<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_06_1541225</id>
	<title>If You Live By Free, You Will Die By Free</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246896660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban writes that the problem with companies who have built their business around Free is that the more success you have in delivering free, <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/07/05/the-freemium-company-lifecycle-challenge/">the more expensive it is to stay at the top</a>. '"They will be Facebook to your Myspace, or Myspace to your Friendster or Google to your Yahoo," writes Cuban. "Someone out there with a better idea will raise a bunch of money, give it away for free, build scale and charge less to reach the audience."' Cuban says that even Google, who lives and dies by free, knows that 'at some point your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_swan\_theory">Black Swan competitor</a> will appear and they will kick your ass' and that is exactly why Google invests in everything and anything they possibly can that they believe can create another business they can depend on in the future searching for the 'next big Google thing.' Cuban says that for any company that lives by Free, their best choice is to run the company as profitably as possible, focusing only on those things that generate revenue and put cash in the bank.  '"When you succeed with Free, you are going to die by Free. Your best bet is to recognize where you are in your company's lifecycle and maximize your profits rather than try to extend your stay at the top," writes Cuban. "Like every company in the free space, your lifecycle has come to its conclusion. Don't fight it. Admit it.  Profit from it."'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban writes that the problem with companies who have built their business around Free is that the more success you have in delivering free , the more expensive it is to stay at the top .
' " They will be Facebook to your Myspace , or Myspace to your Friendster or Google to your Yahoo , " writes Cuban .
" Someone out there with a better idea will raise a bunch of money , give it away for free , build scale and charge less to reach the audience .
" ' Cuban says that even Google , who lives and dies by free , knows that 'at some point your Black Swan competitor will appear and they will kick your ass ' and that is exactly why Google invests in everything and anything they possibly can that they believe can create another business they can depend on in the future searching for the 'next big Google thing .
' Cuban says that for any company that lives by Free , their best choice is to run the company as profitably as possible , focusing only on those things that generate revenue and put cash in the bank .
' " When you succeed with Free , you are going to die by Free .
Your best bet is to recognize where you are in your company 's lifecycle and maximize your profits rather than try to extend your stay at the top , " writes Cuban .
" Like every company in the free space , your lifecycle has come to its conclusion .
Do n't fight it .
Admit it .
Profit from it .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban writes that the problem with companies who have built their business around Free is that the more success you have in delivering free, the more expensive it is to stay at the top.
'"They will be Facebook to your Myspace, or Myspace to your Friendster or Google to your Yahoo," writes Cuban.
"Someone out there with a better idea will raise a bunch of money, give it away for free, build scale and charge less to reach the audience.
"' Cuban says that even Google, who lives and dies by free, knows that 'at some point your Black Swan competitor will appear and they will kick your ass' and that is exactly why Google invests in everything and anything they possibly can that they believe can create another business they can depend on in the future searching for the 'next big Google thing.
' Cuban says that for any company that lives by Free, their best choice is to run the company as profitably as possible, focusing only on those things that generate revenue and put cash in the bank.
'"When you succeed with Free, you are going to die by Free.
Your best bet is to recognize where you are in your company's lifecycle and maximize your profits rather than try to extend your stay at the top," writes Cuban.
"Like every company in the free space, your lifecycle has come to its conclusion.
Don't fight it.
Admit it.
Profit from it.
"'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597435</id>
	<title>Re:Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1246908180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be a weird thing in "the new economy" where the product frequently is the business.  Facebook, Livejournal, etc all identify by their product rather than by their model.</p><p>Imagine if HP identified as HP Largescale Business Dot Matrix, and sold just one model of Printer.  No matter how good that one dot-matrix printer was, they'd be out of business the moment inkjets hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be a weird thing in " the new economy " where the product frequently is the business .
Facebook , Livejournal , etc all identify by their product rather than by their model.Imagine if HP identified as HP Largescale Business Dot Matrix , and sold just one model of Printer .
No matter how good that one dot-matrix printer was , they 'd be out of business the moment inkjets hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be a weird thing in "the new economy" where the product frequently is the business.
Facebook, Livejournal, etc all identify by their product rather than by their model.Imagine if HP identified as HP Largescale Business Dot Matrix, and sold just one model of Printer.
No matter how good that one dot-matrix printer was, they'd be out of business the moment inkjets hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246902660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you, but if he somehow became a billionaire <b>entrepreneur</b>, then he must have done something right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but if he somehow became a billionaire entrepreneur , then he must have done something right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but if he somehow became a billionaire entrepreneur, then he must have done something right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596715</id>
	<title>Re:Product Anyone?</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1246905180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Web 2.0 will certainly <b>not</b> burst. All you do as a large web 2.0 company is buy more servers and bandwith the more user you get. The more users you get the more advertisement revenue you get and so the more money you make... That's it. So why should it burst?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web 2.0 will certainly not burst .
All you do as a large web 2.0 company is buy more servers and bandwith the more user you get .
The more users you get the more advertisement revenue you get and so the more money you make... That 's it .
So why should it burst ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web 2.0 will certainly not burst.
All you do as a large web 2.0 company is buy more servers and bandwith the more user you get.
The more users you get the more advertisement revenue you get and so the more money you make... That's it.
So why should it burst?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596657</id>
	<title>Mod this up!</title>
	<author>SCPaPaJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246904940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those were excellent episodes which are worth a listen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were excellent episodes which are worth a listen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those were excellent episodes which are worth a listen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595947</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246902120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah.  You need at least a Master's to do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah .
You need at least a Master 's to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah.
You need at least a Master's to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595717</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Aren't these the guys who ruined the economy?</p></div><p>It's easy to drop the blame on MBAs.  And being a software developer I don't think much of them.  I would urge you to refrain from placing all the blame on them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it would be similar to saying "Isn't it software developers fault that copyright law is violated at large today?"  Listen to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio\_Episode.aspx?sched=1301" title="thisamericanlife.org" rel="nofollow">this recent This American Life</a> [thisamericanlife.org] episode on the situation that was created by rating agencies.  By the way, the first two parts of that are amazing and I feel more informed just listening to those <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Economy.aspx" title="thislife.org" rel="nofollow">three episodes</a> [thislife.org] than I do listening to any news outlet.  <br> <br>

Your blame would be more appropriately placed on the rating agencies like Standard and Poors or Moody's and Fitch.  There's probably a few MBAs working there.  Or maybe the people who were playing those rating agencies off each other to get their securities rated higher?  Or maybe the people who knew these securities were not AAA but bought them anyways and treated them as such (and that was a worldwide problem).  It was an entire environment that created a problem for the world economy. <br> <br>

I'm not fan of Cuban but I don't think he was a part of any link in this chain of failure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't these the guys who ruined the economy ? It 's easy to drop the blame on MBAs .
And being a software developer I do n't think much of them .
I would urge you to refrain from placing all the blame on them ... it would be similar to saying " Is n't it software developers fault that copyright law is violated at large today ?
" Listen to this recent This American Life [ thisamericanlife.org ] episode on the situation that was created by rating agencies .
By the way , the first two parts of that are amazing and I feel more informed just listening to those three episodes [ thislife.org ] than I do listening to any news outlet .
Your blame would be more appropriately placed on the rating agencies like Standard and Poors or Moody 's and Fitch .
There 's probably a few MBAs working there .
Or maybe the people who were playing those rating agencies off each other to get their securities rated higher ?
Or maybe the people who knew these securities were not AAA but bought them anyways and treated them as such ( and that was a worldwide problem ) .
It was an entire environment that created a problem for the world economy .
I 'm not fan of Cuban but I do n't think he was a part of any link in this chain of failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't these the guys who ruined the economy?It's easy to drop the blame on MBAs.
And being a software developer I don't think much of them.
I would urge you to refrain from placing all the blame on them ... it would be similar to saying "Isn't it software developers fault that copyright law is violated at large today?
"  Listen to this recent This American Life [thisamericanlife.org] episode on the situation that was created by rating agencies.
By the way, the first two parts of that are amazing and I feel more informed just listening to those three episodes [thislife.org] than I do listening to any news outlet.
Your blame would be more appropriately placed on the rating agencies like Standard and Poors or Moody's and Fitch.
There's probably a few MBAs working there.
Or maybe the people who were playing those rating agencies off each other to get their securities rated higher?
Or maybe the people who knew these securities were not AAA but bought them anyways and treated them as such (and that was a worldwide problem).
It was an entire environment that created a problem for the world economy.
I'm not fan of Cuban but I don't think he was a part of any link in this chain of failure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595701</id>
	<title>1998 all over again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cuban's advice is so 1998. Build up mind share, then cash out and let the company crash. It worked for him.</p><p>Any company will shrivel and die if it doesn't adjust, even a company that was once at the top of the Fortune 500. Free has nothing to do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuban 's advice is so 1998 .
Build up mind share , then cash out and let the company crash .
It worked for him.Any company will shrivel and die if it does n't adjust , even a company that was once at the top of the Fortune 500 .
Free has nothing to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuban's advice is so 1998.
Build up mind share, then cash out and let the company crash.
It worked for him.Any company will shrivel and die if it doesn't adjust, even a company that was once at the top of the Fortune 500.
Free has nothing to do with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596217</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what else has Cuban done?

While it's easy to poke fun at Cuban when he behaves like a spoiled child, most people would agree that he's made some very wise business decisions.  Between his basketball team ownership and his involvement in many other businesses like HDTV programming, there is plenty of evidence of "what else" he's done.

One small example: you know those three-sided 24 second clocks on top of the backboards in the NBA now?  Probably wouldn't have happened if Cuban wasn't listening to his customers:

<a href="http://creatingcustomerevangelists.com/resources/evangelists/mark\_cuban.asp" title="creatingcu...elists.com" rel="nofollow">http://creatingcustomerevangelists.com/resources/evangelists/mark\_cuban.asp</a> [creatingcu...elists.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>what else has Cuban done ?
While it 's easy to poke fun at Cuban when he behaves like a spoiled child , most people would agree that he 's made some very wise business decisions .
Between his basketball team ownership and his involvement in many other businesses like HDTV programming , there is plenty of evidence of " what else " he 's done .
One small example : you know those three-sided 24 second clocks on top of the backboards in the NBA now ?
Probably would n't have happened if Cuban was n't listening to his customers : http : //creatingcustomerevangelists.com/resources/evangelists/mark \ _cuban.asp [ creatingcu...elists.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what else has Cuban done?
While it's easy to poke fun at Cuban when he behaves like a spoiled child, most people would agree that he's made some very wise business decisions.
Between his basketball team ownership and his involvement in many other businesses like HDTV programming, there is plenty of evidence of "what else" he's done.
One small example: you know those three-sided 24 second clocks on top of the backboards in the NBA now?
Probably wouldn't have happened if Cuban wasn't listening to his customers:

http://creatingcustomerevangelists.com/resources/evangelists/mark\_cuban.asp [creatingcu...elists.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596307</id>
	<title>Some have a life cycle, some don't.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246903620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>"Like every company in the free space, your lifecycle has come to its conclusion. Don't fight it. Admit it. Profit from it."</i>
</p><p>
As I point out occasionally, that's definitely true of social networks, which have a short life cycle of coolness, like nightclubs.  It's less true of useful services, like PayPal or eTrade.  (eTrade got into trouble because they got into <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/m/story/c23443ae-5625-4252-8b8a-99f20931a2b0" title="marketwatch.com">home equity loans</a> [marketwatch.com] as a side business.  One of the headaches of running a financial business is keeping the guys who want to do "big deals" with company assets under control.)
</p><p>
eBay is an especially good example, because 1) it has a real revenue model, and 2) there's a strong network effect in having one big auction market rather than many little ones. It's going to be tough for someone to knock off eBay.  Many have tried and failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Like every company in the free space , your lifecycle has come to its conclusion .
Do n't fight it .
Admit it .
Profit from it .
" As I point out occasionally , that 's definitely true of social networks , which have a short life cycle of coolness , like nightclubs .
It 's less true of useful services , like PayPal or eTrade .
( eTrade got into trouble because they got into home equity loans [ marketwatch.com ] as a side business .
One of the headaches of running a financial business is keeping the guys who want to do " big deals " with company assets under control .
) eBay is an especially good example , because 1 ) it has a real revenue model , and 2 ) there 's a strong network effect in having one big auction market rather than many little ones .
It 's going to be tough for someone to knock off eBay .
Many have tried and failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"Like every company in the free space, your lifecycle has come to its conclusion.
Don't fight it.
Admit it.
Profit from it.
"

As I point out occasionally, that's definitely true of social networks, which have a short life cycle of coolness, like nightclubs.
It's less true of useful services, like PayPal or eTrade.
(eTrade got into trouble because they got into home equity loans [marketwatch.com] as a side business.
One of the headaches of running a financial business is keeping the guys who want to do "big deals" with company assets under control.
)

eBay is an especially good example, because 1) it has a real revenue model, and 2) there's a strong network effect in having one big auction market rather than many little ones.
It's going to be tough for someone to knock off eBay.
Many have tried and failed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595565</id>
	<title>Cuban Hater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smartest thing he's ever uttered</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smartest thing he 's ever uttered</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smartest thing he's ever uttered</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596315</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1246903620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see... He founded a company, Sold it for several metric sh*tloads of money before the market crashed, and, and... There's got to be something...<br> <br>
Oh yeah, he was on <i>Dancing with the Stars</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... He founded a company , Sold it for several metric sh * tloads of money before the market crashed , and , and... There 's got to be something.. . Oh yeah , he was on Dancing with the Stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see... He founded a company, Sold it for several metric sh*tloads of money before the market crashed, and, and... There's got to be something... 
Oh yeah, he was on Dancing with the Stars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596907</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>JAZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246905960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah. The real problem is the assumption that a company should expect to run in perpetuity.</p><p>Do your thing.  Provide value.  When someone better comes along either innovate and compete or say "hey, we had a good run", close up shop, and go try something new.</p><p>Both are good solutions.<br>Soliciting protection from the government, bankruptcy, and fighting to your last breath aren't very productive solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah .
The real problem is the assumption that a company should expect to run in perpetuity.Do your thing .
Provide value .
When someone better comes along either innovate and compete or say " hey , we had a good run " , close up shop , and go try something new.Both are good solutions.Soliciting protection from the government , bankruptcy , and fighting to your last breath are n't very productive solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah.
The real problem is the assumption that a company should expect to run in perpetuity.Do your thing.
Provide value.
When someone better comes along either innovate and compete or say "hey, we had a good run", close up shop, and go try something new.Both are good solutions.Soliciting protection from the government, bankruptcy, and fighting to your last breath aren't very productive solutions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596559</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246904520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you're being overly optimistic. We don't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure. The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do, and it's almost always in the form of bailouts, protecting failing enterprises, insuring markets without demanding regulator authority. It's been going on for several decades and it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle.</p></div><p>Heh, socialism is better done by liberals, conservatives suck at it. If you want good government tinkering instead of thinly veiled money diversion, elect a true socialist liberal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're being overly optimistic .
We do n't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure .
The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do , and it 's almost always in the form of bailouts , protecting failing enterprises , insuring markets without demanding regulator authority .
It 's been going on for several decades and it 's led us from one bubble to the next , and it wo n't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle.Heh , socialism is better done by liberals , conservatives suck at it .
If you want good government tinkering instead of thinly veiled money diversion , elect a true socialist liberal ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're being overly optimistic.
We don't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure.
The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do, and it's almost always in the form of bailouts, protecting failing enterprises, insuring markets without demanding regulator authority.
It's been going on for several decades and it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle.Heh, socialism is better done by liberals, conservatives suck at it.
If you want good government tinkering instead of thinly veiled money diversion, elect a true socialist liberal ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598263</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246911660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the point is that one way to compete is to have lower cost products. For example, an airline may reduce fares to try to eliminate competition from another airline. When your product is free to the consumer, there is no way to lower the cost to stave off competition.</p><p>Since nobody pays to upload or download videos on Youtube, there is no way for Youtube to stay at the top by providing lower prices. All they can do is offer better functionality.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the point is that one way to compete is to have lower cost products .
For example , an airline may reduce fares to try to eliminate competition from another airline .
When your product is free to the consumer , there is no way to lower the cost to stave off competition.Since nobody pays to upload or download videos on Youtube , there is no way for Youtube to stay at the top by providing lower prices .
All they can do is offer better functionality.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the point is that one way to compete is to have lower cost products.
For example, an airline may reduce fares to try to eliminate competition from another airline.
When your product is free to the consumer, there is no way to lower the cost to stave off competition.Since nobody pays to upload or download videos on Youtube, there is no way for Youtube to stay at the top by providing lower prices.
All they can do is offer better functionality.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598307</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246911840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is madness!</p></div><p>THIS... is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... SPARTAAAAAaaaaaaaaa.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is madness ! THIS... is ... SPARTAAAAAaaaaaaaaa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is madness!THIS... is ... SPARTAAAAAaaaaaaaaa.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595773</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1246901460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bill Gates? Is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates ?
Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates?
Is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>hobbit</author>
	<datestamp>1246900560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google doesn't live by free. It lives by selling advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't live by free .
It lives by selling advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't live by free.
It lives by selling advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596481</id>
	<title>Insider trader</title>
	<author>bbhack</author>
	<datestamp>1246904160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark Cuban should be in court heading to or in prison.</p><p>Martha is pissed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban should be in court heading to or in prison.Martha is pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban should be in court heading to or in prison.Martha is pissed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591</id>
	<title>Isn't this true of almost all businesses?</title>
	<author>Palestrina</author>
	<datestamp>1246900740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts, there is going to be competition, and you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report.  In any case, competition and barriers to entry has more to do with the nature of the technology and lock-in and lock-out factors like propriety interfaces and patents than it is concerned with the business model.  Maybe the point is just that with a free model, you have less room for error in your strategy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts , there is going to be competition , and you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report .
In any case , competition and barriers to entry has more to do with the nature of the technology and lock-in and lock-out factors like propriety interfaces and patents than it is concerned with the business model .
Maybe the point is just that with a free model , you have less room for error in your strategy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts, there is going to be competition, and you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report.
In any case, competition and barriers to entry has more to do with the nature of the technology and lock-in and lock-out factors like propriety interfaces and patents than it is concerned with the business model.
Maybe the point is just that with a free model, you have less room for error in your strategy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596511</id>
	<title>THE HORROR!</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1246904280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Someone out there with a better idea will raise a bunch of money...</p></div></blockquote><p>My god, that would be a MERITOCRACY!</p><p><b>THE HORROR!  KILL IT WITH FIRE</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone out there with a better idea will raise a bunch of money...My god , that would be a MERITOCRACY ! THE HORROR !
KILL IT WITH FIRE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone out there with a better idea will raise a bunch of money...My god, that would be a MERITOCRACY!THE HORROR!
KILL IT WITH FIRE
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28599369</id>
	<title>What really happened</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246873380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mark Cuban heard that Chris Anderson and Malcom Gladwell were arguing about businesses giving things away for free, and felt jealous because nobody was paying attention to him, so he decided to complain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban heard that Chris Anderson and Malcom Gladwell were arguing about businesses giving things away for free , and felt jealous because nobody was paying attention to him , so he decided to complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban heard that Chris Anderson and Malcom Gladwell were arguing about businesses giving things away for free, and felt jealous because nobody was paying attention to him, so he decided to complain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do</p></div><p>It does?  You mean the more socalistic a country gets, the less it tinkers with the economy?</p><p>I'm a conservative and I don't like the U.S. "tinkering" with the economy.  But from what I understood, most other free countries tend to be more liberal (significantly) than the U.S. (and a lot of liberals in the U.S. complain about that.  Hence the huge push for a national healthcare system at the moment?).  And more liberal countries tend to want to regulate the market more.  And regulate other things, too.</p><p>I'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations doIt does ?
You mean the more socalistic a country gets , the less it tinkers with the economy ? I 'm a conservative and I do n't like the U.S. " tinkering " with the economy .
But from what I understood , most other free countries tend to be more liberal ( significantly ) than the U.S. ( and a lot of liberals in the U.S. complain about that .
Hence the huge push for a national healthcare system at the moment ? ) .
And more liberal countries tend to want to regulate the market more .
And regulate other things , too.I 'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations doIt does?
You mean the more socalistic a country gets, the less it tinkers with the economy?I'm a conservative and I don't like the U.S. "tinkering" with the economy.
But from what I understood, most other free countries tend to be more liberal (significantly) than the U.S. (and a lot of liberals in the U.S. complain about that.
Hence the huge push for a national healthcare system at the moment?).
And more liberal countries tend to want to regulate the market more.
And regulate other things, too.I'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595685</id>
	<title>Product Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about creating and selling a product that people want to have and are willing to pay money for? That seems to be more intelligent than giving away for free. The majority of the "for free" company will cease to exist when the next internet bubble (the "Web 2.0" bubble) will burst, ya know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about creating and selling a product that people want to have and are willing to pay money for ?
That seems to be more intelligent than giving away for free .
The majority of the " for free " company will cease to exist when the next internet bubble ( the " Web 2.0 " bubble ) will burst , ya know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about creating and selling a product that people want to have and are willing to pay money for?
That seems to be more intelligent than giving away for free.
The majority of the "for free" company will cease to exist when the next internet bubble (the "Web 2.0" bubble) will burst, ya know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597779</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1246909380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But from what I understood, most other free countries tend to be <b>more liberal</b> (significantly) than the U.S. (and a lot of <b>liberals</b> in the U.S. complain about that.)</p></div><p>When you say "more liberal", do you mean "more left-wing"? The word "liberal" tends to have connotations within the U.S. political system which don't really apply elsewhere, and it makes it confusing if you use it within both contexts like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But from what I understood , most other free countries tend to be more liberal ( significantly ) than the U.S. ( and a lot of liberals in the U.S. complain about that .
) When you say " more liberal " , do you mean " more left-wing " ?
The word " liberal " tends to have connotations within the U.S. political system which do n't really apply elsewhere , and it makes it confusing if you use it within both contexts like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But from what I understood, most other free countries tend to be more liberal (significantly) than the U.S. (and a lot of liberals in the U.S. complain about that.
)When you say "more liberal", do you mean "more left-wing"?
The word "liberal" tends to have connotations within the U.S. political system which don't really apply elsewhere, and it makes it confusing if you use it within both contexts like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595909</id>
	<title>Re:Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed, then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.</p><p>Also, Mark Cuban seems to misunderstand how industries are supposed to work.  If you never OSS anything, how can we expect to ever continue building on something??  Meaning, if we have to pay a license to someone like Microsoft and/or Oracle forever, how can one expect that additional future advanced systems can be cost effectively built??</p><p>Finally, Mr Cuban made his money during a very unique time were pension funds and VCs had a massive liquidity orgy.  Those days are over, and Mr. Cuban should accept that he was more lucky that smart...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed , then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.Also , Mark Cuban seems to misunderstand how industries are supposed to work .
If you never OSS anything , how can we expect to ever continue building on something ? ?
Meaning , if we have to pay a license to someone like Microsoft and/or Oracle forever , how can one expect that additional future advanced systems can be cost effectively built ?
? Finally , Mr Cuban made his money during a very unique time were pension funds and VCs had a massive liquidity orgy .
Those days are over , and Mr. Cuban should accept that he was more lucky that smart.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed, then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.Also, Mark Cuban seems to misunderstand how industries are supposed to work.
If you never OSS anything, how can we expect to ever continue building on something??
Meaning, if we have to pay a license to someone like Microsoft and/or Oracle forever, how can one expect that additional future advanced systems can be cost effectively built?
?Finally, Mr Cuban made his money during a very unique time were pension funds and VCs had a massive liquidity orgy.
Those days are over, and Mr. Cuban should accept that he was more lucky that smart...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596691</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MBA's ruined the economy?</p><p>Har!  Fat, lazy Americans too apathetic to do anything about the corrupt lobbyist regime and corporate dictatorship but whinge and moan about it on online forums aka "/." are what destroyed the economy (given as a small but relevant sample of the general audience).</p><p>This discussion, and the topic, is a perfect foil for the reason the American Economy has begun (yes, begun<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you guys haven't even seen the bottom of your barrel yet) to collapse.  "Free" in a pure capitalist/consumerist economy just invites greed and laziness.  "Free" means struggling to monetize the wallowers who only show up when the bucket is dumped into the trough.  FOSS illustrates this perfectly, as a vanishingly small percentage of people who use FOSS ever contribute anything back to the community, and worse damage it by monetizing other people's "Free" for their own gain.  In that kind of environment, how can "Free" do anything but fail in a society that gleefully enables patent trolls, decades-long lawsuits, and people who can look you in the face and tell you with pure conviction that they only download movies because they're altruistic freedom fighters "fighting the man".</p><p> <em>"You can't change the world, but you can make a dent."</em> <br>
&nbsp; -- Smoochie the Rhino</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MBA 's ruined the economy ? Har !
Fat , lazy Americans too apathetic to do anything about the corrupt lobbyist regime and corporate dictatorship but whinge and moan about it on online forums aka " / .
" are what destroyed the economy ( given as a small but relevant sample of the general audience ) .This discussion , and the topic , is a perfect foil for the reason the American Economy has begun ( yes , begun ... you guys have n't even seen the bottom of your barrel yet ) to collapse .
" Free " in a pure capitalist/consumerist economy just invites greed and laziness .
" Free " means struggling to monetize the wallowers who only show up when the bucket is dumped into the trough .
FOSS illustrates this perfectly , as a vanishingly small percentage of people who use FOSS ever contribute anything back to the community , and worse damage it by monetizing other people 's " Free " for their own gain .
In that kind of environment , how can " Free " do anything but fail in a society that gleefully enables patent trolls , decades-long lawsuits , and people who can look you in the face and tell you with pure conviction that they only download movies because they 're altruistic freedom fighters " fighting the man " .
" You ca n't change the world , but you can make a dent .
"   -- Smoochie the Rhino</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MBA's ruined the economy?Har!
Fat, lazy Americans too apathetic to do anything about the corrupt lobbyist regime and corporate dictatorship but whinge and moan about it on online forums aka "/.
" are what destroyed the economy (given as a small but relevant sample of the general audience).This discussion, and the topic, is a perfect foil for the reason the American Economy has begun (yes, begun ... you guys haven't even seen the bottom of your barrel yet) to collapse.
"Free" in a pure capitalist/consumerist economy just invites greed and laziness.
"Free" means struggling to monetize the wallowers who only show up when the bucket is dumped into the trough.
FOSS illustrates this perfectly, as a vanishingly small percentage of people who use FOSS ever contribute anything back to the community, and worse damage it by monetizing other people's "Free" for their own gain.
In that kind of environment, how can "Free" do anything but fail in a society that gleefully enables patent trolls, decades-long lawsuits, and people who can look you in the face and tell you with pure conviction that they only download movies because they're altruistic freedom fighters "fighting the man".
"You can't change the world, but you can make a dent.
" 
  -- Smoochie the Rhino</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596215</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1246903260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Be warned fellow citizens, in my lifetime I have seen market after market reach the endstate of an American capitalism: protected stagnation.</p></div><p>There's only one solution: kill eldavojohn to save the economy!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be warned fellow citizens , in my lifetime I have seen market after market reach the endstate of an American capitalism : protected stagnation.There 's only one solution : kill eldavojohn to save the economy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be warned fellow citizens, in my lifetime I have seen market after market reach the endstate of an American capitalism: protected stagnation.There's only one solution: kill eldavojohn to save the economy!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596373</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like Bernie Madoff, amirite???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Bernie Madoff , amirite ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Bernie Madoff, amirite??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596631</id>
	<title>is craigslist an alternative?</title>
	<author>Lexible</author>
	<datestamp>1246904820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Craigslist is <i>mostly</i> free, yet i wonder if they are threatened by the kind of live by/die by scenario proposed by Cuban? Or will they simply die, when someone comes along and offers a free real estate database competitive with their own, and thereby knock out their revenue?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Craigslist is mostly free , yet i wonder if they are threatened by the kind of live by/die by scenario proposed by Cuban ?
Or will they simply die , when someone comes along and offers a free real estate database competitive with their own , and thereby knock out their revenue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craigslist is mostly free, yet i wonder if they are threatened by the kind of live by/die by scenario proposed by Cuban?
Or will they simply die, when someone comes along and offers a free real estate database competitive with their own, and thereby knock out their revenue?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595959</id>
	<title>At first thought he was arguing against it</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1246902120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But he is making a valid observation.  If you sit on your business model you will end up like the RIAA and be clinging to it as everyone else passes you by.  Cash in while you can knowing it could die abruptly, and make sure you have enough R&amp;D to have the next product in the chamber.  It is the only way to do business (and actually that has very little to do with a free business model).</htmltext>
<tokenext>But he is making a valid observation .
If you sit on your business model you will end up like the RIAA and be clinging to it as everyone else passes you by .
Cash in while you can knowing it could die abruptly , and make sure you have enough R&amp;D to have the next product in the chamber .
It is the only way to do business ( and actually that has very little to do with a free business model ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he is making a valid observation.
If you sit on your business model you will end up like the RIAA and be clinging to it as everyone else passes you by.
Cash in while you can knowing it could die abruptly, and make sure you have enough R&amp;D to have the next product in the chamber.
It is the only way to do business (and actually that has very little to do with a free business model).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28606509</id>
	<title>horse too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck him and the horse he rode in on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck him and the horse he rode in on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck him and the horse he rode in on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597275</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246907580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!</p><p>Old Mark seems to think that there is only one customer in the market place which is completely wrong.</p><p>In most businesses there are at least 2 types of people you cater to. (usually more)<br>In the case of successful web companies, 2 of them are advertisers and customers.  (casual browsers can also be a target too, from search engines and the like)<br>And those tend to be split into 2, too:<br>Site needs to look nice for new advertisers<br>Site needs to be good for keeping current advertisers<br>Site needs to be free for the majority of customers<br>Site <i>can</i> cater to those willing to pay for extra features. (such as better search, more pictures in profiles, etc)</p><p>The last one doesn't appear to be as popular anymore, which is a bit silly because there are people out there who are willing to pay for more features if they are offered.<br>Just imagine how much more money Myspace would have made if they kept the Profile Pictures limit at whatever it was again, and then offered unlimited pictures for a fee. (per month or per annum, or a premium price that will last forever)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly ! Old Mark seems to think that there is only one customer in the market place which is completely wrong.In most businesses there are at least 2 types of people you cater to .
( usually more ) In the case of successful web companies , 2 of them are advertisers and customers .
( casual browsers can also be a target too , from search engines and the like ) And those tend to be split into 2 , too : Site needs to look nice for new advertisersSite needs to be good for keeping current advertisersSite needs to be free for the majority of customersSite can cater to those willing to pay for extra features .
( such as better search , more pictures in profiles , etc ) The last one does n't appear to be as popular anymore , which is a bit silly because there are people out there who are willing to pay for more features if they are offered.Just imagine how much more money Myspace would have made if they kept the Profile Pictures limit at whatever it was again , and then offered unlimited pictures for a fee .
( per month or per annum , or a premium price that will last forever )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!Old Mark seems to think that there is only one customer in the market place which is completely wrong.In most businesses there are at least 2 types of people you cater to.
(usually more)In the case of successful web companies, 2 of them are advertisers and customers.
(casual browsers can also be a target too, from search engines and the like)And those tend to be split into 2, too:Site needs to look nice for new advertisersSite needs to be good for keeping current advertisersSite needs to be free for the majority of customersSite can cater to those willing to pay for extra features.
(such as better search, more pictures in profiles, etc)The last one doesn't appear to be as popular anymore, which is a bit silly because there are people out there who are willing to pay for more features if they are offered.Just imagine how much more money Myspace would have made if they kept the Profile Pictures limit at whatever it was again, and then offered unlimited pictures for a fee.
(per month or per annum, or a premium price that will last forever)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28599587</id>
	<title>Just what is he bitching about, anyway?</title>
	<author>Anarchduke</author>
	<datestamp>1246874220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, I am a little confused.  So, Mark Cuban, who made his money by selling an overpriced albatross of a business to yahoo is weighing in on the value of giving free services to the public.  And Mark Cuban's former business was broadcast.com.  A business which, as I recall, focused on delivering FREE content using advertising as a method of monetizing the company's FREE (to the public) service.<blockquote><div><p>Its not that they can't make money offering free. They can, have and will. The problem is that they know that its literally impossible to be the king of the mountain forever.  But that won't stop them from trying. And that is exactly what will kill them.</p></div></blockquote><p>

As an internet forum commentator, I am an expert on talking out my ass on subjects I know little or nothing about, and I am sure many of my fellow slashdotters can relate.  Thus, I can recognize that Mark Cuban seems to be talking out of his ass.  The above quote seems to say that succeeding in a business but failing to innovate will cause you to lose your preeminent position in an industry.  But then he blames it on the fact that the business model includes delivering free content instead of the competitor that improved on the service being provided.<br> <br>

Does Cuban suck RIAA cock every morning in order to wake up rather than drink coffee?  If your basketball team loses to another franchise (and Cuban should understand this one), then this means that the other team played better.  It isn't the fault of the fans who watched the game.  Cuban is blaming the consumer for a company getting its ass kicked by another company.  It obviously doesn't matter whether the service you are delivering is free or not.  What Cuban is mouthing off about actually seems to be the idea of a competitor taking your position.  Much the same way that Infoseek or Altavista are no longer credible search engines whereas Google is now part of the vocabulary of kindergartners. <br> <br>
In my mind, there is a self serving value in giving away free content to your consumers that Cuban has overlooked.  It means your competitors can't use lower prices to drive you out of the market.  Instead, it forces that "Black Swan" company to improve on the services you are offering.  In fact, whether or not the service you are providing is free doesn't matter a fucking bit.<br> <br>
Microsoft charges an outrageous amount of money for its operating system.  Linux is free.  And Microsoft has a 90\% market share.  Is Windows a better operating system?  Yet, Microsoft is still dominating the market because they fight like hell to stay on top.  What would Cuban advise Microsoft on this issue?</p><blockquote><div><p>when you see your BlackSwan company appear and you know they will kick your ass, rather than ramping up to try to compete, get out. Sell.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps this fight to win, never quit attitude is why the Dallas Mavericks keep winning championships.  Oh right, nevermind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I am a little confused .
So , Mark Cuban , who made his money by selling an overpriced albatross of a business to yahoo is weighing in on the value of giving free services to the public .
And Mark Cuban 's former business was broadcast.com .
A business which , as I recall , focused on delivering FREE content using advertising as a method of monetizing the company 's FREE ( to the public ) service.Its not that they ca n't make money offering free .
They can , have and will .
The problem is that they know that its literally impossible to be the king of the mountain forever .
But that wo n't stop them from trying .
And that is exactly what will kill them .
As an internet forum commentator , I am an expert on talking out my ass on subjects I know little or nothing about , and I am sure many of my fellow slashdotters can relate .
Thus , I can recognize that Mark Cuban seems to be talking out of his ass .
The above quote seems to say that succeeding in a business but failing to innovate will cause you to lose your preeminent position in an industry .
But then he blames it on the fact that the business model includes delivering free content instead of the competitor that improved on the service being provided .
Does Cuban suck RIAA cock every morning in order to wake up rather than drink coffee ?
If your basketball team loses to another franchise ( and Cuban should understand this one ) , then this means that the other team played better .
It is n't the fault of the fans who watched the game .
Cuban is blaming the consumer for a company getting its ass kicked by another company .
It obviously does n't matter whether the service you are delivering is free or not .
What Cuban is mouthing off about actually seems to be the idea of a competitor taking your position .
Much the same way that Infoseek or Altavista are no longer credible search engines whereas Google is now part of the vocabulary of kindergartners .
In my mind , there is a self serving value in giving away free content to your consumers that Cuban has overlooked .
It means your competitors ca n't use lower prices to drive you out of the market .
Instead , it forces that " Black Swan " company to improve on the services you are offering .
In fact , whether or not the service you are providing is free does n't matter a fucking bit .
Microsoft charges an outrageous amount of money for its operating system .
Linux is free .
And Microsoft has a 90 \ % market share .
Is Windows a better operating system ?
Yet , Microsoft is still dominating the market because they fight like hell to stay on top .
What would Cuban advise Microsoft on this issue ? when you see your BlackSwan company appear and you know they will kick your ass , rather than ramping up to try to compete , get out .
Sell.Perhaps this fight to win , never quit attitude is why the Dallas Mavericks keep winning championships .
Oh right , nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I am a little confused.
So, Mark Cuban, who made his money by selling an overpriced albatross of a business to yahoo is weighing in on the value of giving free services to the public.
And Mark Cuban's former business was broadcast.com.
A business which, as I recall, focused on delivering FREE content using advertising as a method of monetizing the company's FREE (to the public) service.Its not that they can't make money offering free.
They can, have and will.
The problem is that they know that its literally impossible to be the king of the mountain forever.
But that won't stop them from trying.
And that is exactly what will kill them.
As an internet forum commentator, I am an expert on talking out my ass on subjects I know little or nothing about, and I am sure many of my fellow slashdotters can relate.
Thus, I can recognize that Mark Cuban seems to be talking out of his ass.
The above quote seems to say that succeeding in a business but failing to innovate will cause you to lose your preeminent position in an industry.
But then he blames it on the fact that the business model includes delivering free content instead of the competitor that improved on the service being provided.
Does Cuban suck RIAA cock every morning in order to wake up rather than drink coffee?
If your basketball team loses to another franchise (and Cuban should understand this one), then this means that the other team played better.
It isn't the fault of the fans who watched the game.
Cuban is blaming the consumer for a company getting its ass kicked by another company.
It obviously doesn't matter whether the service you are delivering is free or not.
What Cuban is mouthing off about actually seems to be the idea of a competitor taking your position.
Much the same way that Infoseek or Altavista are no longer credible search engines whereas Google is now part of the vocabulary of kindergartners.
In my mind, there is a self serving value in giving away free content to your consumers that Cuban has overlooked.
It means your competitors can't use lower prices to drive you out of the market.
Instead, it forces that "Black Swan" company to improve on the services you are offering.
In fact, whether or not the service you are providing is free doesn't matter a fucking bit.
Microsoft charges an outrageous amount of money for its operating system.
Linux is free.
And Microsoft has a 90\% market share.
Is Windows a better operating system?
Yet, Microsoft is still dominating the market because they fight like hell to stay on top.
What would Cuban advise Microsoft on this issue?when you see your BlackSwan company appear and you know they will kick your ass, rather than ramping up to try to compete, get out.
Sell.Perhaps this fight to win, never quit attitude is why the Dallas Mavericks keep winning championships.
Oh right, nevermind.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28601829</id>
	<title>Re: If You Live By Free, You Will Die By Free</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1246885500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has got to be undoubtedly the worst James Bond movie title I've ever heard...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has got to be undoubtedly the worst James Bond movie title I 've ever heard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has got to be undoubtedly the worst James Bond movie title I've ever heard...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597507</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more than you have done...if he's salt what are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more than you have done...if he 's salt what are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more than you have done...if he's salt what are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</id>
	<title>This Is Madness</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246900320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone out there with a better idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>You mean I have to compete against innovation?!</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... will raise a bunch of money, give it away for free, build scale and charge less to reach the audience<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>And my competitors can undercut me?!  <br> <br>

This is madness!  I demand protection against people trying to steal my customers with a better service/product and lower prices!  Oh well, thank god I'm too big of a player for the government to let me go under.  <br> <br>

Be warned fellow citizens, in my lifetime I have seen market after market reach the endstate of an American capitalism: protected stagnation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone out there with a better idea ... You mean I have to compete against innovation ? !
... will raise a bunch of money , give it away for free , build scale and charge less to reach the audience ... And my competitors can undercut me ? !
This is madness !
I demand protection against people trying to steal my customers with a better service/product and lower prices !
Oh well , thank god I 'm too big of a player for the government to let me go under .
Be warned fellow citizens , in my lifetime I have seen market after market reach the endstate of an American capitalism : protected stagnation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone out there with a better idea ... You mean I have to compete against innovation?!
... will raise a bunch of money, give it away for free, build scale and charge less to reach the audience ... And my competitors can undercut me?!
This is madness!
I demand protection against people trying to steal my customers with a better service/product and lower prices!
Oh well, thank god I'm too big of a player for the government to let me go under.
Be warned fellow citizens, in my lifetime I have seen market after market reach the endstate of an American capitalism: protected stagnation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596741</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically, Woolworth's is still in business. They are now known as Foot Locker. Woolworth's bought the shoe store a long time ago, and that was the only part of the company to survive.</p><p>For a while, Foot Locker's stock symbol was Z because that was Woolworth's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , Woolworth 's is still in business .
They are now known as Foot Locker .
Woolworth 's bought the shoe store a long time ago , and that was the only part of the company to survive.For a while , Foot Locker 's stock symbol was Z because that was Woolworth 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, Woolworth's is still in business.
They are now known as Foot Locker.
Woolworth's bought the shoe store a long time ago, and that was the only part of the company to survive.For a while, Foot Locker's stock symbol was Z because that was Woolworth's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598177</id>
	<title>Honestly...</title>
	<author>hurting now</author>
	<datestamp>1246911300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mark Cuban is an ass.<br> <br>

He is a DRM proponent, and can't stand the idea of true innovation whether its a "free" model or not.
<br> <br>
Sure, if you live by "free" you will die by "free"... but won't you die happy knowing that you were "free"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban is an ass .
He is a DRM proponent , and ca n't stand the idea of true innovation whether its a " free " model or not .
Sure , if you live by " free " you will die by " free " ... but wo n't you die happy knowing that you were " free " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban is an ass.
He is a DRM proponent, and can't stand the idea of true innovation whether its a "free" model or not.
Sure, if you live by "free" you will die by "free"... but won't you die happy knowing that you were "free"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596663</id>
	<title>Mark Cuban...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596223</id>
	<title>Mark how is that toilet business going?</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1246903320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This with the clever investment in toilets <a href="http://www.i4u.com/article4746.html" title="i4u.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.i4u.com/article4746.html</a> [i4u.com]. Something the Japanese have been doing for years. Hey Mark any good recommendation for bidet derivative investments?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This with the clever investment in toilets http : //www.i4u.com/article4746.html [ i4u.com ] .
Something the Japanese have been doing for years .
Hey Mark any good recommendation for bidet derivative investments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This with the clever investment in toilets http://www.i4u.com/article4746.html [i4u.com].
Something the Japanese have been doing for years.
Hey Mark any good recommendation for bidet derivative investments?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596023</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Why is this even news worth commenting about.  Cuban was a lucky schmoe during the first Internet bubble.  Winning the 'lottery' doesn't all of a sudden make you a 'smart' person worth listening to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Why is this even news worth commenting about .
Cuban was a lucky schmoe during the first Internet bubble .
Winning the 'lottery ' does n't all of a sudden make you a 'smart ' person worth listening to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Why is this even news worth commenting about.
Cuban was a lucky schmoe during the first Internet bubble.
Winning the 'lottery' doesn't all of a sudden make you a 'smart' person worth listening to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28604835</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1246999020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone out there with a better idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>You mean I have to compete against innovation?!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>... will raise a bunch of money, give it away for free, build scale and charge less to reach the audience<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>And my competitors can undercut me?!

And it would be <b>so</b> different if you weren't in the <i>for free</i> market. Wouldn't it?



</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone out there with a better idea ...You mean I have to compete against innovation ? ! .. .
will raise a bunch of money , give it away for free , build scale and charge less to reach the audience ...And my competitors can undercut me ? !
And it would be so different if you were n't in the for free market .
Would n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone out there with a better idea ...You mean I have to compete against innovation?!...
will raise a bunch of money, give it away for free, build scale and charge less to reach the audience ...And my competitors can undercut me?!
And it would be so different if you weren't in the for free market.
Wouldn't it?




	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596749</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246905360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Isn't it software developers fault that copyright law is violated at large today?</i></p><p>No, the software developers only make tools. Blaming software developers for copyright infringement is like blaming gun manufacturers for war. We were making cassettes from our friends' LPs long before the first digital recording was made. What's more, it was LEGAL. The reasons for its outlawing are purely bogus.</p><p>I agree with the rest of your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it software developers fault that copyright law is violated at large today ? No , the software developers only make tools .
Blaming software developers for copyright infringement is like blaming gun manufacturers for war .
We were making cassettes from our friends ' LPs long before the first digital recording was made .
What 's more , it was LEGAL .
The reasons for its outlawing are purely bogus.I agree with the rest of your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it software developers fault that copyright law is violated at large today?No, the software developers only make tools.
Blaming software developers for copyright infringement is like blaming gun manufacturers for war.
We were making cassettes from our friends' LPs long before the first digital recording was made.
What's more, it was LEGAL.
The reasons for its outlawing are purely bogus.I agree with the rest of your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595907</id>
	<title>bizarre</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1246901940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is google free?</p><p>The advertisers pay.</p><p>People who want premium services pay.</p><p>The rest of us pay with our time and our eyeballs, looking at ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is google free ? The advertisers pay.People who want premium services pay.The rest of us pay with our time and our eyeballs , looking at ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is google free?The advertisers pay.People who want premium services pay.The rest of us pay with our time and our eyeballs, looking at ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596013</id>
	<title>Re:Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246902420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Zildijan, a very prominent manufacturer of drum cymbals, has been around for 400 years. Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avedis\_Zildjian\_Company" title="wikipedia.org">click</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
Sumitomo has been around since 1590.
<br> <br>
IBM has been around since the early 1900s, and they are still hugely relevant today.
<br> <br>
These are obvious exceptions to the rule, but it does show that if a company has a good thing going and can play its cards right, it can survive a long, long, LONG time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zildijan , a very prominent manufacturer of drum cymbals , has been around for 400 years .
Source : click [ wikipedia.org ] Sumitomo has been around since 1590 .
IBM has been around since the early 1900s , and they are still hugely relevant today .
These are obvious exceptions to the rule , but it does show that if a company has a good thing going and can play its cards right , it can survive a long , long , LONG time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zildijan, a very prominent manufacturer of drum cymbals, has been around for 400 years.
Source: click [wikipedia.org]
 
Sumitomo has been around since 1590.
IBM has been around since the early 1900s, and they are still hugely relevant today.
These are obvious exceptions to the rule, but it does show that if a company has a good thing going and can play its cards right, it can survive a long, long, LONG time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596789</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing, bing, bing!  We have a winner!</p><p><a href="https://cashbackaccount.bing.com/cashback/welcome.aspx" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">https://cashbackaccount.bing.com/cashback/welcome.aspx</a> [bing.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing , bing , bing !
We have a winner ! https : //cashbackaccount.bing.com/cashback/welcome.aspx [ bing.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing, bing, bing!
We have a winner!https://cashbackaccount.bing.com/cashback/welcome.aspx [bing.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596601</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246904700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do</i></p><p>[citation needed]</p><p><i>it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle</i></p><p>Booms and busts are inevitable, especially without regulations. But as long as we have the best government money can buy, you're not going to get any meaningful regulation. For instance, the only reason they're thinking about universal health care now is because the corporations have started to realize that employer-provided health benefits put them at a disadvantage to companies in countries where they don't have to pay those costs. Notice that the insurance companies won't be out of the loop; more likely we'll still have health insurance, only it'll be mandatory and the employer won't be forced to provide it.</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom\_and\_bust" title="wikipedia.org">Boom and bust</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>The term boom and bust refers to a great buildup in the price of a particular commodity or, alternately, the localized rise in an economy, often based upon the value of a single commodity, followed by a downturn as the commodity price falls due to a change in economic circumstances or the collapse of unrealistic expectations.</p><p>Boom and bust phenomena have existed for centuries. During a "boom" period, buyers find themselves paying increasingly higher prices until the "bust", at which time the goods and commodities for which they have paid inflated prices may end up as valueless or nearly so.</p><p>On a broader basis, the phrase boom and bust can also refer to an economy's credit cycles that occur as a result of fluctuations in "fiduciary media" or fiat money. This view is predominant in the business cycle theory of the Austrian School of economics.</p><p>[edit] Examples of "Booms and Busts"</p><ul> <li>the Tulip mania of the 1630s, in Holland[1]<br>towns such as Bodie, California that prospered during the California Gold Rush of the late 1840s and early 1850s then became ghost towns[2]</li><li>the Roaring Twenties in the United States, followed by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression[3]</li><li>the Dot-com bubble, involving new electronic technology and the internet, in the late 1990s[4]</li><li>the American subprime lending boom in the 1990s and early 2000s, followed by the Subprime mortgage crisis of 2006 and beyond[5]</li><li>The Irish Celtic Tiger which led to massive economic growth in Ireland beginning in 1994 and continuing through to 2007. It was based on exports of Information Technology, Software and financial service up until 2001. The economy then veered of course due to government mismanagement and the economy grew based on Domestic housebuilding up until 2007. In 2008 Ireland's economy entered recession and in 2009 this recession has grown to a full blown economic depression.</li></ul><p>Note that this article doesn't list all of history's cycles; there were other panics, such as the one in the early 20th century before the 20s.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do [ citation needed ] it 's led us from one bubble to the next , and it wo n't stop for at least one more boom bust cycleBooms and busts are inevitable , especially without regulations .
But as long as we have the best government money can buy , you 're not going to get any meaningful regulation .
For instance , the only reason they 're thinking about universal health care now is because the corporations have started to realize that employer-provided health benefits put them at a disadvantage to companies in countries where they do n't have to pay those costs .
Notice that the insurance companies wo n't be out of the loop ; more likely we 'll still have health insurance , only it 'll be mandatory and the employer wo n't be forced to provide it .
Boom and bust [ wikipedia.org ] The term boom and bust refers to a great buildup in the price of a particular commodity or , alternately , the localized rise in an economy , often based upon the value of a single commodity , followed by a downturn as the commodity price falls due to a change in economic circumstances or the collapse of unrealistic expectations.Boom and bust phenomena have existed for centuries .
During a " boom " period , buyers find themselves paying increasingly higher prices until the " bust " , at which time the goods and commodities for which they have paid inflated prices may end up as valueless or nearly so.On a broader basis , the phrase boom and bust can also refer to an economy 's credit cycles that occur as a result of fluctuations in " fiduciary media " or fiat money .
This view is predominant in the business cycle theory of the Austrian School of economics .
[ edit ] Examples of " Booms and Busts " the Tulip mania of the 1630s , in Holland [ 1 ] towns such as Bodie , California that prospered during the California Gold Rush of the late 1840s and early 1850s then became ghost towns [ 2 ] the Roaring Twenties in the United States , followed by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression [ 3 ] the Dot-com bubble , involving new electronic technology and the internet , in the late 1990s [ 4 ] the American subprime lending boom in the 1990s and early 2000s , followed by the Subprime mortgage crisis of 2006 and beyond [ 5 ] The Irish Celtic Tiger which led to massive economic growth in Ireland beginning in 1994 and continuing through to 2007 .
It was based on exports of Information Technology , Software and financial service up until 2001 .
The economy then veered of course due to government mismanagement and the economy grew based on Domestic housebuilding up until 2007 .
In 2008 Ireland 's economy entered recession and in 2009 this recession has grown to a full blown economic depression.Note that this article does n't list all of history 's cycles ; there were other panics , such as the one in the early 20th century before the 20s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do[citation needed]it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycleBooms and busts are inevitable, especially without regulations.
But as long as we have the best government money can buy, you're not going to get any meaningful regulation.
For instance, the only reason they're thinking about universal health care now is because the corporations have started to realize that employer-provided health benefits put them at a disadvantage to companies in countries where they don't have to pay those costs.
Notice that the insurance companies won't be out of the loop; more likely we'll still have health insurance, only it'll be mandatory and the employer won't be forced to provide it.
Boom and bust [wikipedia.org]The term boom and bust refers to a great buildup in the price of a particular commodity or, alternately, the localized rise in an economy, often based upon the value of a single commodity, followed by a downturn as the commodity price falls due to a change in economic circumstances or the collapse of unrealistic expectations.Boom and bust phenomena have existed for centuries.
During a "boom" period, buyers find themselves paying increasingly higher prices until the "bust", at which time the goods and commodities for which they have paid inflated prices may end up as valueless or nearly so.On a broader basis, the phrase boom and bust can also refer to an economy's credit cycles that occur as a result of fluctuations in "fiduciary media" or fiat money.
This view is predominant in the business cycle theory of the Austrian School of economics.
[edit] Examples of "Booms and Busts" the Tulip mania of the 1630s, in Holland[1]towns such as Bodie, California that prospered during the California Gold Rush of the late 1840s and early 1850s then became ghost towns[2]the Roaring Twenties in the United States, followed by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression[3]the Dot-com bubble, involving new electronic technology and the internet, in the late 1990s[4]the American subprime lending boom in the 1990s and early 2000s, followed by the Subprime mortgage crisis of 2006 and beyond[5]The Irish Celtic Tiger which led to massive economic growth in Ireland beginning in 1994 and continuing through to 2007.
It was based on exports of Information Technology, Software and financial service up until 2001.
The economy then veered of course due to government mismanagement and the economy grew based on Domestic housebuilding up until 2007.
In 2008 Ireland's economy entered recession and in 2009 this recession has grown to a full blown economic depression.Note that this article doesn't list all of history's cycles; there were other panics, such as the one in the early 20th century before the 20s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596835</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1246905600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. It was the quants&mdash;Physicists and mathematicians with overblown confidence in their formulae.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It was the quants    Physicists and mathematicians with overblown confidence in their formulae .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It was the quants—Physicists and mathematicians with overblown confidence in their formulae.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596089</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>B'Trey</author>
	<datestamp>1246902660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is exactly why Mark Cuban is so misguided.  No one lives by free.  That is, you might start up a business that lives by free and last until your money runs out, but you either find a way to monetize your customers or you go under.  Companies which "live by free" actually live by a business model that includes free but isn't exclusively free.  And such businesses are no different from any other business.  Every business, regardless of whether or not it has free as part of its business model, faces competition and threat from other businesses.  It's the way capitalism works.  Woolworths and HQ, for example, didn't go out of business because of anything to do with "free."  But they were still out-competed and failed.  If you take the reference to "free" out of Cuban's comments, he's simply describing the challenges facing any business in a capitalistic system.  Cuban of all people should know that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is exactly why Mark Cuban is so misguided .
No one lives by free .
That is , you might start up a business that lives by free and last until your money runs out , but you either find a way to monetize your customers or you go under .
Companies which " live by free " actually live by a business model that includes free but is n't exclusively free .
And such businesses are no different from any other business .
Every business , regardless of whether or not it has free as part of its business model , faces competition and threat from other businesses .
It 's the way capitalism works .
Woolworths and HQ , for example , did n't go out of business because of anything to do with " free .
" But they were still out-competed and failed .
If you take the reference to " free " out of Cuban 's comments , he 's simply describing the challenges facing any business in a capitalistic system .
Cuban of all people should know that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is exactly why Mark Cuban is so misguided.
No one lives by free.
That is, you might start up a business that lives by free and last until your money runs out, but you either find a way to monetize your customers or you go under.
Companies which "live by free" actually live by a business model that includes free but isn't exclusively free.
And such businesses are no different from any other business.
Every business, regardless of whether or not it has free as part of its business model, faces competition and threat from other businesses.
It's the way capitalism works.
Woolworths and HQ, for example, didn't go out of business because of anything to do with "free.
"  But they were still out-competed and failed.
If you take the reference to "free" out of Cuban's comments, he's simply describing the challenges facing any business in a capitalistic system.
Cuban of all people should know that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597001</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this true of almost all businesses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>compare and contrast:
<br>
<br>
automobile unions - too big to fail
<br>
<br>
donuts - can make you too be to flail</htmltext>
<tokenext>compare and contrast : automobile unions - too big to fail donuts - can make you too be to flail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>compare and contrast:


automobile unions - too big to fail


donuts - can make you too be to flail</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596555</id>
	<title>mod DowGn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246904460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America. You, BS4D addicts, flame</htmltext>
<tokenext>America .
You , BS4D addicts , flame</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America.
You, BS4D addicts, flame</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597295</id>
	<title>same thing can be said about prop. software</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1246907640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let's say Ty Coon Devices releases a device that runs millions of applications and has a worldwide customer base in the bizillions.  The consumer electronics market wants in on the pie, so a slough of 3rd-party hardware devices are sold which integrate with Ty Coon Mobile.  Infrastructures and economies are built upon the Ty Coon platform.  Everyone is ecstatic and really doesn't care that the platform is locked tight and Ty Coon decides what can run on it's device and what it can integrate with.  Some years later, Ty Coon decides it want's to "upgrade" it's platform.  You don't get a choice whether your extension or derived work is sanctioned to work with the new upgrade.  You just cross your fingers.  Nevermind that Some Other Big Company decides to offer Ty Coon a buttload of cash to make the device "less friendly" with some of the competing software/hardware devices on the market.  You still can only just cross your fingers.  There is nothing guaranteed with proprietary platforms either. You're in the same friggin boat.  It's just a different color.  At least if you have a Free/open platform, you have a chance at making things compatible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's say Ty Coon Devices releases a device that runs millions of applications and has a worldwide customer base in the bizillions .
The consumer electronics market wants in on the pie , so a slough of 3rd-party hardware devices are sold which integrate with Ty Coon Mobile .
Infrastructures and economies are built upon the Ty Coon platform .
Everyone is ecstatic and really does n't care that the platform is locked tight and Ty Coon decides what can run on it 's device and what it can integrate with .
Some years later , Ty Coon decides it want 's to " upgrade " it 's platform .
You do n't get a choice whether your extension or derived work is sanctioned to work with the new upgrade .
You just cross your fingers .
Nevermind that Some Other Big Company decides to offer Ty Coon a buttload of cash to make the device " less friendly " with some of the competing software/hardware devices on the market .
You still can only just cross your fingers .
There is nothing guaranteed with proprietary platforms either .
You 're in the same friggin boat .
It 's just a different color .
At least if you have a Free/open platform , you have a chance at making things compatible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's say Ty Coon Devices releases a device that runs millions of applications and has a worldwide customer base in the bizillions.
The consumer electronics market wants in on the pie, so a slough of 3rd-party hardware devices are sold which integrate with Ty Coon Mobile.
Infrastructures and economies are built upon the Ty Coon platform.
Everyone is ecstatic and really doesn't care that the platform is locked tight and Ty Coon decides what can run on it's device and what it can integrate with.
Some years later, Ty Coon decides it want's to "upgrade" it's platform.
You don't get a choice whether your extension or derived work is sanctioned to work with the new upgrade.
You just cross your fingers.
Nevermind that Some Other Big Company decides to offer Ty Coon a buttload of cash to make the device "less friendly" with some of the competing software/hardware devices on the market.
You still can only just cross your fingers.
There is nothing guaranteed with proprietary platforms either.
You're in the same friggin boat.
It's just a different color.
At least if you have a Free/open platform, you have a chance at making things compatible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28601789</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this true of almost all businesses?</title>
	<author>Atario</author>
	<datestamp>1246885380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts, there is going to be competition, and <b>if you're publicly funded</b> you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts , there is going to be competition , and if you 're publicly funded you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report .
Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts, there is going to be competition, and if you're publicly funded you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report.
Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595931</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1246902060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>And my competitors can undercut me?!</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, if your services are free to the customer, in order to undercut you your competitors will have to <em>pay</em> his customers for using his service.</p></div><p>Actually, the mistake you are making is thinking that you are the customer from companies like Google or Facebook. You are not, you are the product. The advertisers are the customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And my competitors can undercut me ?
! Actually , if your services are free to the customer , in order to undercut you your competitors will have to pay his customers for using his service.Actually , the mistake you are making is thinking that you are the customer from companies like Google or Facebook .
You are not , you are the product .
The advertisers are the customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And my competitors can undercut me?
!Actually, if your services are free to the customer, in order to undercut you your competitors will have to pay his customers for using his service.Actually, the mistake you are making is thinking that you are the customer from companies like Google or Facebook.
You are not, you are the product.
The advertisers are the customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596079</id>
	<title>If You Live By NOT Free</title>
	<author>Atreide</author>
	<datestamp>1246902660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is absolutely same for non free business.</p><p>If you specialize in a niche and it disapears or someone else gets better at it<br>then no god will help you.<br>Evolution works against you and you end up in stomach of some competitor.</p><p>Look at Microsoft.<br>Desktop is now only a small part of business.</p><p>They went after servers only ~10 years after desktop was launched.<br>Now they are in office, cloud computing, search, even gaming and a lot more.</p><p>Look at Oracle. They develop not only database but also application.</p><p>Look at IBM. They went for service years ago.</p><p>Look a Dell. They are going for service for a few years now.</p><p>Look at Apple. They are selling mp3 and service around it.</p><p>This is simply wise corporate development.<br>That is called diversification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is absolutely same for non free business.If you specialize in a niche and it disapears or someone else gets better at itthen no god will help you.Evolution works against you and you end up in stomach of some competitor.Look at Microsoft.Desktop is now only a small part of business.They went after servers only ~ 10 years after desktop was launched.Now they are in office , cloud computing , search , even gaming and a lot more.Look at Oracle .
They develop not only database but also application.Look at IBM .
They went for service years ago.Look a Dell .
They are going for service for a few years now.Look at Apple .
They are selling mp3 and service around it.This is simply wise corporate development.That is called diversification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is absolutely same for non free business.If you specialize in a niche and it disapears or someone else gets better at itthen no god will help you.Evolution works against you and you end up in stomach of some competitor.Look at Microsoft.Desktop is now only a small part of business.They went after servers only ~10 years after desktop was launched.Now they are in office, cloud computing, search, even gaming and a lot more.Look at Oracle.
They develop not only database but also application.Look at IBM.
They went for service years ago.Look a Dell.
They are going for service for a few years now.Look at Apple.
They are selling mp3 and service around it.This is simply wise corporate development.That is called diversification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596041</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1246902480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TARP recipient, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TARP recipient , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TARP recipient, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598807</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you want to become like Microsoft ?......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you want to become like Microsoft ? ..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you want to become like Microsoft ?......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28614325</id>
	<title>Google is free?</title>
	<author>J.R. Random</author>
	<datestamp>1246962420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I checked Google charges for its advertisements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked Google charges for its advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked Google charges for its advertisements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596009</id>
	<title>Bah!</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1246902420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Create a success.<br>Build it.<br>Sell out to the first buyer.<br>Start another new thing.<br>Watch as the thing you sold get's killed by free.<br>Repeat.</p><p>Honestly, dont get married to your creations, sell it and move to the next one while bankrolling.   you'll never die by free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Create a success.Build it.Sell out to the first buyer.Start another new thing.Watch as the thing you sold get 's killed by free.Repeat.Honestly , dont get married to your creations , sell it and move to the next one while bankrolling .
you 'll never die by free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Create a success.Build it.Sell out to the first buyer.Start another new thing.Watch as the thing you sold get's killed by free.Repeat.Honestly, dont get married to your creations, sell it and move to the next one while bankrolling.
you'll never die by free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28602987</id>
	<title>free is Liberty not 'no cost'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246893840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that this kind of argument<br>misses the whole point.<br>Free isn't <i>doesn't cost anything</i><br>Free is <i>Liberty</i>.</p><p>Liberty costs a lot.  It is not a given.</p><p>So, it's not about profit it is about freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that this kind of argumentmisses the whole point.Free is n't does n't cost anythingFree is Liberty.Liberty costs a lot .
It is not a given.So , it 's not about profit it is about freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that this kind of argumentmisses the whole point.Free isn't doesn't cost anythingFree is Liberty.Liberty costs a lot.
It is not a given.So, it's not about profit it is about freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597599</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1246908720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How are you delivering that product at a reduced cost?</p><p>Have you improved your method of production?<br>Are you running a leaner business?<br>Are you exploiting your employees?<br>Are you undercutting the market in a bid for monopoly power?<br>Have you cut the quality of your product, and stepped up advertising?</p><p>There are a lot of ways to produce a product at competitively low price. Some of them are good. Some of them are stupid. Some of them are illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are you delivering that product at a reduced cost ? Have you improved your method of production ? Are you running a leaner business ? Are you exploiting your employees ? Are you undercutting the market in a bid for monopoly power ? Have you cut the quality of your product , and stepped up advertising ? There are a lot of ways to produce a product at competitively low price .
Some of them are good .
Some of them are stupid .
Some of them are illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are you delivering that product at a reduced cost?Have you improved your method of production?Are you running a leaner business?Are you exploiting your employees?Are you undercutting the market in a bid for monopoly power?Have you cut the quality of your product, and stepped up advertising?There are a lot of ways to produce a product at competitively low price.
Some of them are good.
Some of them are stupid.
Some of them are illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595681</id>
	<title>Which country do you live in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ixed that for you. No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market.</p> </div><p>Well. that's clearly not the case.</p><p>Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan etc etc etc. If you have a friend in the government, you can get them to tax the people to guarantee your profits.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ixed that for you .
No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market .
Well. that 's clearly not the case.Goldman Sachs , Bank of America , JP Morgan etc etc etc .
If you have a friend in the government , you can get them to tax the people to guarantee your profits .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>ixed that for you.
No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market.
Well. that's clearly not the case.Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan etc etc etc.
If you have a friend in the government, you can get them to tax the people to guarantee your profits.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28599691</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1246874700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So did Bernie Madeoff. He may HAVE done something right, but becoming a billionaire doesn't demonstrate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So did Bernie Madeoff .
He may HAVE done something right , but becoming a billionaire does n't demonstrate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So did Bernie Madeoff.
He may HAVE done something right, but becoming a billionaire doesn't demonstrate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595825</id>
	<title>If anything, he's got it backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have pointed out, free online services are no more susceptible to a Black Swan Competitor, or even an ordinary competitor, than any other business. If there is a distinction, it is likely to be that free Web services are especially governed by first mover advantage and category domination such that they are less in danger from Black Swans than, say, a trucking company or a chain of coffee shops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have pointed out , free online services are no more susceptible to a Black Swan Competitor , or even an ordinary competitor , than any other business .
If there is a distinction , it is likely to be that free Web services are especially governed by first mover advantage and category domination such that they are less in danger from Black Swans than , say , a trucking company or a chain of coffee shops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have pointed out, free online services are no more susceptible to a Black Swan Competitor, or even an ordinary competitor, than any other business.
If there is a distinction, it is likely to be that free Web services are especially governed by first mover advantage and category domination such that they are less in danger from Black Swans than, say, a trucking company or a chain of coffee shops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596817</id>
	<title>Um...</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1246905540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look beyond the "technology industry", it is easy to find <a href="http://www.nbc.com/" title="nbc.com">companies that have operated for decades giving free content to customers</a> [nbc.com].</p><p>Google's model of giving people free content and making money on advertising is nearly a century old.  Look at network TV.  Look at radio.  Look at free newspapers.  These have been around forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look beyond the " technology industry " , it is easy to find companies that have operated for decades giving free content to customers [ nbc.com ] .Google 's model of giving people free content and making money on advertising is nearly a century old .
Look at network TV .
Look at radio .
Look at free newspapers .
These have been around forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look beyond the "technology industry", it is easy to find companies that have operated for decades giving free content to customers [nbc.com].Google's model of giving people free content and making money on advertising is nearly a century old.
Look at network TV.
Look at radio.
Look at free newspapers.
These have been around forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597847</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>bickle</author>
	<datestamp>1246909680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realize that you are just trying to be snarky, but what exactly are you saying? You are mocking him by agreeing with what he said.

That seems to be common here though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize that you are just trying to be snarky , but what exactly are you saying ?
You are mocking him by agreeing with what he said .
That seems to be common here though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize that you are just trying to be snarky, but what exactly are you saying?
You are mocking him by agreeing with what he said.
That seems to be common here though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597065</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246906620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't know about you, but if he somehow became a billionaire entrepreneur, then he must have done something right.</i></p><p>Like an AC <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1293237&amp;cid=28595701" title="slashdot.org">said</a> [slashdot.org] a little farther down (my emphasis), "Cuban's advice is so 1998. Build up mind share, then cash out and let the company crash. It worked <b>for him.</b>"</p><p>Screw everyone else, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but if he somehow became a billionaire entrepreneur , then he must have done something right.Like an AC said [ slashdot.org ] a little farther down ( my emphasis ) , " Cuban 's advice is so 1998 .
Build up mind share , then cash out and let the company crash .
It worked for him .
" Screw everyone else , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but if he somehow became a billionaire entrepreneur, then he must have done something right.Like an AC said [slashdot.org] a little farther down (my emphasis), "Cuban's advice is so 1998.
Build up mind share, then cash out and let the company crash.
It worked for him.
"Screw everyone else, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597109</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insofar that I have no idea what you're talking about, and I kind of like it, please, no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insofar that I have no idea what you 're talking about , and I kind of like it , please , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insofar that I have no idea what you're talking about, and I kind of like it, please, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28603413</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1246896660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, sounds great.  Looks like Free is a recipe for snowballing innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , sounds great .
Looks like Free is a recipe for snowballing innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, sounds great.
Looks like Free is a recipe for snowballing innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598927</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy.</p></div><p>As would the rest of the US government, but the Federal Reserve doesn't have any congressional oversight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy.As would the rest of the US government , but the Federal Reserve does n't have any congressional oversight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim that the U.S. tinkers more with the economy.As would the rest of the US government, but the Federal Reserve doesn't have any congressional oversight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595755</id>
	<title>Black swan theories</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1246901400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In being Australian, I grew up with the notion that Black Swans were the norm.  It was only when I went to Europe did I see the funny looking white swans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In being Australian , I grew up with the notion that Black Swans were the norm .
It was only when I went to Europe did I see the funny looking white swans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In being Australian, I grew up with the notion that Black Swans were the norm.
It was only when I went to Europe did I see the funny looking white swans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597121</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do,"</p><p>The above statement is absolutely incorrect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do , " The above statement is absolutely incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do,"The above statement is absolutely incorrect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596613</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246904760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One example is Canada. During 'normal operation' Canada regulates its economy a bit more than the US. But that very regulation keeps things reasonably stable. So when the economic crisis hit, the Canadian economy suffered but was remarkably stable. No Canadian banks failed. (Regulations that were in-place prevented many of the things the US financial institutions were doing...) The Canadian government did intervene because of the crisis, but the magnitude of the intervention was small compared to what we've seen in the US (after scaling for the obvious differences in the sizes of the economies).<br> <br>

So the point was that by having constant oversight, it wasn't necessary to engage in massive amounts of intervention (bailouts, subsidies, new regulatory frameworks, etc.) during dire times. So, on average, Canada intervenes in its economy less, because it doesn't need to engage in these massive interventions. (Of course this point could be debated depending on how you scale things like occasional massive bailouts compared to constant low-level regulation.) Despite its support of the free market, the US doesn't let the free market run wild when push comes to shove. In fact the US intervenes substantially.<br> <br>

(This point, among others, is discussed in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3LOzZ6aJKQ&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">this interview</a> [youtube.com].)</htmltext>
<tokenext>One example is Canada .
During 'normal operation ' Canada regulates its economy a bit more than the US .
But that very regulation keeps things reasonably stable .
So when the economic crisis hit , the Canadian economy suffered but was remarkably stable .
No Canadian banks failed .
( Regulations that were in-place prevented many of the things the US financial institutions were doing... ) The Canadian government did intervene because of the crisis , but the magnitude of the intervention was small compared to what we 've seen in the US ( after scaling for the obvious differences in the sizes of the economies ) .
So the point was that by having constant oversight , it was n't necessary to engage in massive amounts of intervention ( bailouts , subsidies , new regulatory frameworks , etc .
) during dire times .
So , on average , Canada intervenes in its economy less , because it does n't need to engage in these massive interventions .
( Of course this point could be debated depending on how you scale things like occasional massive bailouts compared to constant low-level regulation .
) Despite its support of the free market , the US does n't let the free market run wild when push comes to shove .
In fact the US intervenes substantially .
( This point , among others , is discussed in this interview [ youtube.com ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One example is Canada.
During 'normal operation' Canada regulates its economy a bit more than the US.
But that very regulation keeps things reasonably stable.
So when the economic crisis hit, the Canadian economy suffered but was remarkably stable.
No Canadian banks failed.
(Regulations that were in-place prevented many of the things the US financial institutions were doing...) The Canadian government did intervene because of the crisis, but the magnitude of the intervention was small compared to what we've seen in the US (after scaling for the obvious differences in the sizes of the economies).
So the point was that by having constant oversight, it wasn't necessary to engage in massive amounts of intervention (bailouts, subsidies, new regulatory frameworks, etc.
) during dire times.
So, on average, Canada intervenes in its economy less, because it doesn't need to engage in these massive interventions.
(Of course this point could be debated depending on how you scale things like occasional massive bailouts compared to constant low-level regulation.
) Despite its support of the free market, the US doesn't let the free market run wild when push comes to shove.
In fact the US intervenes substantially.
(This point, among others, is discussed in this interview [youtube.com].
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573</id>
	<title>Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark\_Cuban" title="wikipedia.org">Rather than attend high school for his senior year, Cuban enrolled as a full time student at the University of Pittsburgh. After one year at the University of Pittsburgh, he transferred to Indiana University's Bloomington, Indiana campus and graduated in 1981 with a <b>Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration.</b>[9]</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Aren't these the guys who <a href="http://asset.soup.io/asset/0325/0684\_46a9\_500.gif" title="asset.soup.io">ruined the economy?</a> [asset.soup.io]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than attend high school for his senior year , Cuban enrolled as a full time student at the University of Pittsburgh .
After one year at the University of Pittsburgh , he transferred to Indiana University 's Bloomington , Indiana campus and graduated in 1981 with a Bachelor 's Degree in Business Administration .
[ 9 ] [ wikipedia.org ] Are n't these the guys who ruined the economy ?
[ asset.soup.io ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than attend high school for his senior year, Cuban enrolled as a full time student at the University of Pittsburgh.
After one year at the University of Pittsburgh, he transferred to Indiana University's Bloomington, Indiana campus and graduated in 1981 with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration.
[9] [wikipedia.org]Aren't these the guys who ruined the economy?
[asset.soup.io]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596287</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy old witch</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1246903500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've ever worked for Cuban (audionet/broadcast.com) you would know this "epiphany" means he is up to something.  If you make the mistake of putting him in the same box as the morons running banks and car companies you will be putting yourself in the same boat as the people that REALLY ARE in that category (yahoo.com).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've ever worked for Cuban ( audionet/broadcast.com ) you would know this " epiphany " means he is up to something .
If you make the mistake of putting him in the same box as the morons running banks and car companies you will be putting yourself in the same boat as the people that REALLY ARE in that category ( yahoo.com ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've ever worked for Cuban (audionet/broadcast.com) you would know this "epiphany" means he is up to something.
If you make the mistake of putting him in the same box as the morons running banks and car companies you will be putting yourself in the same boat as the people that REALLY ARE in that category (yahoo.com).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597531</id>
	<title>You've missed the last 6 years of capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM (Sony PS2) and enforcement of grey import bans (Levi). Protectionism (Antigua). Market closure (Region Coding) and paying court time to kill or maim another (SCO). These are just a few of the methods taken to close out competitors and keep alive despite being the End Of The Line.</p><p>More especially now, patents and trademarks (and copyrights now that the DMCA is kicking in) but especially patents are used to close out competitors.</p><p>See, for example, RIM and Nokia.</p><p>Kill the competition. Close them out. And you never have to answer to competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM ( Sony PS2 ) and enforcement of grey import bans ( Levi ) .
Protectionism ( Antigua ) .
Market closure ( Region Coding ) and paying court time to kill or maim another ( SCO ) .
These are just a few of the methods taken to close out competitors and keep alive despite being the End Of The Line.More especially now , patents and trademarks ( and copyrights now that the DMCA is kicking in ) but especially patents are used to close out competitors.See , for example , RIM and Nokia.Kill the competition .
Close them out .
And you never have to answer to competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM (Sony PS2) and enforcement of grey import bans (Levi).
Protectionism (Antigua).
Market closure (Region Coding) and paying court time to kill or maim another (SCO).
These are just a few of the methods taken to close out competitors and keep alive despite being the End Of The Line.More especially now, patents and trademarks (and copyrights now that the DMCA is kicking in) but especially patents are used to close out competitors.See, for example, RIM and Nokia.Kill the competition.
Close them out.
And you never have to answer to competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596407</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>vainvanevein</author>
	<datestamp>1246903920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think he means companies that "live by free" are ones that give content or a service away for free and attach advertising to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he means companies that " live by free " are ones that give content or a service away for free and attach advertising to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he means companies that "live by free" are ones that give content or a service away for free and attach advertising to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596453</id>
	<title>Google isn't free</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1246904100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, how hard is this, Google isn't selling search services, Email, document publishing software, or the like.</p><p>Google is selling eyeballs, just like broadcast tv, broadcast radio, etc.  They aren't selling anything to their users, they are harvesting their users and selling them to advertisers.  They are able to sell stuff that's pretty well targetted through their search and Email.</p><p>The tradeoff of charging for their stuff would be that they would become a lot less valuable to advertisers, and people who are paying to use them would resent the fact that they are "paying for advertising."</p><p>So Google's service isn't free, it's just the Mark Cuban isn't their customer.  Unless he's buying ad-space with them, in which case he's just not very bright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , how hard is this , Google is n't selling search services , Email , document publishing software , or the like.Google is selling eyeballs , just like broadcast tv , broadcast radio , etc .
They are n't selling anything to their users , they are harvesting their users and selling them to advertisers .
They are able to sell stuff that 's pretty well targetted through their search and Email.The tradeoff of charging for their stuff would be that they would become a lot less valuable to advertisers , and people who are paying to use them would resent the fact that they are " paying for advertising .
" So Google 's service is n't free , it 's just the Mark Cuban is n't their customer .
Unless he 's buying ad-space with them , in which case he 's just not very bright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, how hard is this, Google isn't selling search services, Email, document publishing software, or the like.Google is selling eyeballs, just like broadcast tv, broadcast radio, etc.
They aren't selling anything to their users, they are harvesting their users and selling them to advertisers.
They are able to sell stuff that's pretty well targetted through their search and Email.The tradeoff of charging for their stuff would be that they would become a lot less valuable to advertisers, and people who are paying to use them would resent the fact that they are "paying for advertising.
"So Google's service isn't free, it's just the Mark Cuban isn't their customer.
Unless he's buying ad-space with them, in which case he's just not very bright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596053</id>
	<title>Cuban: King of bad examples</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246902540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with pointing to Google and snickering about how they give<br>away their product for free is the fact that they exist in a product<br>area that has always been gratis to the customer. This is ironically<br>enough much like SPECTATOR SPORTS where the vast majority of customers<br>get their "content" for "free". Most of the eyeballs that see Cuban's<br>games are "freeloaders". It's been this way since before the Internet<br>or even Television.</p><p>Cuban is the perfect example of the sort of businessman that derives<br>most of the value of his business from the fact that most people get<br>to use it for free.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...ironic really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with pointing to Google and snickering about how they giveaway their product for free is the fact that they exist in a productarea that has always been gratis to the customer .
This is ironicallyenough much like SPECTATOR SPORTS where the vast majority of customersget their " content " for " free " .
Most of the eyeballs that see Cuban'sgames are " freeloaders " .
It 's been this way since before the Internetor even Television.Cuban is the perfect example of the sort of businessman that derivesmost of the value of his business from the fact that most people getto use it for free .
...ironic really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with pointing to Google and snickering about how they giveaway their product for free is the fact that they exist in a productarea that has always been gratis to the customer.
This is ironicallyenough much like SPECTATOR SPORTS where the vast majority of customersget their "content" for "free".
Most of the eyeballs that see Cuban'sgames are "freeloaders".
It's been this way since before the Internetor even Television.Cuban is the perfect example of the sort of businessman that derivesmost of the value of his business from the fact that most people getto use it for free.
...ironic really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596207</id>
	<title>never heard of hudsons bay company eh?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246903260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you hoser</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's\_Bay\_Company" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's\_Bay\_Company</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you hoserhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson 's \ _Bay \ _Company [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you hoserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's\_Bay\_Company [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28607933</id>
	<title>You know you're reading Slashdot too much when...</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1246980600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...you immediately assume the article title means "free as in freedom", and it takes you some time to realise it actually means "free as in lunch".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you immediately assume the article title means " free as in freedom " , and it takes you some time to realise it actually means " free as in lunch " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you immediately assume the article title means "free as in freedom", and it takes you some time to realise it actually means "free as in lunch".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597415</id>
	<title>nothing to see here</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1246908120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ah cuban. i wish he'd stick to anything but opining. he's been on this rant for years and it's old. taking google for example for those addled about what exactly it is they're up to, consider them the next step in a progression that started in the early 20th century with radio broadcasters. much of the baffling junk google spends its shareholder's money on, like streetview ad-infinitum is <i>programming</i>. if you look at television networks and their obsession with reality tv, google has brilliantly evolved it to the nth degree: no wrangling drama queens for them. all they do is hire camera guys to drive around neighborhoods snapping pics and lo and behold millions tune in and see the commercials.</p><p>that's the model. it's venerable and it works.</p><p>google is no more or no less vulnerable than any other program distributor working such models, like cbs for instance, still in business after 80 years.</p><p>naturally they can founder - like cuban's hd network - or last for generations like nbc but that's execution. the model is sound.</p><p> - js.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ah cuban .
i wish he 'd stick to anything but opining .
he 's been on this rant for years and it 's old .
taking google for example for those addled about what exactly it is they 're up to , consider them the next step in a progression that started in the early 20th century with radio broadcasters .
much of the baffling junk google spends its shareholder 's money on , like streetview ad-infinitum is programming .
if you look at television networks and their obsession with reality tv , google has brilliantly evolved it to the nth degree : no wrangling drama queens for them .
all they do is hire camera guys to drive around neighborhoods snapping pics and lo and behold millions tune in and see the commercials.that 's the model .
it 's venerable and it works.google is no more or no less vulnerable than any other program distributor working such models , like cbs for instance , still in business after 80 years.naturally they can founder - like cuban 's hd network - or last for generations like nbc but that 's execution .
the model is sound .
- js .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ah cuban.
i wish he'd stick to anything but opining.
he's been on this rant for years and it's old.
taking google for example for those addled about what exactly it is they're up to, consider them the next step in a progression that started in the early 20th century with radio broadcasters.
much of the baffling junk google spends its shareholder's money on, like streetview ad-infinitum is programming.
if you look at television networks and their obsession with reality tv, google has brilliantly evolved it to the nth degree: no wrangling drama queens for them.
all they do is hire camera guys to drive around neighborhoods snapping pics and lo and behold millions tune in and see the commercials.that's the model.
it's venerable and it works.google is no more or no less vulnerable than any other program distributor working such models, like cbs for instance, still in business after 80 years.naturally they can founder - like cuban's hd network - or last for generations like nbc but that's execution.
the model is sound.
- js.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596637</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246904880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So he built broadcast.com, sold it to Yahoo! and made a ton of money: what else has Cuban done? I mean really?</i> </p><p>He started other businesses before Broadcast.com.  He started MicroSolutions which Ross Perot's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perot\_Systems" title="wikipedia.org">Perot Systems</a> [wikipedia.org] was one of his biggest clients.  He later sold it to Compuserve.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So he built broadcast.com , sold it to Yahoo !
and made a ton of money : what else has Cuban done ?
I mean really ?
He started other businesses before Broadcast.com .
He started MicroSolutions which Ross Perot 's Perot Systems [ wikipedia.org ] was one of his biggest clients .
He later sold it to Compuserve .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he built broadcast.com, sold it to Yahoo!
and made a ton of money: what else has Cuban done?
I mean really?
He started other businesses before Broadcast.com.
He started MicroSolutions which Ross Perot's Perot Systems [wikipedia.org] was one of his biggest clients.
He later sold it to Compuserve.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28666807</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>PastaLover</author>
	<datestamp>1247406120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For instance, the only reason they're thinking about universal health care now is because the corporations have started to realize that employer-provided health benefits put them at a disadvantage to companies in countries where they don't have to pay those costs. Notice that the insurance companies won't be out of the loop; more likely we'll still have health insurance, only it'll be mandatory and the employer won't be forced to provide it.</p></div><p>This is not how it works. Institutionalised healthcare is still payed for by the companies, they just pay it as an extra tax on employee pay. In fact, I think it's actually the other way around, since american companies can often get away with a much worse coverage than the universal system provides and thus end up paying comparatively less (while companies that offer higher payscales have to pay comparatively more). On the whole it is a lot more efficient to centralise, but it's not gonna work out cheaper for a lot of companies. The money still has to come from somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , the only reason they 're thinking about universal health care now is because the corporations have started to realize that employer-provided health benefits put them at a disadvantage to companies in countries where they do n't have to pay those costs .
Notice that the insurance companies wo n't be out of the loop ; more likely we 'll still have health insurance , only it 'll be mandatory and the employer wo n't be forced to provide it.This is not how it works .
Institutionalised healthcare is still payed for by the companies , they just pay it as an extra tax on employee pay .
In fact , I think it 's actually the other way around , since american companies can often get away with a much worse coverage than the universal system provides and thus end up paying comparatively less ( while companies that offer higher payscales have to pay comparatively more ) .
On the whole it is a lot more efficient to centralise , but it 's not gon na work out cheaper for a lot of companies .
The money still has to come from somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, the only reason they're thinking about universal health care now is because the corporations have started to realize that employer-provided health benefits put them at a disadvantage to companies in countries where they don't have to pay those costs.
Notice that the insurance companies won't be out of the loop; more likely we'll still have health insurance, only it'll be mandatory and the employer won't be forced to provide it.This is not how it works.
Institutionalised healthcare is still payed for by the companies, they just pay it as an extra tax on employee pay.
In fact, I think it's actually the other way around, since american companies can often get away with a much worse coverage than the universal system provides and thus end up paying comparatively less (while companies that offer higher payscales have to pay comparatively more).
On the whole it is a lot more efficient to centralise, but it's not gonna work out cheaper for a lot of companies.
The money still has to come from somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596331</id>
	<title>Re:Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1246903680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I think IBM's corporate continuity goes back to the late 1800s. Tabulating Machine Company was formed in 1896, and the Bundy Manufacturing Company (another of the 4 that merged to form CTR Corporation, which eventually became IBM) was founded in 1889.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think IBM 's corporate continuity goes back to the late 1800s .
Tabulating Machine Company was formed in 1896 , and the Bundy Manufacturing Company ( another of the 4 that merged to form CTR Corporation , which eventually became IBM ) was founded in 1889 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think IBM's corporate continuity goes back to the late 1800s.
Tabulating Machine Company was formed in 1896, and the Bundy Manufacturing Company (another of the 4 that merged to form CTR Corporation, which eventually became IBM) was founded in 1889.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595595</id>
	<title>Sounds self-contradictory</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1246900740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you have to only invest in what is profitable, yet at the same time you have to invest in research (which by nature isn't profitable) to find the next product that will be profitable when your old products are outdone?  And, what's so insightful about saying that someone coming along and giving away your "free" product for even "freer" is some inherent danger to free services?  If I bake cookies for a living, and some philanthropists starts giving away cookies of a similar recipe for free (with his business logo on them), of course my business will be hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you have to only invest in what is profitable , yet at the same time you have to invest in research ( which by nature is n't profitable ) to find the next product that will be profitable when your old products are outdone ?
And , what 's so insightful about saying that someone coming along and giving away your " free " product for even " freer " is some inherent danger to free services ?
If I bake cookies for a living , and some philanthropists starts giving away cookies of a similar recipe for free ( with his business logo on them ) , of course my business will be hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you have to only invest in what is profitable, yet at the same time you have to invest in research (which by nature isn't profitable) to find the next product that will be profitable when your old products are outdone?
And, what's so insightful about saying that someone coming along and giving away your "free" product for even "freer" is some inherent danger to free services?
If I bake cookies for a living, and some philanthropists starts giving away cookies of a similar recipe for free (with his business logo on them), of course my business will be hurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597693</id>
	<title>Another way to make money is to...</title>
	<author>dgun</author>
	<datestamp>1246909020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...do some insider trading. For example, if you create a goofy Google wannabe search engine, and you know it's going down in flames, dump all your stock before your stock holders know about it. Another way to make money, apparently, is to make an ass of yourself as often as possible at NBA games. Lastly, ignoring the fact that you have no real talent or insight, use the force of your borderline sociopath personality to bulldog your way to the top, screwing over as many people in the process as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...do some insider trading .
For example , if you create a goofy Google wannabe search engine , and you know it 's going down in flames , dump all your stock before your stock holders know about it .
Another way to make money , apparently , is to make an ass of yourself as often as possible at NBA games .
Lastly , ignoring the fact that you have no real talent or insight , use the force of your borderline sociopath personality to bulldog your way to the top , screwing over as many people in the process as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...do some insider trading.
For example, if you create a goofy Google wannabe search engine, and you know it's going down in flames, dump all your stock before your stock holders know about it.
Another way to make money, apparently, is to make an ass of yourself as often as possible at NBA games.
Lastly, ignoring the fact that you have no real talent or insight, use the force of your borderline sociopath personality to bulldog your way to the top, screwing over as many people in the process as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598913</id>
	<title>Is That Not How Microsoft Office took Over ?</title>
	<author>kjhambrick</author>
	<datestamp>1246871460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All --</p><p>I remember the early-to-mid-90s when Microsoft gave away their inferior Office<br>Product with every PeeCee.</p><p>It only took a couple years for Microsoft Office to virtually destroy WordPerfect,<br>Lotus and AMIPro.</p><p>IMO, OpenOffice is a much better product today than when Microsoft leveraged their<br>OS Monopoly to corner the Integrated Office Application Market.</p><p>The difference now is that the PeeCee Manufacturers are rightly terrified of MS<br>so that they apparently refuse to bundle OpenOffice with each PeeCee and perhaps<br>because OpenOffice lacks an integrated Email App (maybe).</p><p>I wish Mark Cuban was right but I am afraid Microsoft's Monopoly is too powerful<br>to kill with a free product that's 'good enough'.</p><p>Too bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>-- kjh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All --I remember the early-to-mid-90s when Microsoft gave away their inferior OfficeProduct with every PeeCee.It only took a couple years for Microsoft Office to virtually destroy WordPerfect,Lotus and AMIPro.IMO , OpenOffice is a much better product today than when Microsoft leveraged theirOS Monopoly to corner the Integrated Office Application Market.The difference now is that the PeeCee Manufacturers are rightly terrified of MSso that they apparently refuse to bundle OpenOffice with each PeeCee and perhapsbecause OpenOffice lacks an integrated Email App ( maybe ) .I wish Mark Cuban was right but I am afraid Microsoft 's Monopoly is too powerfulto kill with a free product that 's 'good enough'.Too bad ...-- kjh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All --I remember the early-to-mid-90s when Microsoft gave away their inferior OfficeProduct with every PeeCee.It only took a couple years for Microsoft Office to virtually destroy WordPerfect,Lotus and AMIPro.IMO, OpenOffice is a much better product today than when Microsoft leveraged theirOS Monopoly to corner the Integrated Office Application Market.The difference now is that the PeeCee Manufacturers are rightly terrified of MSso that they apparently refuse to bundle OpenOffice with each PeeCee and perhapsbecause OpenOffice lacks an integrated Email App (maybe).I wish Mark Cuban was right but I am afraid Microsoft's Monopoly is too powerfulto kill with a free product that's 'good enough'.Too bad ...-- kjh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595819</id>
	<title>free vs non-free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question: If you live Non-free, would you not die Non-free also?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : If you live Non-free , would you not die Non-free also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: If you live Non-free, would you not die Non-free also?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596205</id>
	<title>Re:Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1246903200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The lesson is simple: No matter how much of a cash cow your current product line is, you need to be investing in the R&amp;D to compete in the next generation of products.  Otherwise your competitors will get there first and make you ancient history.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Really?  Look at Microsoft, they have been paranoid of being eclipsed since day #1, and followed exactly the strategy you suggest, pouring untold billions into R&amp;D - with scarcely any effect.  Look at google, spinning off services madly, yet all their profit comes from their original business.
</p><p>
So I am leaning towards another simple conclusion: <b>it's hard to make lighting strike twice.</b>  Maybe Microsoft's investors should have taken home the company's windfall profits home as dividends all these years instead of plowing them all into making sure google would be invented at Microsoft, which it wasn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lesson is simple : No matter how much of a cash cow your current product line is , you need to be investing in the R&amp;D to compete in the next generation of products .
Otherwise your competitors will get there first and make you ancient history .
Really ? Look at Microsoft , they have been paranoid of being eclipsed since day # 1 , and followed exactly the strategy you suggest , pouring untold billions into R&amp;D - with scarcely any effect .
Look at google , spinning off services madly , yet all their profit comes from their original business .
So I am leaning towards another simple conclusion : it 's hard to make lighting strike twice .
Maybe Microsoft 's investors should have taken home the company 's windfall profits home as dividends all these years instead of plowing them all into making sure google would be invented at Microsoft , which it was n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lesson is simple: No matter how much of a cash cow your current product line is, you need to be investing in the R&amp;D to compete in the next generation of products.
Otherwise your competitors will get there first and make you ancient history.
Really?  Look at Microsoft, they have been paranoid of being eclipsed since day #1, and followed exactly the strategy you suggest, pouring untold billions into R&amp;D - with scarcely any effect.
Look at google, spinning off services madly, yet all their profit comes from their original business.
So I am leaning towards another simple conclusion: it's hard to make lighting strike twice.
Maybe Microsoft's investors should have taken home the company's windfall profits home as dividends all these years instead of plowing them all into making sure google would be invented at Microsoft, which it wasn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246901100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're being overly optimistic. We don't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure. The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do, and it's almost always in the form of bailouts, protecting failing enterprises, insuring markets without demanding regulator authority. It's been going on for several decades and it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle.<br> <br>

What he's really complaining about is that there's a competitor that's out there forcing the price he can get to roughly approximate the marginal cost of production. Which is shocking for somebody that presumably believes in capitalism. Shocking because a competitive market pushes prices to just above the marginal cost of output.<br> <br>

OSS is a good example in software, credit unions in banking and hopefully a set of large scale co-op health insurers in the insurance industry. Corporations hate them because they have to compete on both price and quality. If there really were nothing to it they wouldn't be trying so hard to kill it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're being overly optimistic .
We do n't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure .
The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do , and it 's almost always in the form of bailouts , protecting failing enterprises , insuring markets without demanding regulator authority .
It 's been going on for several decades and it 's led us from one bubble to the next , and it wo n't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle .
What he 's really complaining about is that there 's a competitor that 's out there forcing the price he can get to roughly approximate the marginal cost of production .
Which is shocking for somebody that presumably believes in capitalism .
Shocking because a competitive market pushes prices to just above the marginal cost of output .
OSS is a good example in software , credit unions in banking and hopefully a set of large scale co-op health insurers in the insurance industry .
Corporations hate them because they have to compete on both price and quality .
If there really were nothing to it they would n't be trying so hard to kill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're being overly optimistic.
We don't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure.
The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do, and it's almost always in the form of bailouts, protecting failing enterprises, insuring markets without demanding regulator authority.
It's been going on for several decades and it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle.
What he's really complaining about is that there's a competitor that's out there forcing the price he can get to roughly approximate the marginal cost of production.
Which is shocking for somebody that presumably believes in capitalism.
Shocking because a competitive market pushes prices to just above the marginal cost of output.
OSS is a good example in software, credit unions in banking and hopefully a set of large scale co-op health insurers in the insurance industry.
Corporations hate them because they have to compete on both price and quality.
If there really were nothing to it they wouldn't be trying so hard to kill it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595737</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1246901340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And my competitors can undercut me?!</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, if your services are free to the customer, in order to undercut you your competitors will have to <em>pay</em> his customers for using his service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And my competitors can undercut me ?
! Actually , if your services are free to the customer , in order to undercut you your competitors will have to pay his customers for using his service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And my competitors can undercut me?
!Actually, if your services are free to the customer, in order to undercut you your competitors will have to pay his customers for using his service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596005</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1246902360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's too bad the blacksmiths and carriage makers of the early 20th century didn't have a government like we have today to protect them from the that evil Ford guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's too bad the blacksmiths and carriage makers of the early 20th century did n't have a government like we have today to protect them from the that evil Ford guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's too bad the blacksmiths and carriage makers of the early 20th century didn't have a government like we have today to protect them from the that evil Ford guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</id>
	<title>From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>i\_want\_you\_to\_throw\_</author>
	<datestamp>1246900860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So he built broadcast.com, sold it to Yahoo! and made a ton of money: what else has Cuban done? I mean really?
<br> <br>
I tend to take everything he says with a grain of salt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So he built broadcast.com , sold it to Yahoo !
and made a ton of money : what else has Cuban done ?
I mean really ?
I tend to take everything he says with a grain of salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he built broadcast.com, sold it to Yahoo!
and made a ton of money: what else has Cuban done?
I mean really?
I tend to take everything he says with a grain of salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596219</id>
	<title>Re:Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246903260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed, then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.</i></p><p>In a true free market and capitalism there's another reason large corporations would be rare, because many would have their <a href="http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB\_12\_1\_Art10\_Drake.pdf" title="lclark.edu">corporate charters revoked [pdf warning]</a> [lclark.edu].  Such as Exxon, those people who had their lives wrecked because of Exxon Valdez, have not received a dime from Exxon.  And Union Carbide, for it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org">Bhopal disaster</a> [wikipedia.org].  There are more than 1000 <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl" title="slashdot.org">Superfund sites</a> [slashdot.org] listed, many created by businesses, which taxpayers will pay to clean up if they are ever cleaned up.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed , then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.In a true free market and capitalism there 's another reason large corporations would be rare , because many would have their corporate charters revoked [ pdf warning ] [ lclark.edu ] .
Such as Exxon , those people who had their lives wrecked because of Exxon Valdez , have not received a dime from Exxon .
And Union Carbide , for it 's Bhopal disaster [ wikipedia.org ] .
There are more than 1000 Superfund sites [ slashdot.org ] listed , many created by businesses , which taxpayers will pay to clean up if they are ever cleaned up .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree... Its called capitalism... If true capitalism existed, then large companies would be rare because competition would quickly reduce their profit margins to the point where very little money could be made.In a true free market and capitalism there's another reason large corporations would be rare, because many would have their corporate charters revoked [pdf warning] [lclark.edu].
Such as Exxon, those people who had their lives wrecked because of Exxon Valdez, have not received a dime from Exxon.
And Union Carbide, for it's Bhopal disaster [wikipedia.org].
There are more than 1000 Superfund sites [slashdot.org] listed, many created by businesses, which taxpayers will pay to clean up if they are ever cleaned up.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596757</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1246905360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair to him... He has done a <b>LOT</b> of good for the Independent Film Industry. He's produced a lot of good, and some great, movies (Good Night and Good Luck, for example). There's a lot of indie filmmakers wouldn't have had a break if it were not for Cuban.<br> <br>

But yes, I don't agree with his position on this either, and he is more of a very lucky guy than an insightful and gifted individual.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair to him... He has done a LOT of good for the Independent Film Industry .
He 's produced a lot of good , and some great , movies ( Good Night and Good Luck , for example ) .
There 's a lot of indie filmmakers would n't have had a break if it were not for Cuban .
But yes , I do n't agree with his position on this either , and he is more of a very lucky guy than an insightful and gifted individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair to him... He has done a LOT of good for the Independent Film Industry.
He's produced a lot of good, and some great, movies (Good Night and Good Luck, for example).
There's a lot of indie filmmakers wouldn't have had a break if it were not for Cuban.
But yes, I don't agree with his position on this either, and he is more of a very lucky guy than an insightful and gifted individual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595925</id>
	<title>So.....just like all businesses</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1246902000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is different than any other business.....how?<br>The longer something remains in the market, the more the profit for that item approaches zero. Even paid service. The only time this isn't the case is either in a monopolized market or when government steps in. That's why companies in the free market have to constantly innovate and come up with new things that the competitor doesn't have. This notion that any business model can guarantee that you'll make money forever once you've come up with one idea is a myth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is different than any other business.....how ? The longer something remains in the market , the more the profit for that item approaches zero .
Even paid service .
The only time this is n't the case is either in a monopolized market or when government steps in .
That 's why companies in the free market have to constantly innovate and come up with new things that the competitor does n't have .
This notion that any business model can guarantee that you 'll make money forever once you 've come up with one idea is a myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is different than any other business.....how?The longer something remains in the market, the more the profit for that item approaches zero.
Even paid service.
The only time this isn't the case is either in a monopolized market or when government steps in.
That's why companies in the free market have to constantly innovate and come up with new things that the competitor doesn't have.
This notion that any business model can guarantee that you'll make money forever once you've come up with one idea is a myth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597329</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Tielman</author>
	<datestamp>1246907760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark Cuban's example of Google is also way off base.</p><p>Google does use a "proprietary" software system: Google File System, which is the core of all of their major systems, including: Search, Gmail, Maps, Google Office, etc...</p><p>Google's core business is selling ad space.</p><p>What makes them so different than any other business Mark?</p><p>The "free" stuff your bantering about shows your clueless....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban 's example of Google is also way off base.Google does use a " proprietary " software system : Google File System , which is the core of all of their major systems , including : Search , Gmail , Maps , Google Office , etc...Google 's core business is selling ad space.What makes them so different than any other business Mark ? The " free " stuff your bantering about shows your clueless... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban's example of Google is also way off base.Google does use a "proprietary" software system: Google File System, which is the core of all of their major systems, including: Search, Gmail, Maps, Google Office, etc...Google's core business is selling ad space.What makes them so different than any other business Mark?The "free" stuff your bantering about shows your clueless....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595799</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246901520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban writes that the problem with companies who have built<br>&gt; their business around free is that the more success you have in delivering free, the<br>&gt; more expensive it is to stay at the top.</p><p>It is best that no one stay on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban writes that the problem with companies who have built &gt; their business around free is that the more success you have in delivering free , the &gt; more expensive it is to stay at the top.It is best that no one stay on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban writes that the problem with companies who have built&gt; their business around free is that the more success you have in delivering free, the&gt; more expensive it is to stay at the top.It is best that no one stay on top.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517</id>
	<title>Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Like every company [*deleted*], your lifecycle has come to its conclusion. Don't fight it. Admit it. Profit from it."</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed that for you. No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market. This is particularly true of technology companies which are forced to constantly reinvent themselves or become obsolete. While companies who sell a product can sometimes extend that product out a bit longer thanks to support contracts and BS marketing techniques, this is not sustainable.</p><p>What you end up with is the slow death spiral that was the hallmark of companies like SGI, SCO, and Novell. These companies followed the same business model for too long, slowly bled marketshare, and eventually reinvented themselves at the last minute, made a deal with the devil, or went out in a blaze of glory.</p><p>The lesson is simple: No matter how much of a cash cow your current product line is, you need to be investing in the R&amp;D to compete in the next generation of products. Otherwise your competitors will get there first and make you ancient history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Like every company [ * deleted * ] , your lifecycle has come to its conclusion .
Do n't fight it .
Admit it .
Profit from it .
" Fixed that for you .
No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market .
This is particularly true of technology companies which are forced to constantly reinvent themselves or become obsolete .
While companies who sell a product can sometimes extend that product out a bit longer thanks to support contracts and BS marketing techniques , this is not sustainable.What you end up with is the slow death spiral that was the hallmark of companies like SGI , SCO , and Novell .
These companies followed the same business model for too long , slowly bled marketshare , and eventually reinvented themselves at the last minute , made a deal with the devil , or went out in a blaze of glory.The lesson is simple : No matter how much of a cash cow your current product line is , you need to be investing in the R&amp;D to compete in the next generation of products .
Otherwise your competitors will get there first and make you ancient history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Like every company [*deleted*], your lifecycle has come to its conclusion.
Don't fight it.
Admit it.
Profit from it.
"Fixed that for you.
No business survives beyond their normal lifetime in the market.
This is particularly true of technology companies which are forced to constantly reinvent themselves or become obsolete.
While companies who sell a product can sometimes extend that product out a bit longer thanks to support contracts and BS marketing techniques, this is not sustainable.What you end up with is the slow death spiral that was the hallmark of companies like SGI, SCO, and Novell.
These companies followed the same business model for too long, slowly bled marketshare, and eventually reinvented themselves at the last minute, made a deal with the devil, or went out in a blaze of glory.The lesson is simple: No matter how much of a cash cow your current product line is, you need to be investing in the R&amp;D to compete in the next generation of products.
Otherwise your competitors will get there first and make you ancient history.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596439</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1246904040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;he US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do</p><p>No way. The European version of capitalism involves a lot more regulation and tinkering, heck look at all the protectionist anti-MS regulations slashdot cheers.  The US is pretty free, but its fashionable to pretend its borderline-communist because someone go elected the right-wing nutjobs dont like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; he US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations doNo way .
The European version of capitalism involves a lot more regulation and tinkering , heck look at all the protectionist anti-MS regulations slashdot cheers .
The US is pretty free , but its fashionable to pretend its borderline-communist because someone go elected the right-wing nutjobs dont like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;he US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations doNo way.
The European version of capitalism involves a lot more regulation and tinkering, heck look at all the protectionist anti-MS regulations slashdot cheers.
The US is pretty free, but its fashionable to pretend its borderline-communist because someone go elected the right-wing nutjobs dont like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28608359</id>
	<title>The problem</title>
	<author>stanjam</author>
	<datestamp>1246982340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that this is not limited to "free." In the computer age it applies to free as well as non-free.  When you release any product, it will eventually be replaced by something better and made obsolete.  Not only that, but it will likely happen relatively quickly.  Computers become faster and better very quickly, allowing competitors to produce better products that take advantage of this.

Doesn't matter if it is a free product, or one that is based on profit. If you don't keep on top of the curve (something very hard to do) then someone will produce something better than yours. The only companies that have beat this trend are companies like Microsoft, which use a large variety of tactics (not all of which are exactly ethical) to stay on top, even though they may no longer have the best product available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that this is not limited to " free .
" In the computer age it applies to free as well as non-free .
When you release any product , it will eventually be replaced by something better and made obsolete .
Not only that , but it will likely happen relatively quickly .
Computers become faster and better very quickly , allowing competitors to produce better products that take advantage of this .
Does n't matter if it is a free product , or one that is based on profit .
If you do n't keep on top of the curve ( something very hard to do ) then someone will produce something better than yours .
The only companies that have beat this trend are companies like Microsoft , which use a large variety of tactics ( not all of which are exactly ethical ) to stay on top , even though they may no longer have the best product available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that this is not limited to "free.
" In the computer age it applies to free as well as non-free.
When you release any product, it will eventually be replaced by something better and made obsolete.
Not only that, but it will likely happen relatively quickly.
Computers become faster and better very quickly, allowing competitors to produce better products that take advantage of this.
Doesn't matter if it is a free product, or one that is based on profit.
If you don't keep on top of the curve (something very hard to do) then someone will produce something better than yours.
The only companies that have beat this trend are companies like Microsoft, which use a large variety of tactics (not all of which are exactly ethical) to stay on top, even though they may no longer have the best product available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595915</id>
	<title>Re:From Mark Cuban? Take it with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what else has Cuban done?</p><p>Two words:  DALLAS MAVERICKS</p><p>Need I say any more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what else has Cuban done ? Two words : DALLAS MAVERICKSNeed I say any more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what else has Cuban done?Two words:  DALLAS MAVERICKSNeed I say any more?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596143</id>
	<title>Taking advise from Cuban</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I would take to much advise from Mark Cuban.  First, he is a hard worker, but with Broadcast.com he was in the right place at the right time.  Beyond that he hasn't exactly made a lot of great desciions.  The major investment into HDnet hasn't been that fruitful and the major investment into Register.com was a debacle.  He traded a rising star point guard for a bad apple 35 year old point guard.  Today, he just spent $25M on resigning that bad apple point guard (now 36 years old) that isn't half the player he onces was.</p><p>I'll pass on advise from Mark Cuban.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I would take to much advise from Mark Cuban .
First , he is a hard worker , but with Broadcast.com he was in the right place at the right time .
Beyond that he has n't exactly made a lot of great desciions .
The major investment into HDnet has n't been that fruitful and the major investment into Register.com was a debacle .
He traded a rising star point guard for a bad apple 35 year old point guard .
Today , he just spent $ 25M on resigning that bad apple point guard ( now 36 years old ) that is n't half the player he onces was.I 'll pass on advise from Mark Cuban .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I would take to much advise from Mark Cuban.
First, he is a hard worker, but with Broadcast.com he was in the right place at the right time.
Beyond that he hasn't exactly made a lot of great desciions.
The major investment into HDnet hasn't been that fruitful and the major investment into Register.com was a debacle.
He traded a rising star point guard for a bad apple 35 year old point guard.
Today, he just spent $25M on resigning that bad apple point guard (now 36 years old) that isn't half the player he onces was.I'll pass on advise from Mark Cuban.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595697</id>
	<title>A bit naive</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1246901160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over-simplified.  While Free is certainly not a sustainable business model, I'm not sure I see the connection between the topic of the article and the companies that were used as examples.  Google, MySpace, and Facebook are not free by any stretch.  They offer free services on the consumer facing side of their value model, but on the business end they generate plenty of cash from charging for the eyeballs they bring to advertisers.
<br> <br>
Twitter is the only company mentioned that has been reluctant to monetize their traffic.  Not because they can't, but more so because of some philosophical reason they choose not to.  Yet despite that there are third parties that are monetizing Twitter's traffic, as in:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/05/2151220/uSocial-Sells-Twitter-Followers-By-the-Thousand" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/05/2151220/uSocial-Sells-Twitter-Followers-By-the-Thousand</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over-simplified .
While Free is certainly not a sustainable business model , I 'm not sure I see the connection between the topic of the article and the companies that were used as examples .
Google , MySpace , and Facebook are not free by any stretch .
They offer free services on the consumer facing side of their value model , but on the business end they generate plenty of cash from charging for the eyeballs they bring to advertisers .
Twitter is the only company mentioned that has been reluctant to monetize their traffic .
Not because they ca n't , but more so because of some philosophical reason they choose not to .
Yet despite that there are third parties that are monetizing Twitter 's traffic , as in : http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/05/2151220/uSocial-Sells-Twitter-Followers-By-the-Thousand [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over-simplified.
While Free is certainly not a sustainable business model, I'm not sure I see the connection between the topic of the article and the companies that were used as examples.
Google, MySpace, and Facebook are not free by any stretch.
They offer free services on the consumer facing side of their value model, but on the business end they generate plenty of cash from charging for the eyeballs they bring to advertisers.
Twitter is the only company mentioned that has been reluctant to monetize their traffic.
Not because they can't, but more so because of some philosophical reason they choose not to.
Yet despite that there are third parties that are monetizing Twitter's traffic, as in:
 
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/05/2151220/uSocial-Sells-Twitter-Followers-By-the-Thousand [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28605295</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Madness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246961760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is madness!  I demand protection against people trying to steal my customers with a better service/product and lower prices! </p></div><p>Ask the RIAA, there's quite good at that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is madness !
I demand protection against people trying to steal my customers with a better service/product and lower prices !
Ask the RIAA , there 's quite good at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is madness!
I demand protection against people trying to steal my customers with a better service/product and lower prices!
Ask the RIAA, there's quite good at that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597281</id>
	<title>Obsolete yourself before your competitor does</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1246907640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has got nothing to do with basing a company off free software, nor is it even limited to technology companies.</p><p>No company will stay in business forever - eventually they all seem to get made obsolete by some newer company that did a better job of predicting where the market was heading than they did.</p><p>It's possible that technology companies (in the broadest sense of technology) may be more liable to be made obsolete by "black swans" that seemingly come out of nowhere, due to the fast moving and semi-unpredictable nature of technology advances and fads, but again this is nothing to do with basing your business of free software.</p><p>Any company that fails to continually innovate and look over their shoulder, and instead just kicks back and milks the cash cow, is going to be made obsolete by a competitor with a better product, paradigm, or change in the market.</p><p>The best chance of surviving is business is if you can continually manage to make your existing products obsolete, before your competitors do.</p><p>The major danger to Google is that they are basically (at least in terms of generating revenue) a one-product company: web search based advertizing. It's not entirely obvious what their strategy is with GMail, Google Maps, etc, but I suspect that a major part of it is to help prop up their core business - to build the Google brand and customer (or rather fodder - the customers are the advertizers) retention.</p><p>Google should be worried though (and I'll bet they are) since there is so much room left to improve web search, and someone like Microsoft with the (certainly not free!) infrastructure in place to roll it out could render Google search obsolete overnight with the right software update. It's also possible that a lot of the adveritising market might switch to handhelds (presumably why Google is developing Android), or maybe to social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter where the kids nowadays all hang out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has got nothing to do with basing a company off free software , nor is it even limited to technology companies.No company will stay in business forever - eventually they all seem to get made obsolete by some newer company that did a better job of predicting where the market was heading than they did.It 's possible that technology companies ( in the broadest sense of technology ) may be more liable to be made obsolete by " black swans " that seemingly come out of nowhere , due to the fast moving and semi-unpredictable nature of technology advances and fads , but again this is nothing to do with basing your business of free software.Any company that fails to continually innovate and look over their shoulder , and instead just kicks back and milks the cash cow , is going to be made obsolete by a competitor with a better product , paradigm , or change in the market.The best chance of surviving is business is if you can continually manage to make your existing products obsolete , before your competitors do.The major danger to Google is that they are basically ( at least in terms of generating revenue ) a one-product company : web search based advertizing .
It 's not entirely obvious what their strategy is with GMail , Google Maps , etc , but I suspect that a major part of it is to help prop up their core business - to build the Google brand and customer ( or rather fodder - the customers are the advertizers ) retention.Google should be worried though ( and I 'll bet they are ) since there is so much room left to improve web search , and someone like Microsoft with the ( certainly not free !
) infrastructure in place to roll it out could render Google search obsolete overnight with the right software update .
It 's also possible that a lot of the adveritising market might switch to handhelds ( presumably why Google is developing Android ) , or maybe to social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter where the kids nowadays all hang out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has got nothing to do with basing a company off free software, nor is it even limited to technology companies.No company will stay in business forever - eventually they all seem to get made obsolete by some newer company that did a better job of predicting where the market was heading than they did.It's possible that technology companies (in the broadest sense of technology) may be more liable to be made obsolete by "black swans" that seemingly come out of nowhere, due to the fast moving and semi-unpredictable nature of technology advances and fads, but again this is nothing to do with basing your business of free software.Any company that fails to continually innovate and look over their shoulder, and instead just kicks back and milks the cash cow, is going to be made obsolete by a competitor with a better product, paradigm, or change in the market.The best chance of surviving is business is if you can continually manage to make your existing products obsolete, before your competitors do.The major danger to Google is that they are basically (at least in terms of generating revenue) a one-product company: web search based advertizing.
It's not entirely obvious what their strategy is with GMail, Google Maps, etc, but I suspect that a major part of it is to help prop up their core business - to build the Google brand and customer (or rather fodder - the customers are the advertizers) retention.Google should be worried though (and I'll bet they are) since there is so much room left to improve web search, and someone like Microsoft with the (certainly not free!
) infrastructure in place to roll it out could render Google search obsolete overnight with the right software update.
It's also possible that a lot of the adveritising market might switch to handhelds (presumably why Google is developing Android), or maybe to social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter where the kids nowadays all hang out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598185</id>
	<title>Re:Live free, die hard</title>
	<author>kthejoker</author>
	<datestamp>1246911360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See also: AT&amp;T, Nintendo, Daimler Benz, General Electric, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Heinz, Procter and Gamble, Ericsson, and a ton of other companies founded in the 19th century and still kicking today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See also : AT&amp;T , Nintendo , Daimler Benz , General Electric , Anheuser-Busch , Coca-Cola , Heinz , Procter and Gamble , Ericsson , and a ton of other companies founded in the 19th century and still kicking today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See also: AT&amp;T, Nintendo, Daimler Benz, General Electric, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Heinz, Procter and Gamble, Ericsson, and a ton of other companies founded in the 19th century and still kicking today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597645</id>
	<title>Mod parent (and this) down, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The moderation system is intended to point people to good posts, separate them from the cruft. Parent is a) producing even more cruft, b) redundant, and c) off-topic. Pretty much the same as this post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moderation system is intended to point people to good posts , separate them from the cruft .
Parent is a ) producing even more cruft , b ) redundant , and c ) off-topic .
Pretty much the same as this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moderation system is intended to point people to good posts, separate them from the cruft.
Parent is a) producing even more cruft, b) redundant, and c) off-topic.
Pretty much the same as this post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596657</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28603413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28666807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28605295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28604835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28599691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28601789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1541225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596657
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28599691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28601789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28603413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28605295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596601
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28666807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596049
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597779
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596613
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28604835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28598263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28597275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28595819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1541225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1541225.28596143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
