjust product lines.
At the end of the day the worst that happens is they burn through their VC.
Google on the other hand has huge assets to lose, a reputation/brand to protect, and many avenues of business to keep employees focused on.
So, while Google *could* innovate by doing something new in house (Google Wave anyone?
), they're more efficient when they let the little guy develop the market, and then purchase, refine, and integrate it when it becomes a plausible product.
I understand how Slashdotters may not see anything but bare-handed engineering to be innovation, but business decisions can be as well.
And, yes, that means Google is a big company.
They should man up and admit it, even if they are still youngsters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28522323</id>
	<title>Re:Google is *not* that big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246281960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search, google docs was the default productivity package, chrome was the default browser, then maybe you would have a case.</p> </div><p>They do exactly that -- with ad distribution (AdSense)  (AOL, Ask, myspace, they tried with Yahoo! and were blocked by DOJ, toolbars, error pages ) -- all exclusive deals.  If a user is doing a search anywhere on the internet, most likely the ads are coming from google.  Many of these deals forbid using any other search as provider, even on other properties [Exclusivity].  Many of these deals also force the use of other Google products such as licensing the search results themselves [Bundling].</p><p>This drives all the advertisers to Google (adwords), since they are the only one that can deliver the volume of traffic.  This in turn drives / keeps the publishers with Google, since no other ad provider can support the prices, or fill the query volume with ads (due to insufficient ad budget)[Network Effects].  Now what is happening is google is placing pressure on all these publishers for worse economic terms.[Monopolistic Pricing].</p><p>A whole separate topic are concepts like "smart pricing" and "quality scores" which have been used punatively to shut companies out of markets by cutting off their revenue sources -- several current lawsuits about this. [Predatory Behavior]</p><p>Exclusivity, Bundling, Network Effects, Monopolistic Pricing, and Predatory Behavior -- definitely the right components for DOJ review.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM 's that their default search engine was google search , google docs was the default productivity package , chrome was the default browser , then maybe you would have a case .
They do exactly that -- with ad distribution ( AdSense ) ( AOL , Ask , myspace , they tried with Yahoo !
and were blocked by DOJ , toolbars , error pages ) -- all exclusive deals .
If a user is doing a search anywhere on the internet , most likely the ads are coming from google .
Many of these deals forbid using any other search as provider , even on other properties [ Exclusivity ] .
Many of these deals also force the use of other Google products such as licensing the search results themselves [ Bundling ] .This drives all the advertisers to Google ( adwords ) , since they are the only one that can deliver the volume of traffic .
This in turn drives / keeps the publishers with Google , since no other ad provider can support the prices , or fill the query volume with ads ( due to insufficient ad budget ) [ Network Effects ] .
Now what is happening is google is placing pressure on all these publishers for worse economic terms .
[ Monopolistic Pricing ] .A whole separate topic are concepts like " smart pricing " and " quality scores " which have been used punatively to shut companies out of markets by cutting off their revenue sources -- several current lawsuits about this .
[ Predatory Behavior ] Exclusivity , Bundling , Network Effects , Monopolistic Pricing , and Predatory Behavior -- definitely the right components for DOJ review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search, google docs was the default productivity package, chrome was the default browser, then maybe you would have a case.
They do exactly that -- with ad distribution (AdSense)  (AOL, Ask, myspace, they tried with Yahoo!
and were blocked by DOJ, toolbars, error pages ) -- all exclusive deals.
If a user is doing a search anywhere on the internet, most likely the ads are coming from google.
Many of these deals forbid using any other search as provider, even on other properties [Exclusivity].
Many of these deals also force the use of other Google products such as licensing the search results themselves [Bundling].This drives all the advertisers to Google (adwords), since they are the only one that can deliver the volume of traffic.
This in turn drives / keeps the publishers with Google, since no other ad provider can support the prices, or fill the query volume with ads (due to insufficient ad budget)[Network Effects].
Now what is happening is google is placing pressure on all these publishers for worse economic terms.
[Monopolistic Pricing].A whole separate topic are concepts like "smart pricing" and "quality scores" which have been used punatively to shut companies out of markets by cutting off their revenue sources -- several current lawsuits about this.
[Predatory Behavior]Exclusivity, Bundling, Network Effects, Monopolistic Pricing, and Predatory Behavior -- definitely the right components for DOJ review.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518395</id>
	<title>Re:The alternative is much worse</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246308120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does that make it good?</p><p>It's like saying, Saddam is a nice man, because he was not as bad as Hitler. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but how does that make it good ? It 's like saying , Saddam is a nice man , because he was not as bad as Hitler .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does that make it good?It's like saying, Saddam is a nice man, because he was not as bad as Hitler.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516753</id>
	<title>Everyone already knows Slashdot isn't big</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1246301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're huge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're huge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518335</id>
	<title>MJ vs BM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246307940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it funny how everyone is taking the deaths of Billy Mays vs Michael Jackson.<br>
&nbsp; Jackson was an artist and a subversive while Billy Mays was a salesman!<br>Democracy reveals the American belief in subversion through stark contrast.<br>But jealousy and greed, human flaws which are implicit(according to American philosophy) and practically virtues! Billy was in contention for the greatest salesman of all time!<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; Oh shit, existential hypocritical crisis!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it funny how everyone is taking the deaths of Billy Mays vs Michael Jackson .
  Jackson was an artist and a subversive while Billy Mays was a salesman ! Democracy reveals the American belief in subversion through stark contrast.But jealousy and greed , human flaws which are implicit ( according to American philosophy ) and practically virtues !
Billy was in contention for the greatest salesman of all time !
    Oh shit , existential hypocritical crisis !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it funny how everyone is taking the deaths of Billy Mays vs Michael Jackson.
  Jackson was an artist and a subversive while Billy Mays was a salesman!Democracy reveals the American belief in subversion through stark contrast.But jealousy and greed, human flaws which are implicit(according to American philosophy) and practically virtues!
Billy was in contention for the greatest salesman of all time!
  
  Oh shit, existential hypocritical crisis!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516729</id>
	<title>Google Monopoly today...</title>
	<author>loteck</author>
	<datestamp>1246301640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Register has an article up today entitled <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/29/bennett\_google\_privacy/" title="theregister.co.uk">A Google monopoly today means packet sniffing tomorrow</a> [theregister.co.uk]. Seems like the tech community has possibly learned from its past and may be a lot more hesitant to blindly support monopolies, no matter what their supposed "slogan" is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Register has an article up today entitled A Google monopoly today means packet sniffing tomorrow [ theregister.co.uk ] .
Seems like the tech community has possibly learned from its past and may be a lot more hesitant to blindly support monopolies , no matter what their supposed " slogan " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Register has an article up today entitled A Google monopoly today means packet sniffing tomorrow [theregister.co.uk].
Seems like the tech community has possibly learned from its past and may be a lot more hesitant to blindly support monopolies, no matter what their supposed "slogan" is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518493</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246308600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving google isn't that easy. It took me an hour to dig around and block google on my system, the average user can't do that. It's not just your email and docs and search, google is integrated into a lot of browsers and websites. And since so many other people use gmail, for example, I'm still sending them information they can index and reference.</p><p>I don't like big companies or big governments collecting data on me. If you look at the history of both, they always start out with some form of "don't be evil" slogan and end up somewhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving google is n't that easy .
It took me an hour to dig around and block google on my system , the average user ca n't do that .
It 's not just your email and docs and search , google is integrated into a lot of browsers and websites .
And since so many other people use gmail , for example , I 'm still sending them information they can index and reference.I do n't like big companies or big governments collecting data on me .
If you look at the history of both , they always start out with some form of " do n't be evil " slogan and end up somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving google isn't that easy.
It took me an hour to dig around and block google on my system, the average user can't do that.
It's not just your email and docs and search, google is integrated into a lot of browsers and websites.
And since so many other people use gmail, for example, I'm still sending them information they can index and reference.I don't like big companies or big governments collecting data on me.
If you look at the history of both, they always start out with some form of "don't be evil" slogan and end up somewhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520377</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246272000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are THAT big (that's what she said) but it's true that competition is just a click away. Apart from the obvious of just using another search engine, any documents you have on google docs can be converted properly to a lot of open source formats and you can leave. Social networking? Plenty of those. News aggregators? Plenty of those. Rss feeds? Plenty. Geolocation? Just throw on a tracker and use your own maps.<br>Really, there's nothing google does that can't be done by anyone else. They just do it damn well.<br><i> <b>Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts, THAT is anti-competitive, not google.</b></i>  </p></div><p>I like you, you are just bitter enough to make a compelling argument without over doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are THAT big ( that 's what she said ) but it 's true that competition is just a click away .
Apart from the obvious of just using another search engine , any documents you have on google docs can be converted properly to a lot of open source formats and you can leave .
Social networking ?
Plenty of those .
News aggregators ?
Plenty of those .
Rss feeds ?
Plenty. Geolocation ?
Just throw on a tracker and use your own maps.Really , there 's nothing google does that ca n't be done by anyone else .
They just do it damn well .
Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts , THAT is anti-competitive , not google .
I like you , you are just bitter enough to make a compelling argument without over doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are THAT big (that's what she said) but it's true that competition is just a click away.
Apart from the obvious of just using another search engine, any documents you have on google docs can be converted properly to a lot of open source formats and you can leave.
Social networking?
Plenty of those.
News aggregators?
Plenty of those.
Rss feeds?
Plenty. Geolocation?
Just throw on a tracker and use your own maps.Really, there's nothing google does that can't be done by anyone else.
They just do it damn well.
Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts, THAT is anti-competitive, not google.
I like you, you are just bitter enough to make a compelling argument without over doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518095</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>OrigamiMarie</author>
	<datestamp>1246306860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did google buy out the competition so they were #1?   No.</p></div><p>Well . . . no they didn't buy out the competing companies.  But what they did buy out is the people.
<br> <br>1.  Start a company full of bright people doing neat stuff.
<br>2.  Hand out golden handcuffs to anybody who qualifies.
<br>3.  ??
<br>4.  Profit!
<br> <br>Google has had more people on staff than they strictly need for a long time now.  Part of the reason Google hires them up is so that they won't be out loose thinking about starting a competitor to Google.  Why let people spend 20\% of their work time on projects of their choosing?  Certainly most of those projects never pan out.  The answer is two-fold:  there isn't really enough work for everybody they want/need to hire, and getting to play with your own projects on work hours make the handcuffs even shinier.
<br> <br>I know, I have heard that working at Google has become less fun over the past few years.  I don't know what effect that will have on the equation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did google buy out the competition so they were # 1 ?
No.Well .
. .
no they did n't buy out the competing companies .
But what they did buy out is the people .
1. Start a company full of bright people doing neat stuff .
2. Hand out golden handcuffs to anybody who qualifies .
3. ? ?
4. Profit !
Google has had more people on staff than they strictly need for a long time now .
Part of the reason Google hires them up is so that they wo n't be out loose thinking about starting a competitor to Google .
Why let people spend 20 \ % of their work time on projects of their choosing ?
Certainly most of those projects never pan out .
The answer is two-fold : there is n't really enough work for everybody they want/need to hire , and getting to play with your own projects on work hours make the handcuffs even shinier .
I know , I have heard that working at Google has become less fun over the past few years .
I do n't know what effect that will have on the equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did google buy out the competition so they were #1?
No.Well .
. .
no they didn't buy out the competing companies.
But what they did buy out is the people.
1.  Start a company full of bright people doing neat stuff.
2.  Hand out golden handcuffs to anybody who qualifies.
3.  ??
4.  Profit!
Google has had more people on staff than they strictly need for a long time now.
Part of the reason Google hires them up is so that they won't be out loose thinking about starting a competitor to Google.
Why let people spend 20\% of their work time on projects of their choosing?
Certainly most of those projects never pan out.
The answer is two-fold:  there isn't really enough work for everybody they want/need to hire, and getting to play with your own projects on work hours make the handcuffs even shinier.
I know, I have heard that working at Google has become less fun over the past few years.
I don't know what effect that will have on the equation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517309</id>
	<title>Crome</title>
	<author>Niris</author>
	<datestamp>1246303800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love how there's a Google Crome banner and ad on the page for this article.
<br> <br>
On a more serious note, it is a bit ridiculous that they're saying they aren't a HUGE part of the market, but I can see their point of there being others (like Yahoo and MSN) that are also out there. They're exaggerating the Hell out of what they're saying, but there's at least SOME truth behind it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how there 's a Google Crome banner and ad on the page for this article .
On a more serious note , it is a bit ridiculous that they 're saying they are n't a HUGE part of the market , but I can see their point of there being others ( like Yahoo and MSN ) that are also out there .
They 're exaggerating the Hell out of what they 're saying , but there 's at least SOME truth behind it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how there's a Google Crome banner and ad on the page for this article.
On a more serious note, it is a bit ridiculous that they're saying they aren't a HUGE part of the market, but I can see their point of there being others (like Yahoo and MSN) that are also out there.
They're exaggerating the Hell out of what they're saying, but there's at least SOME truth behind it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519435</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1246268700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>..I can go to any of 50 video sites..</i></p><p>Uness the video you need to see is on google.</p><p><i>Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted. </i></p><p>I call bullshit. Find someone who is heavily invested in google... with gmail, gapps, gearth, gtalk, gvoice... and get them to switch in an hour.</p><p>Hell, get them to switch at all. Its harder than you think. And in some cases its not really possible. How do you abandon gtalk if you have others you need to interface with who use it. How do you abandon g-apps if you are collaborating with someone else using g-apps.... your shared calenders.</p><p>gmail and gapps etc is nearly as a sticky as exchange and sharepoint.</p><p><i>Even though I use Linux daily, I still have to use Windows at work</i></p><p>And if your work used gmail and gapps you'd have to use google at work. I fail to see your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..I can go to any of 50 video sites..Uness the video you need to see is on google.Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted .
I call bullshit .
Find someone who is heavily invested in google... with gmail , gapps , gearth , gtalk , gvoice... and get them to switch in an hour.Hell , get them to switch at all .
Its harder than you think .
And in some cases its not really possible .
How do you abandon gtalk if you have others you need to interface with who use it .
How do you abandon g-apps if you are collaborating with someone else using g-apps.... your shared calenders.gmail and gapps etc is nearly as a sticky as exchange and sharepoint.Even though I use Linux daily , I still have to use Windows at workAnd if your work used gmail and gapps you 'd have to use google at work .
I fail to see your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..I can go to any of 50 video sites..Uness the video you need to see is on google.Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted.
I call bullshit.
Find someone who is heavily invested in google... with gmail, gapps, gearth, gtalk, gvoice... and get them to switch in an hour.Hell, get them to switch at all.
Its harder than you think.
And in some cases its not really possible.
How do you abandon gtalk if you have others you need to interface with who use it.
How do you abandon g-apps if you are collaborating with someone else using g-apps.... your shared calenders.gmail and gapps etc is nearly as a sticky as exchange and sharepoint.Even though I use Linux daily, I still have to use Windows at workAnd if your work used gmail and gapps you'd have to use google at work.
I fail to see your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520925</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246274700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They made <b>the first</b> search engine that works and doesn't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere!</p></div><p>Fixed that for you. There are plenty of search engines these days that largely clone Google page design, and use decent search algorithms otherwise. But they are latecomers - everyone is using Google already - and there's no strong incentive to switch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They made the first search engine that works and does n't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere ! Fixed that for you .
There are plenty of search engines these days that largely clone Google page design , and use decent search algorithms otherwise .
But they are latecomers - everyone is using Google already - and there 's no strong incentive to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They made the first search engine that works and doesn't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere!Fixed that for you.
There are plenty of search engines these days that largely clone Google page design, and use decent search algorithms otherwise.
But they are latecomers - everyone is using Google already - and there's no strong incentive to switch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517637</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhat</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246305060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're absolutely right.  And Google provides open source tools to access all it's products and gives a huge amount of access away for free.  I'm not saying they're perfect, nor that they're small, but if they are an 800lb gorilla, they are one which at least appears to scootch over and share the bench when you want to sit down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right .
And Google provides open source tools to access all it 's products and gives a huge amount of access away for free .
I 'm not saying they 're perfect , nor that they 're small , but if they are an 800lb gorilla , they are one which at least appears to scootch over and share the bench when you want to sit down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right.
And Google provides open source tools to access all it's products and gives a huge amount of access away for free.
I'm not saying they're perfect, nor that they're small, but if they are an 800lb gorilla, they are one which at least appears to scootch over and share the bench when you want to sit down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28523973</id>
	<title>Re:Google is *not* that big.</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1246294140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search</p></div><p>Start making deals? They <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/search.html" title="mozilla.com">already</a> [mozilla.com] <a href="http://www.google.com/firefox" title="google.com">have</a> [google.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if google were to start making deals with all OEM 's that their default search engine was google searchStart making deals ?
They already [ mozilla.com ] have [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google searchStart making deals?
They already [mozilla.com] have [google.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516995</id>
	<title>Re:Hi...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am pretty sure that you think you're being clever, but the reality is... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy\_Mays#Death" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">YOU SUCK.</a> [wikipedia.org]
<p>
RIP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure that you think you 're being clever , but the reality is... YOU SUCK .
[ wikipedia.org ] RIP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure that you think you're being clever, but the reality is... YOU SUCK.
[wikipedia.org]

RIP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517949</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1246306380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They only dominate the market because of one thing.</p><p>They made a search engine that works and doesn't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere!</p></div><p>Has anyone else noticed that it works less and less? In particular, the feature whereby it "corrects" words that it feels you have misspelled and then gives you search results based on your new word selection, is *really* not helping my searching. Especially when those words are perfectly fine company names, being corrected to common english phrases...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They only dominate the market because of one thing.They made a search engine that works and does n't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere ! Has anyone else noticed that it works less and less ?
In particular , the feature whereby it " corrects " words that it feels you have misspelled and then gives you search results based on your new word selection , is * really * not helping my searching .
Especially when those words are perfectly fine company names , being corrected to common english phrases.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They only dominate the market because of one thing.They made a search engine that works and doesn't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere!Has anyone else noticed that it works less and less?
In particular, the feature whereby it "corrects" words that it feels you have misspelled and then gives you search results based on your new word selection, is *really* not helping my searching.
Especially when those words are perfectly fine company names, being corrected to common english phrases...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518007</id>
	<title>Google has a relatively small head-count.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246306560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The part of Google that actually makes money is surprisingly small.  The search engine staff was under 100 people until a few years ago, and about fifteen of them did all the hard parts. AdWords has more people, plus a sizable sales staff.  But it's not huge, and it's smaller since Google closed some of their branch sales offices.  At peak, Google had around 20,000 employees.  Two years ago, they had about 12,000, and they could profitably shrink back to that level. They've been dumping excess contract employees for the last year.
</p><p>
The labor-intensive parts are mostly in the money drains - YouTube, GMail, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The part of Google that actually makes money is surprisingly small .
The search engine staff was under 100 people until a few years ago , and about fifteen of them did all the hard parts .
AdWords has more people , plus a sizable sales staff .
But it 's not huge , and it 's smaller since Google closed some of their branch sales offices .
At peak , Google had around 20,000 employees .
Two years ago , they had about 12,000 , and they could profitably shrink back to that level .
They 've been dumping excess contract employees for the last year .
The labor-intensive parts are mostly in the money drains - YouTube , GMail , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The part of Google that actually makes money is surprisingly small.
The search engine staff was under 100 people until a few years ago, and about fifteen of them did all the hard parts.
AdWords has more people, plus a sizable sales staff.
But it's not huge, and it's smaller since Google closed some of their branch sales offices.
At peak, Google had around 20,000 employees.
Two years ago, they had about 12,000, and they could profitably shrink back to that level.
They've been dumping excess contract employees for the last year.
The labor-intensive parts are mostly in the money drains - YouTube, GMail, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517415</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246304160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Google and competition is they have giant rivers of money coming in from their search/ad monopoly.  I'm somewhat less concerned about their search business being a monopoly than the fact it gives them rivers of money that they can pour in to other markets, do things for free, and destroy everyone who can't afford to do the same thing for free.  Its kind of like Microsoft leveraging its Windows monopoly to destroy Netscape by giving IE away for free.</p><p>Google can afford to do Google News and GMail for free only because their search business subsidizes them.  Google News is a little insidious because it leeches all its news from news websites, and completely marginalizes and commoditizes them.   The new sites pay to gather and publish the news, Google exploits it to build their traffic, and pays nothing for it.  Taken to a future logicial conclusion it may wipe out existing newspapers and journalism and then there is a question who will gather the news for Google to leech.  Though to be fair Craiglist did more to destroy newspapers than Google.  Sure Google News drive traffic to news sites but its extremely transient traffic and its referrals probably seldom return until Google News sends them back again.</p><p>Android is kind of nice idea to dethrone the proprietary mobile OS's but the only reason Google can afford to do it is because their search monopoly subsidizes it. Its a conundrum, its nice to have an open source mobile OS and free services, but is it fair that Google uses its search monopoly to subsidize them which is an advantage most other companies don't have.  They are effectively eliminating competition in a number of areas outside of search, which is the really big danger of monopolies, that they leverage their monopoly to seize new markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Google and competition is they have giant rivers of money coming in from their search/ad monopoly .
I 'm somewhat less concerned about their search business being a monopoly than the fact it gives them rivers of money that they can pour in to other markets , do things for free , and destroy everyone who ca n't afford to do the same thing for free .
Its kind of like Microsoft leveraging its Windows monopoly to destroy Netscape by giving IE away for free.Google can afford to do Google News and GMail for free only because their search business subsidizes them .
Google News is a little insidious because it leeches all its news from news websites , and completely marginalizes and commoditizes them .
The new sites pay to gather and publish the news , Google exploits it to build their traffic , and pays nothing for it .
Taken to a future logicial conclusion it may wipe out existing newspapers and journalism and then there is a question who will gather the news for Google to leech .
Though to be fair Craiglist did more to destroy newspapers than Google .
Sure Google News drive traffic to news sites but its extremely transient traffic and its referrals probably seldom return until Google News sends them back again.Android is kind of nice idea to dethrone the proprietary mobile OS 's but the only reason Google can afford to do it is because their search monopoly subsidizes it .
Its a conundrum , its nice to have an open source mobile OS and free services , but is it fair that Google uses its search monopoly to subsidize them which is an advantage most other companies do n't have .
They are effectively eliminating competition in a number of areas outside of search , which is the really big danger of monopolies , that they leverage their monopoly to seize new markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Google and competition is they have giant rivers of money coming in from their search/ad monopoly.
I'm somewhat less concerned about their search business being a monopoly than the fact it gives them rivers of money that they can pour in to other markets, do things for free, and destroy everyone who can't afford to do the same thing for free.
Its kind of like Microsoft leveraging its Windows monopoly to destroy Netscape by giving IE away for free.Google can afford to do Google News and GMail for free only because their search business subsidizes them.
Google News is a little insidious because it leeches all its news from news websites, and completely marginalizes and commoditizes them.
The new sites pay to gather and publish the news, Google exploits it to build their traffic, and pays nothing for it.
Taken to a future logicial conclusion it may wipe out existing newspapers and journalism and then there is a question who will gather the news for Google to leech.
Though to be fair Craiglist did more to destroy newspapers than Google.
Sure Google News drive traffic to news sites but its extremely transient traffic and its referrals probably seldom return until Google News sends them back again.Android is kind of nice idea to dethrone the proprietary mobile OS's but the only reason Google can afford to do it is because their search monopoly subsidizes it.
Its a conundrum, its nice to have an open source mobile OS and free services, but is it fair that Google uses its search monopoly to subsidize them which is an advantage most other companies don't have.
They are effectively eliminating competition in a number of areas outside of search, which is the really big danger of monopolies, that they leverage their monopoly to seize new markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517775</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246305660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter <i>how</i> they acquired their competitors.  It doesn't matter if the companies were sold <i>willingly</i>.  The point is that when there is an interesting product or service that Google wants, it buys it.  Whether it's to prevent competition or just to add to their portfolio of products/services is a question for debate.<br> <br>Microsoft has been lambasted for buying out competitors.  A lot of those acquisitions happened in a very similar way to Google's acquisitions.  Hell, it's a known business model:<br> <br>1. Begin developing an idea<br>2. Get noticed by Microsoft (now Google)<br>3.  There is no "3. ????"<br>4. Profit!<br> <br>At any rate, whether or not Google gives us the warm fuzzies inside because they claim to not be evil, they are a megalithic corporation that dominates the market of targeted advertising, and may also dominate the market in personal informatics (how long until the credit bureaus use Google to validate credit)?<br> <br>And totally unrelated to the topic: Damn it, it's Monday.  Every damn Monday there is a perfect article for a <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1247213&amp;cid=28114517" title="slashdot.org">Googol the Destroyer</a> [slashdot.org] episode, but I never have the time to write one on Mondays.  And then the rest of the week there aren't any good ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter how they acquired their competitors .
It does n't matter if the companies were sold willingly .
The point is that when there is an interesting product or service that Google wants , it buys it .
Whether it 's to prevent competition or just to add to their portfolio of products/services is a question for debate .
Microsoft has been lambasted for buying out competitors .
A lot of those acquisitions happened in a very similar way to Google 's acquisitions .
Hell , it 's a known business model : 1 .
Begin developing an idea2 .
Get noticed by Microsoft ( now Google ) 3 .
There is no " 3 .
? ? ? ? " 4. Profit !
At any rate , whether or not Google gives us the warm fuzzies inside because they claim to not be evil , they are a megalithic corporation that dominates the market of targeted advertising , and may also dominate the market in personal informatics ( how long until the credit bureaus use Google to validate credit ) ?
And totally unrelated to the topic : Damn it , it 's Monday .
Every damn Monday there is a perfect article for a Googol the Destroyer [ slashdot.org ] episode , but I never have the time to write one on Mondays .
And then the rest of the week there are n't any good ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter how they acquired their competitors.
It doesn't matter if the companies were sold willingly.
The point is that when there is an interesting product or service that Google wants, it buys it.
Whether it's to prevent competition or just to add to their portfolio of products/services is a question for debate.
Microsoft has been lambasted for buying out competitors.
A lot of those acquisitions happened in a very similar way to Google's acquisitions.
Hell, it's a known business model: 1.
Begin developing an idea2.
Get noticed by Microsoft (now Google)3.
There is no "3.
????"4. Profit!
At any rate, whether or not Google gives us the warm fuzzies inside because they claim to not be evil, they are a megalithic corporation that dominates the market of targeted advertising, and may also dominate the market in personal informatics (how long until the credit bureaus use Google to validate credit)?
And totally unrelated to the topic: Damn it, it's Monday.
Every damn Monday there is a perfect article for a Googol the Destroyer [slashdot.org] episode, but I never have the time to write one on Mondays.
And then the rest of the week there aren't any good ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518051</id>
	<title>Re:What's their motto?</title>
	<author>digitalgiblet</author>
	<datestamp>1246306740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I for one totally trust Google because they said they aren't evil.</p><p>Microsoft didn't say that. Yahoo didn't say that. AT&amp;T didn't say that. Starbucks didn't say that. The Salvation Army didn't say that.</p><p>Someone who isn't evil who says they aren't evil BY LOGIC must not be evil!</p><p>YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH LOGIC!</p><p>Wait a second...</p><p>Their motto is "Don't Be Evil". If we diagram that sentence then the implied subject is You. So that would come out something like "Hey, you, don't be evil."</p><p>So they never said they weren't evil, they just kind of order everyone else to not be evil. Their motto isn't "We're Not Evil" it is "Don't Be Evil".</p><p>You know what else? Their are SIX letters in the name Google. There are basically THREE people running the show (Brin, Page, Schmidt). So if EACH of them got a copy of the name that would make 666!!! OMG!!! The number of the beast!!!</p><p>Well, realistically Schmidt isn't really equal to Brin and Page, so I guess it would really be 665. I guess that just makes Google the neighbor of the beast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I for one totally trust Google because they said they are n't evil.Microsoft did n't say that .
Yahoo did n't say that .
AT&amp;T did n't say that .
Starbucks did n't say that .
The Salvation Army did n't say that.Someone who is n't evil who says they are n't evil BY LOGIC must not be evil ! YOU CA N'T ARGUE WITH LOGIC ! Wait a second...Their motto is " Do n't Be Evil " .
If we diagram that sentence then the implied subject is You .
So that would come out something like " Hey , you , do n't be evil .
" So they never said they were n't evil , they just kind of order everyone else to not be evil .
Their motto is n't " We 're Not Evil " it is " Do n't Be Evil " .You know what else ?
Their are SIX letters in the name Google .
There are basically THREE people running the show ( Brin , Page , Schmidt ) .
So if EACH of them got a copy of the name that would make 666 ! ! !
OMG ! ! ! The number of the beast ! !
! Well , realistically Schmidt is n't really equal to Brin and Page , so I guess it would really be 665 .
I guess that just makes Google the neighbor of the beast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I for one totally trust Google because they said they aren't evil.Microsoft didn't say that.
Yahoo didn't say that.
AT&amp;T didn't say that.
Starbucks didn't say that.
The Salvation Army didn't say that.Someone who isn't evil who says they aren't evil BY LOGIC must not be evil!YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH LOGIC!Wait a second...Their motto is "Don't Be Evil".
If we diagram that sentence then the implied subject is You.
So that would come out something like "Hey, you, don't be evil.
"So they never said they weren't evil, they just kind of order everyone else to not be evil.
Their motto isn't "We're Not Evil" it is "Don't Be Evil".You know what else?
Their are SIX letters in the name Google.
There are basically THREE people running the show (Brin, Page, Schmidt).
So if EACH of them got a copy of the name that would make 666!!!
OMG!!! The number of the beast!!
!Well, realistically Schmidt isn't really equal to Brin and Page, so I guess it would really be 665.
I guess that just makes Google the neighbor of the beast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517279</id>
	<title>Re:Hi...</title>
	<author>BillyMays</author>
	<datestamp>1246303620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hi! Billy Mays here...</p></div><p>
Like hell you are. Imposter!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi !
Billy Mays here.. . Like hell you are .
Imposter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi!
Billy Mays here...
Like hell you are.
Imposter!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517069</id>
	<title>Re:Google buys out the competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least Google continues the bought-out product line, with something on-par with the original value. Many companies buy out a competitor to kill the product line.</p><p>Other companies, tech or otherwise, destroy the competition. For example, the automobile industry bought out &amp; eliminated trolleys. Microsoft ate Sysbase.</p><p>Don't get me wrong. This is a monopolistic approach, but it doesn't destroy tech innovation. It just wrecks capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Google continues the bought-out product line , with something on-par with the original value .
Many companies buy out a competitor to kill the product line.Other companies , tech or otherwise , destroy the competition .
For example , the automobile industry bought out &amp; eliminated trolleys .
Microsoft ate Sysbase.Do n't get me wrong .
This is a monopolistic approach , but it does n't destroy tech innovation .
It just wrecks capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Google continues the bought-out product line, with something on-par with the original value.
Many companies buy out a competitor to kill the product line.Other companies, tech or otherwise, destroy the competition.
For example, the automobile industry bought out &amp; eliminated trolleys.
Microsoft ate Sysbase.Don't get me wrong.
This is a monopolistic approach, but it doesn't destroy tech innovation.
It just wrecks capitalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516727</id>
	<title>That's Weird, Because Fiscally ...</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246301640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Your market cap is <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=Google" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">$134 billion</a> [google.com] to put this into perspective IBM's is $139 billion and Microsoft's is $211 billion.  <br> <br>

You may well employ far fewer than either of those two giants, but you aren't "running with the big dogs" now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you <b>are</b> a big dog.  If you're pulling in more than a billion per quarter in sheer profit, you're going to lose that argument.  Money is more important than number of employees when you're relating to other companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your market cap is $ 134 billion [ google.com ] to put this into perspective IBM 's is $ 139 billion and Microsoft 's is $ 211 billion .
You may well employ far fewer than either of those two giants , but you are n't " running with the big dogs " now ... you are a big dog .
If you 're pulling in more than a billion per quarter in sheer profit , you 're going to lose that argument .
Money is more important than number of employees when you 're relating to other companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Your market cap is $134 billion [google.com] to put this into perspective IBM's is $139 billion and Microsoft's is $211 billion.
You may well employ far fewer than either of those two giants, but you aren't "running with the big dogs" now ... you are a big dog.
If you're pulling in more than a billion per quarter in sheer profit, you're going to lose that argument.
Money is more important than number of employees when you're relating to other companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28523969</id>
	<title>It must be late...</title>
	<author>Polymon</author>
	<datestamp>1246294140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first read this I thought "what aren't so big??"... my imagination ran...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first read this I thought " what are n't so big ? ? " .. .
my imagination ran.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first read this I thought "what aren't so big??"...
my imagination ran...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517705</id>
	<title>They kind of have a point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246305300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my perspective, I use Google for search, free email and maps. Now if I ever got unhappy with Google, changing my bookmarks and creating another free email account somewhere and forwarding my gmail address there is really trivial. It doesn't inconvenience my life much at all.</p><p>Whereas, if I am running a given operating system, switching it is a colossal headache, even for someone moderately technically inclined. My own quest to move to Ubuntu has been a lengthy process.</p><p>I can't speak for those using their ad services, but I don't see that they are particularly deep into people's lives. Unless I'm mistaken.</p><p>Heck- Facebook is more of a concern to me- most of my friends have utterly abandoned email and chat and use FB exclusively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective , I use Google for search , free email and maps .
Now if I ever got unhappy with Google , changing my bookmarks and creating another free email account somewhere and forwarding my gmail address there is really trivial .
It does n't inconvenience my life much at all.Whereas , if I am running a given operating system , switching it is a colossal headache , even for someone moderately technically inclined .
My own quest to move to Ubuntu has been a lengthy process.I ca n't speak for those using their ad services , but I do n't see that they are particularly deep into people 's lives .
Unless I 'm mistaken.Heck- Facebook is more of a concern to me- most of my friends have utterly abandoned email and chat and use FB exclusively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective, I use Google for search, free email and maps.
Now if I ever got unhappy with Google, changing my bookmarks and creating another free email account somewhere and forwarding my gmail address there is really trivial.
It doesn't inconvenience my life much at all.Whereas, if I am running a given operating system, switching it is a colossal headache, even for someone moderately technically inclined.
My own quest to move to Ubuntu has been a lengthy process.I can't speak for those using their ad services, but I don't see that they are particularly deep into people's lives.
Unless I'm mistaken.Heck- Facebook is more of a concern to me- most of my friends have utterly abandoned email and chat and use FB exclusively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516637</id>
	<title>Google desktop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Niggers just aren't ready for the desktop yet. They may be ready for the cell phones that they use to distribute their upskirt pictures of white girls and 50-Cent ringtones across the world wide web, but the average nigger isn't going to spend months learning how to use a GUI and then hours installing malware so that they can get a MySpace page to post blingy graphics or booty calls with, especially not when they already know a white guy running Windows who can do it for them perfectly well and are backed by a job, as opposed to niggers which are only supported by a their unemployed mammies living in a crackhouse somewhere. The last thing I want is a black 5-year parolee (haha) providing me my OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Niggers just are n't ready for the desktop yet .
They may be ready for the cell phones that they use to distribute their upskirt pictures of white girls and 50-Cent ringtones across the world wide web , but the average nigger is n't going to spend months learning how to use a GUI and then hours installing malware so that they can get a MySpace page to post blingy graphics or booty calls with , especially not when they already know a white guy running Windows who can do it for them perfectly well and are backed by a job , as opposed to niggers which are only supported by a their unemployed mammies living in a crackhouse somewhere .
The last thing I want is a black 5-year parolee ( haha ) providing me my OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Niggers just aren't ready for the desktop yet.
They may be ready for the cell phones that they use to distribute their upskirt pictures of white girls and 50-Cent ringtones across the world wide web, but the average nigger isn't going to spend months learning how to use a GUI and then hours installing malware so that they can get a MySpace page to post blingy graphics or booty calls with, especially not when they already know a white guy running Windows who can do it for them perfectly well and are backed by a job, as opposed to niggers which are only supported by a their unemployed mammies living in a crackhouse somewhere.
The last thing I want is a black 5-year parolee (haha) providing me my OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521957</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is a Click Away."</title>
	<author>maglor\_83</author>
	<datestamp>1246280040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia... I should have known.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia... I should have known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia... I should have known.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28541281</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1246458060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when did Microsoft buy out a competing Operating System company?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did Microsoft buy out a competing Operating System company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did Microsoft buy out a competing Operating System company?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517643</id>
	<title>Re:Hi...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246305060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already own the Department of Justice, and it just made me fatter, you insensitive clod. *bursts in tears, and runs away*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already own the Department of Justice , and it just made me fatter , you insensitive clod .
* bursts in tears , and runs away *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already own the Department of Justice, and it just made me fatter, you insensitive clod.
*bursts in tears, and runs away*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</id>
	<title>Hi...</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1246301340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi! Billy Mays here for GIANTCo.</p><p>Do you suffer from a lack of competition in your market place?  Are your closest competitors light-years away from being a viable alternative to the solutions you offer?  Well have I got just the thing for you!  Introducing the amazing, the lovely, the Department of Justice!  That's right folks, in just 10 easy years you can get a slap on the wrist and be deemed a monolopy.</p><p>But wait, there's more!  What if I told you that if you called right now, we'd throw in a second DOJ fine ABSOLUTELY FREE?!?!</p><p>Call now, operators are standing by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi !
Billy Mays here for GIANTCo.Do you suffer from a lack of competition in your market place ?
Are your closest competitors light-years away from being a viable alternative to the solutions you offer ?
Well have I got just the thing for you !
Introducing the amazing , the lovely , the Department of Justice !
That 's right folks , in just 10 easy years you can get a slap on the wrist and be deemed a monolopy.But wait , there 's more !
What if I told you that if you called right now , we 'd throw in a second DOJ fine ABSOLUTELY FREE ? ! ?
! Call now , operators are standing by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi!
Billy Mays here for GIANTCo.Do you suffer from a lack of competition in your market place?
Are your closest competitors light-years away from being a viable alternative to the solutions you offer?
Well have I got just the thing for you!
Introducing the amazing, the lovely, the Department of Justice!
That's right folks, in just 10 easy years you can get a slap on the wrist and be deemed a monolopy.But wait, there's more!
What if I told you that if you called right now, we'd throw in a second DOJ fine ABSOLUTELY FREE?!?
!Call now, operators are standing by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518037</id>
	<title>Google is not a monopoly</title>
	<author>marco.antonio.costa</author>
	<datestamp>1246306740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This ridiculous notion that a company can only grow "this" big or "this" successful without being tagged a monopolist, can only be held by a person without the slightest notion of what the word monopoly means.

The Post Office has a monopoly. If you deliver mail you get arrested.

The central bank has a monopoly. If you issue paper money you are imprisoned for counterfeiting.

Now Google is NOT a monopoly. People can flock to Cuil, Bing, Webcrawler, Yahoo!, Altavista or whatever they think suits them better. If some of these other companies ( which were all around when Google came from out of nowhere and became this incredible service provider ) start getting their game together and Google drops the ball, they can become the dominant player.

Or, who knows, some Searchster might come out of nowhere and leave Google eating dust.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ridiculous notion that a company can only grow " this " big or " this " successful without being tagged a monopolist , can only be held by a person without the slightest notion of what the word monopoly means .
The Post Office has a monopoly .
If you deliver mail you get arrested .
The central bank has a monopoly .
If you issue paper money you are imprisoned for counterfeiting .
Now Google is NOT a monopoly .
People can flock to Cuil , Bing , Webcrawler , Yahoo ! , Altavista or whatever they think suits them better .
If some of these other companies ( which were all around when Google came from out of nowhere and became this incredible service provider ) start getting their game together and Google drops the ball , they can become the dominant player .
Or , who knows , some Searchster might come out of nowhere and leave Google eating dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ridiculous notion that a company can only grow "this" big or "this" successful without being tagged a monopolist, can only be held by a person without the slightest notion of what the word monopoly means.
The Post Office has a monopoly.
If you deliver mail you get arrested.
The central bank has a monopoly.
If you issue paper money you are imprisoned for counterfeiting.
Now Google is NOT a monopoly.
People can flock to Cuil, Bing, Webcrawler, Yahoo!, Altavista or whatever they think suits them better.
If some of these other companies ( which were all around when Google came from out of nowhere and became this incredible service provider ) start getting their game together and Google drops the ball, they can become the dominant player.
Or, who knows, some Searchster might come out of nowhere and leave Google eating dust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517093</id>
	<title>Free Market!?!?</title>
	<author>S7urm</author>
	<datestamp>1246302960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that doesn't reflect their dominance of key sectors,' said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. 'Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.'"</p></div><p>This makes me wonder, 1. Isn't "An absolute must-have" kind of the point of creating, promoting, and maintaining <b>anything</b> in a modern economy, and 2. SO WHAT?!?! Google, while a gargantuan entity in the Search and On-Line AD world, doesn't employ tactics that scream anti-trust to me just see <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=yahoo&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=yahoo&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10</a> [google.com], I mean they link to their competitor's very prominently in their own search terms. Do you picture Mircosoft linking to Apple? Probably not.</p><p>I think people in general need to understand, that the more and more we attempt to stifle large companies, the more you are also stifling Innovation, which is the lifeblood of technological advancement. We need to be able to promote innovation without worrying people that their successes will be capped out as soon as some loser company decides to start rattling the anti-trust sabre at them. I think Google is a wonderful company, that has not only an excellant suite of products, but has also shown true innovation in a field dominated by innovation. They survived the dot-com bubble burst, they have an enormous philanthropic entity, and they provide their end-users with products that are not only top of the line, but in some cases even open sourced.</p><p>They should be lauded, not trampled by an outdated set of theories regarding anti-trust, since those same laws and regulations were set in place in a time period when competition WAS scarce, and the lack of communication and innovation technologies were lax at best. I highly dought we'll ever see another Big Oil, or Big Railroad, or Big Business again in the sense of the businesses that were around that spawned the need for such laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that does n't reflect their dominance of key sectors, ' said Jeff Chester , executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy .
'Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world .
' " This makes me wonder , 1 .
Is n't " An absolute must-have " kind of the point of creating , promoting , and maintaining anything in a modern economy , and 2 .
SO WHAT ? ! ? !
Google , while a gargantuan entity in the Search and On-Line AD world , does n't employ tactics that scream anti-trust to me just see http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;q = yahoo&amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = g10 [ google.com ] , I mean they link to their competitor 's very prominently in their own search terms .
Do you picture Mircosoft linking to Apple ?
Probably not.I think people in general need to understand , that the more and more we attempt to stifle large companies , the more you are also stifling Innovation , which is the lifeblood of technological advancement .
We need to be able to promote innovation without worrying people that their successes will be capped out as soon as some loser company decides to start rattling the anti-trust sabre at them .
I think Google is a wonderful company , that has not only an excellant suite of products , but has also shown true innovation in a field dominated by innovation .
They survived the dot-com bubble burst , they have an enormous philanthropic entity , and they provide their end-users with products that are not only top of the line , but in some cases even open sourced.They should be lauded , not trampled by an outdated set of theories regarding anti-trust , since those same laws and regulations were set in place in a time period when competition WAS scarce , and the lack of communication and innovation technologies were lax at best .
I highly dought we 'll ever see another Big Oil , or Big Railroad , or Big Business again in the sense of the businesses that were around that spawned the need for such laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that doesn't reflect their dominance of key sectors,' said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
'Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.
'"This makes me wonder, 1.
Isn't "An absolute must-have" kind of the point of creating, promoting, and maintaining anything in a modern economy, and 2.
SO WHAT?!?!
Google, while a gargantuan entity in the Search and On-Line AD world, doesn't employ tactics that scream anti-trust to me just see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=yahoo&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10 [google.com], I mean they link to their competitor's very prominently in their own search terms.
Do you picture Mircosoft linking to Apple?
Probably not.I think people in general need to understand, that the more and more we attempt to stifle large companies, the more you are also stifling Innovation, which is the lifeblood of technological advancement.
We need to be able to promote innovation without worrying people that their successes will be capped out as soon as some loser company decides to start rattling the anti-trust sabre at them.
I think Google is a wonderful company, that has not only an excellant suite of products, but has also shown true innovation in a field dominated by innovation.
They survived the dot-com bubble burst, they have an enormous philanthropic entity, and they provide their end-users with products that are not only top of the line, but in some cases even open sourced.They should be lauded, not trampled by an outdated set of theories regarding anti-trust, since those same laws and regulations were set in place in a time period when competition WAS scarce, and the lack of communication and innovation technologies were lax at best.
I highly dought we'll ever see another Big Oil, or Big Railroad, or Big Business again in the sense of the businesses that were around that spawned the need for such laws.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521117</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1246275720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors, it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets. And that... that is a damning argument against their "we're not that big" statement.</p></div><p>They buy in to new markets - but they actually keep advancing them. That's why they have an edge - not because of malicious saboteur activities.</p><p>Most companies stagnate when they get huge; they seem to lose their ability to advance forward, and stop innovating. Google doesn't seem to.</p><p>See: Sun, Microsoft, IBM, etc.; for companies this huge, I'd expect more advances than we get. Usually it's some smaller company(&lt;1000 employees) which innovates, and then one of the big companies buys them out. If we're lucky enough for that company to be Google, the product will keep advancing, but none of the other big players have demonstrated that capability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors , it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets .
And that... that is a damning argument against their " we 're not that big " statement.They buy in to new markets - but they actually keep advancing them .
That 's why they have an edge - not because of malicious saboteur activities.Most companies stagnate when they get huge ; they seem to lose their ability to advance forward , and stop innovating .
Google does n't seem to.See : Sun , Microsoft , IBM , etc .
; for companies this huge , I 'd expect more advances than we get .
Usually it 's some smaller company (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors, it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets.
And that... that is a damning argument against their "we're not that big" statement.They buy in to new markets - but they actually keep advancing them.
That's why they have an edge - not because of malicious saboteur activities.Most companies stagnate when they get huge; they seem to lose their ability to advance forward, and stop innovating.
Google doesn't seem to.See: Sun, Microsoft, IBM, etc.
; for companies this huge, I'd expect more advances than we get.
Usually it's some smaller company(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28523637</id>
	<title>Advertising monopoly?</title>
	<author>bjustice</author>
	<datestamp>1246290960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, as Search consumers you and I are freely able to choose one search engine over another, but are advertisers freely able to choose a competitor's ad platform over Google's? I mean, they could choose to not get eyeballs on ads, but that's not what they're in business to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , as Search consumers you and I are freely able to choose one search engine over another , but are advertisers freely able to choose a competitor 's ad platform over Google 's ?
I mean , they could choose to not get eyeballs on ads , but that 's not what they 're in business to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, as Search consumers you and I are freely able to choose one search engine over another, but are advertisers freely able to choose a competitor's ad platform over Google's?
I mean, they could choose to not get eyeballs on ads, but that's not what they're in business to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517923</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246306320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there were better engines out there. I personally had to admin Hotbot at the end of its life. And it was way better than Google. Especially the query features.<br>It was just, that to use Google, you additionally did not need half a brain to search for something.</p><p>I actually hate the search interface of Google. One line? Can't search for non-alphanumeric stuff? Even quotes are nothing more than a rule that this word has to loosely follow that one? Ambiguity and missing boolean functions/operators? It's even worse than the PHP interpreter.</p><p>I can understand that someone who has no idea what he's doing, will like Google's interface, because Google will figure it out for him. But if you know how to input complex queries, then this thing is a nightmare.</p><p>Additionally, nowadays, even a better search engine had no chance. Not because of anticompetitive behavior. But because of inertia, aka. "being used to it". Changing what you are used to, always is painful. So as long as the thing you are doing does not create more pain that the change, you will stay with it, no matter what.</p><p>This also is, what keeps Windows on the desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there were better engines out there .
I personally had to admin Hotbot at the end of its life .
And it was way better than Google .
Especially the query features.It was just , that to use Google , you additionally did not need half a brain to search for something.I actually hate the search interface of Google .
One line ?
Ca n't search for non-alphanumeric stuff ?
Even quotes are nothing more than a rule that this word has to loosely follow that one ?
Ambiguity and missing boolean functions/operators ?
It 's even worse than the PHP interpreter.I can understand that someone who has no idea what he 's doing , will like Google 's interface , because Google will figure it out for him .
But if you know how to input complex queries , then this thing is a nightmare.Additionally , nowadays , even a better search engine had no chance .
Not because of anticompetitive behavior .
But because of inertia , aka .
" being used to it " .
Changing what you are used to , always is painful .
So as long as the thing you are doing does not create more pain that the change , you will stay with it , no matter what.This also is , what keeps Windows on the desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there were better engines out there.
I personally had to admin Hotbot at the end of its life.
And it was way better than Google.
Especially the query features.It was just, that to use Google, you additionally did not need half a brain to search for something.I actually hate the search interface of Google.
One line?
Can't search for non-alphanumeric stuff?
Even quotes are nothing more than a rule that this word has to loosely follow that one?
Ambiguity and missing boolean functions/operators?
It's even worse than the PHP interpreter.I can understand that someone who has no idea what he's doing, will like Google's interface, because Google will figure it out for him.
But if you know how to input complex queries, then this thing is a nightmare.Additionally, nowadays, even a better search engine had no chance.
Not because of anticompetitive behavior.
But because of inertia, aka.
"being used to it".
Changing what you are used to, always is painful.
So as long as the thing you are doing does not create more pain that the change, you will stay with it, no matter what.This also is, what keeps Windows on the desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516913</id>
	<title>But Competition is Indeed a Click Away</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1246302300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when Google was just the engine behind Yahoo? And then people just started going to Google.</p><p>And guess what? I can set my homepage to anything I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when Google was just the engine behind Yahoo ?
And then people just started going to Google.And guess what ?
I can set my homepage to anything I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when Google was just the engine behind Yahoo?
And then people just started going to Google.And guess what?
I can set my homepage to anything I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517567</id>
	<title>Re:Hi...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246304700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the Department of 'Justice,' you MUST compete but you are NOT permitted to win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Department of 'Justice, ' you MUST compete but you are NOT permitted to win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Department of 'Justice,' you MUST compete but you are NOT permitted to win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518355</id>
	<title>Just a click away.</title>
	<author>Xerolooper</author>
	<datestamp>1246308000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they try Googling for alternatives to Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they try Googling for alternatives to Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they try Googling for alternatives to Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517613</id>
	<title>Re:We'le Vely Smarr</title>
	<author>WebmasterNeal</author>
	<datestamp>1246304880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great South Park reference. If I had any points I'd throw them your way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great South Park reference .
If I had any points I 'd throw them your way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great South Park reference.
If I had any points I'd throw them your way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517575</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Drakin020</author>
	<datestamp>1246304700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait so it's Microsoft's fault that 3rd parties are developing on their OS only?</p><p>Well that makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait so it 's Microsoft 's fault that 3rd parties are developing on their OS only ? Well that makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait so it's Microsoft's fault that 3rd parties are developing on their OS only?Well that makes sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717</id>
	<title>they're not that big by most measures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They might still be subject to antitrust issues if they're dominant in a particular market, but the statement that they "aren't that big" does seem objectively true, by most measures other than public fame.</p><p>Some major tech companies by number of employees:</p><ul><li>IBM: 400,000</li><li>Microsoft: 90,000</li><li>Google: 21,000</li></ul><p>And by revenue:</p><ul><li>IBM: $104 billion</li><li>Microsoft: $60 billion</li><li>Google: $22 billion</li></ul><p>And by net income:</p><ul><li>Microsoft: $18 billion</li><li>IBM: $12 billion</li><li>Google: $4 billion</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>They might still be subject to antitrust issues if they 're dominant in a particular market , but the statement that they " are n't that big " does seem objectively true , by most measures other than public fame.Some major tech companies by number of employees : IBM : 400,000Microsoft : 90,000Google : 21,000And by revenue : IBM : $ 104 billionMicrosoft : $ 60 billionGoogle : $ 22 billionAnd by net income : Microsoft : $ 18 billionIBM : $ 12 billionGoogle : $ 4 billion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might still be subject to antitrust issues if they're dominant in a particular market, but the statement that they "aren't that big" does seem objectively true, by most measures other than public fame.Some major tech companies by number of employees:IBM: 400,000Microsoft: 90,000Google: 21,000And by revenue:IBM: $104 billionMicrosoft: $60 billionGoogle: $22 billionAnd by net income:Microsoft: $18 billionIBM: $12 billionGoogle: $4 billion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521951</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1246279980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wait so it's Microsoft's fault that 3rd parties are developing on their OS only?</p></div><p>They're the ones buying out the companies that make good Mac games (Marathon -&gt; Halo) and making their products Microsoft-compatible-only, and they're the one making avarious other backhanded deals to secure exclusivity of games on their platforms, so yes, it's their fault if their efforts achieve the desired result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait so it 's Microsoft 's fault that 3rd parties are developing on their OS only ? They 're the ones buying out the companies that make good Mac games ( Marathon - &gt; Halo ) and making their products Microsoft-compatible-only , and they 're the one making avarious other backhanded deals to secure exclusivity of games on their platforms , so yes , it 's their fault if their efforts achieve the desired result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait so it's Microsoft's fault that 3rd parties are developing on their OS only?They're the ones buying out the companies that make good Mac games (Marathon -&gt; Halo) and making their products Microsoft-compatible-only, and they're the one making avarious other backhanded deals to secure exclusivity of games on their platforms, so yes, it's their fault if their efforts achieve the desired result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516725</id>
	<title>I got an email that'll fix that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, I've got lots of 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , I 've got lots of 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, I've got lots of 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516885</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>Tracy Reed</author>
	<datestamp>1246302180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are big but not that big. And as far as I can see they do nothing to keep others out of the market. And prices are still quite good. Hard to see an anti-competitive effects in this market. Anyone else can run a search engine and nothing is stopping anyone from using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are big but not that big .
And as far as I can see they do nothing to keep others out of the market .
And prices are still quite good .
Hard to see an anti-competitive effects in this market .
Anyone else can run a search engine and nothing is stopping anyone from using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are big but not that big.
And as far as I can see they do nothing to keep others out of the market.
And prices are still quite good.
Hard to see an anti-competitive effects in this market.
Anyone else can run a search engine and nothing is stopping anyone from using it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517007</id>
	<title>"Dethroned if it stops innovating"</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1246302660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Wagner, not surprisingly, takes issue with the image of Google as unshakable monopoly. Google achieved its market position by offering superior products and could quickly be dethroned if it stops innovating, he said.</p></div><p>This is likely true of any internet-based company.  If the clicks stop coming Google would quickly become Altavista.  Gmail would become Pegasus.  Time will march right on by and the 'hot and new' will become 'ancient', just as it has in the past.</p><p>Until Google reaches a point where it becomes virtually impossible to field a competing site successfully, I think the word 'monopoly' is a bit premature.</p><p>"We can't compete," may well be true, but that would not seem to be due to anything specific that Google is doing to stop us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Wagner , not surprisingly , takes issue with the image of Google as unshakable monopoly .
Google achieved its market position by offering superior products and could quickly be dethroned if it stops innovating , he said.This is likely true of any internet-based company .
If the clicks stop coming Google would quickly become Altavista .
Gmail would become Pegasus .
Time will march right on by and the 'hot and new ' will become 'ancient ' , just as it has in the past.Until Google reaches a point where it becomes virtually impossible to field a competing site successfully , I think the word 'monopoly ' is a bit premature .
" We ca n't compete , " may well be true , but that would not seem to be due to anything specific that Google is doing to stop us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Wagner, not surprisingly, takes issue with the image of Google as unshakable monopoly.
Google achieved its market position by offering superior products and could quickly be dethroned if it stops innovating, he said.This is likely true of any internet-based company.
If the clicks stop coming Google would quickly become Altavista.
Gmail would become Pegasus.
Time will march right on by and the 'hot and new' will become 'ancient', just as it has in the past.Until Google reaches a point where it becomes virtually impossible to field a competing site successfully, I think the word 'monopoly' is a bit premature.
"We can't compete," may well be true, but that would not seem to be due to anything specific that Google is doing to stop us.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28532459</id>
	<title>Re:Keep telling yourselves that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246389960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big fucking deal. I never heard of any of those companies before, they were likely small.<br>Second point, for a company to buy another THEY HAVE TO BE WILLING TO SELL. Case closed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big fucking deal .
I never heard of any of those companies before , they were likely small.Second point , for a company to buy another THEY HAVE TO BE WILLING TO SELL .
Case closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big fucking deal.
I never heard of any of those companies before, they were likely small.Second point, for a company to buy another THEY HAVE TO BE WILLING TO SELL.
Case closed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855</id>
	<title>Somewhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are THAT big (that's what she said) but it's true that competition is just a click away. Apart from the obvious of just using another search engine, any documents you have on google docs can be converted properly to a lot of open source formats and you can leave. Social networking? Plenty of those. News aggregators? Plenty of those. Rss feeds? Plenty. Geolocation? Just throw on a tracker and use your own maps.<br>Really, there's nothing google does that can't be done by anyone else. They just do it damn well.<br>Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts, THAT is anti-competitive, not google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are THAT big ( that 's what she said ) but it 's true that competition is just a click away .
Apart from the obvious of just using another search engine , any documents you have on google docs can be converted properly to a lot of open source formats and you can leave .
Social networking ?
Plenty of those .
News aggregators ?
Plenty of those .
Rss feeds ?
Plenty. Geolocation ?
Just throw on a tracker and use your own maps.Really , there 's nothing google does that ca n't be done by anyone else .
They just do it damn well.Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts , THAT is anti-competitive , not google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are THAT big (that's what she said) but it's true that competition is just a click away.
Apart from the obvious of just using another search engine, any documents you have on google docs can be converted properly to a lot of open source formats and you can leave.
Social networking?
Plenty of those.
News aggregators?
Plenty of those.
Rss feeds?
Plenty. Geolocation?
Just throw on a tracker and use your own maps.Really, there's nothing google does that can't be done by anyone else.
They just do it damn well.Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts, THAT is anti-competitive, not google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518035</id>
	<title>Re:They're not big.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246306740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, except for some very new games, you can. There are many office suites, development suites, and many many games run under Wine.<br>And for professional tools, there is always the Mac. With all Adobe products, most music creation software, all DTP software, etc, working even better on it.</p><p>I keep windows under "K -&gt; Games -&gt; Windows" as a VM, and can also boot it normally, like I would start a game console.</p><p>Also, developers say that they won't make their games for Linux, because nobody uses it, and users say that they won't use Linux because nobody is programming for it.<br>Doesn't this strike you as circular reasoning?</p><p>It always needs someone, who does do it <em>anyway</em>. And, with running Linux nearly exclusively, I am that one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , except for some very new games , you can .
There are many office suites , development suites , and many many games run under Wine.And for professional tools , there is always the Mac .
With all Adobe products , most music creation software , all DTP software , etc , working even better on it.I keep windows under " K - &gt; Games - &gt; Windows " as a VM , and can also boot it normally , like I would start a game console.Also , developers say that they wo n't make their games for Linux , because nobody uses it , and users say that they wo n't use Linux because nobody is programming for it.Does n't this strike you as circular reasoning ? It always needs someone , who does do it anyway .
And , with running Linux nearly exclusively , I am that one .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, except for some very new games, you can.
There are many office suites, development suites, and many many games run under Wine.And for professional tools, there is always the Mac.
With all Adobe products, most music creation software, all DTP software, etc, working even better on it.I keep windows under "K -&gt; Games -&gt; Windows" as a VM, and can also boot it normally, like I would start a game console.Also, developers say that they won't make their games for Linux, because nobody uses it, and users say that they won't use Linux because nobody is programming for it.Doesn't this strike you as circular reasoning?It always needs someone, who does do it anyway.
And, with running Linux nearly exclusively, I am that one.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516959</id>
	<title>Not That Big</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1246302480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever I hear that in the context of a blind date, its time to run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I hear that in the context of a blind date , its time to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I hear that in the context of a blind date, its time to run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28541281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28525189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28525979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28534275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28523973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28532459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28522323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1625230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28525979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28522323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28523973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28525189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518777
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28541281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28534275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28518493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28519393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1625230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28516797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28521117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28532459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28517339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1625230.28520679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
