<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_16_1631232</id>
	<title>Mark Cuban's Plan To Kill Google</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1258392000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>rsmiller510 writes <i>"Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, <a href="http://www.daniweb.com/news/story238775.html">has a plan to kill Google</a> by paying the top 1,000 sites a cool million each to leave the Google index and move to Microsoft. But could such a plan ever work, and would it be worth the risk to abandon Google?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rsmiller510 writes " Mark Cuban , owner of the Dallas Mavericks , has a plan to kill Google by paying the top 1,000 sites a cool million each to leave the Google index and move to Microsoft .
But could such a plan ever work , and would it be worth the risk to abandon Google ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rsmiller510 writes "Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has a plan to kill Google by paying the top 1,000 sites a cool million each to leave the Google index and move to Microsoft.
But could such a plan ever work, and would it be worth the risk to abandon Google?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124650</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's real problem</title>
	<author>Creedo</author>
	<datestamp>1258381200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, Bing gives me the warm fuzzies. Of course, that's because I am a fan of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmella\_Bing" title="wikipedia.org">a particular bing</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , Bing gives me the warm fuzzies .
Of course , that 's because I am a fan of a particular bing [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, Bing gives me the warm fuzzies.
Of course, that's because I am a fan of a particular bing [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127472</id>
	<title>He's got it backwards</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1258459680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Backwards in several ways actually.</p><p>1. He wants to get into a spending fight with Google, which has tons of cash and good will. Is it really in the nation's interest to try and buy off customers to feed a convicted monopolist? It would explode when the first company leaks the news.</p><p>2. He suggests the value to a company of being listed in Google is just a matter of money and picking which is cheaper? But it's not. There's the impression of instant accessibility, relevance to needs, timeliness, existence in the key market, communications, etc. If you are not in Google, all the work you put into leveraging your brand with original content is lost.</p><p>3. Google's customers are people looking for something they want. The 100 top sites are known, their domains are known. They already have plenty of links from other sites. It will hurt the big customers more. Look at BMW which got blacklisted by Google temporarily for trying to fool it with black SEO. And what about international and mobile customers?</p><p>4. It won't stick. Even if a lot of money was paid out, the companies could take the money and then leave. Or is that money supposed to be for an indefinite period of time without performance guarantees? The best thing Microsoft could do frankly is buy stock in Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Backwards in several ways actually.1 .
He wants to get into a spending fight with Google , which has tons of cash and good will .
Is it really in the nation 's interest to try and buy off customers to feed a convicted monopolist ?
It would explode when the first company leaks the news.2 .
He suggests the value to a company of being listed in Google is just a matter of money and picking which is cheaper ?
But it 's not .
There 's the impression of instant accessibility , relevance to needs , timeliness , existence in the key market , communications , etc .
If you are not in Google , all the work you put into leveraging your brand with original content is lost.3 .
Google 's customers are people looking for something they want .
The 100 top sites are known , their domains are known .
They already have plenty of links from other sites .
It will hurt the big customers more .
Look at BMW which got blacklisted by Google temporarily for trying to fool it with black SEO .
And what about international and mobile customers ? 4 .
It wo n't stick .
Even if a lot of money was paid out , the companies could take the money and then leave .
Or is that money supposed to be for an indefinite period of time without performance guarantees ?
The best thing Microsoft could do frankly is buy stock in Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Backwards in several ways actually.1.
He wants to get into a spending fight with Google, which has tons of cash and good will.
Is it really in the nation's interest to try and buy off customers to feed a convicted monopolist?
It would explode when the first company leaks the news.2.
He suggests the value to a company of being listed in Google is just a matter of money and picking which is cheaper?
But it's not.
There's the impression of instant accessibility, relevance to needs, timeliness, existence in the key market, communications, etc.
If you are not in Google, all the work you put into leveraging your brand with original content is lost.3.
Google's customers are people looking for something they want.
The 100 top sites are known, their domains are known.
They already have plenty of links from other sites.
It will hurt the big customers more.
Look at BMW which got blacklisted by Google temporarily for trying to fool it with black SEO.
And what about international and mobile customers?4.
It won't stick.
Even if a lot of money was paid out, the companies could take the money and then leave.
Or is that money supposed to be for an indefinite period of time without performance guarantees?
The best thing Microsoft could do frankly is buy stock in Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118808</id>
	<title>End User</title>
	<author>KidPix</author>
	<datestamp>1258400040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm the kind of person who:<br>
<br>
1) Is familiar enough with my top sites to know which search engine they can't be found on.<br>
2) Never uses bookmarks.<br>
3) Is not familiar enough with my top sites to remember the address.<br>
<br>
Oh yeah, I don't know if this means anything but...<br>
<br>
4) I Google "bing" to find bing.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the kind of person who : 1 ) Is familiar enough with my top sites to know which search engine they ca n't be found on .
2 ) Never uses bookmarks .
3 ) Is not familiar enough with my top sites to remember the address .
Oh yeah , I do n't know if this means anything but.. . 4 ) I Google " bing " to find bing.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the kind of person who:

1) Is familiar enough with my top sites to know which search engine they can't be found on.
2) Never uses bookmarks.
3) Is not familiar enough with my top sites to remember the address.
Oh yeah, I don't know if this means anything but...

4) I Google "bing" to find bing.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117556</id>
	<title>Maybe ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they could develop something better than Google, and attract customers that way.  Just a thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they could develop something better than Google , and attract customers that way .
Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they could develop something better than Google, and attract customers that way.
Just a thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125658</id>
	<title>It's a $billion</title>
	<author>ebvwfbw</author>
	<datestamp>1258391400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1000 X 1 million is a billion.  For that, they somehow move from Google? It seems a fool and his money will soon be parted... even if he has the 1 billion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1000 X 1 million is a billion .
For that , they somehow move from Google ?
It seems a fool and his money will soon be parted... even if he has the 1 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1000 X 1 million is a billion.
For that, they somehow move from Google?
It seems a fool and his money will soon be parted... even if he has the 1 billion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118782</id>
	<title>We may get to see real soon</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258399920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Murdoch keeps dissing Google and claims that he no longer wants to be indexed by them. I would really love to see Google and IDEALLY Yahoo as well as AOL pull all of Murdoch's sites out. Then watch how things change on the web without Google, and hopefully another search engine or two to push their garbage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch keeps dissing Google and claims that he no longer wants to be indexed by them .
I would really love to see Google and IDEALLY Yahoo as well as AOL pull all of Murdoch 's sites out .
Then watch how things change on the web without Google , and hopefully another search engine or two to push their garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch keeps dissing Google and claims that he no longer wants to be indexed by them.
I would really love to see Google and IDEALLY Yahoo as well as AOL pull all of Murdoch's sites out.
Then watch how things change on the web without Google, and hopefully another search engine or two to push their garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117552</id>
	<title>I couldn't help but think</title>
	<author>mattwrock</author>
	<datestamp>1258396200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>that some form Microsoft is telling Mark Cuban to "totally fucking kill" Google. Maybe Mark Cuban is chair averse...</htmltext>
<tokenext>that some form Microsoft is telling Mark Cuban to " totally fucking kill " Google .
Maybe Mark Cuban is chair averse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that some form Microsoft is telling Mark Cuban to "totally fucking kill" Google.
Maybe Mark Cuban is chair averse...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119132</id>
	<title>Just a million ?</title>
	<author>lbalbalba</author>
	<datestamp>1258401000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hah! Get back to us when you got a serious offer <br> <br>
Sincerely,<br>
The top 1,000 sites</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah !
Get back to us when you got a serious offer Sincerely , The top 1,000 sites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah!
Get back to us when you got a serious offer  
Sincerely,
The top 1,000 sites</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120132</id>
	<title>Mark Cuban</title>
	<author>MaxLoad</author>
	<datestamp>1258404060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>makes me sad to say I live in the same state he does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>makes me sad to say I live in the same state he does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>makes me sad to say I live in the same state he does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117964</id>
	<title>Congrats, Site #1001</title>
	<author>gregmac</author>
	<datestamp>1258397460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say, if the top 1000 sites were stupid enough to go along with this, then I'd be pretty damn happy if I was site #1001.</p><p>Even if the top 2 or 3 book selling sites are all in the top 1000 sites (and go along with this), then what is the more likely scenario:<br>
&nbsp; * Everyone says "Oh crap, I can't find the book I'm looking for on [insert favourite site here], I don't know what this [insert #4 bookseller here] site is, so I'm going to go another search engine"<br>
&nbsp; * People buy from the first link, and #4 bookseller very quickly jumps to #1</p><p>Repeat across every industry. Even if the first scenario happens in some, it won't in all of them.</p><p>Another take on this: how often, when you search for a business/whatever and can't find it, even after trying a couple variations, do you go to another search engine? For me, it's never. I just assume they don't have a website. I imagine I'm not the only one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say , if the top 1000 sites were stupid enough to go along with this , then I 'd be pretty damn happy if I was site # 1001.Even if the top 2 or 3 book selling sites are all in the top 1000 sites ( and go along with this ) , then what is the more likely scenario :   * Everyone says " Oh crap , I ca n't find the book I 'm looking for on [ insert favourite site here ] , I do n't know what this [ insert # 4 bookseller here ] site is , so I 'm going to go another search engine "   * People buy from the first link , and # 4 bookseller very quickly jumps to # 1Repeat across every industry .
Even if the first scenario happens in some , it wo n't in all of them.Another take on this : how often , when you search for a business/whatever and ca n't find it , even after trying a couple variations , do you go to another search engine ?
For me , it 's never .
I just assume they do n't have a website .
I imagine I 'm not the only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say, if the top 1000 sites were stupid enough to go along with this, then I'd be pretty damn happy if I was site #1001.Even if the top 2 or 3 book selling sites are all in the top 1000 sites (and go along with this), then what is the more likely scenario:
  * Everyone says "Oh crap, I can't find the book I'm looking for on [insert favourite site here], I don't know what this [insert #4 bookseller here] site is, so I'm going to go another search engine"
  * People buy from the first link, and #4 bookseller very quickly jumps to #1Repeat across every industry.
Even if the first scenario happens in some, it won't in all of them.Another take on this: how often, when you search for a business/whatever and can't find it, even after trying a couple variations, do you go to another search engine?
For me, it's never.
I just assume they don't have a website.
I imagine I'm not the only one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117792</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's obvious that he just wanted free attention, and that he got it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's obvious that he just wanted free attention , and that he got it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's obvious that he just wanted free attention, and that he got it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119894</id>
	<title>Re:1 million is peanuts</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258403220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Revenue is not the same as profit.  Amazon's reported profit margin is around 3.5\%, so it takes them around two days to make a million dollars.  Given the amount that Amazon spends on Google AdWords, however, I suspect that they make a lot of profit from people finding their site through Google and so wouldn't be particularly interested in abandoning the search engine for as little as a million dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Revenue is not the same as profit .
Amazon 's reported profit margin is around 3.5 \ % , so it takes them around two days to make a million dollars .
Given the amount that Amazon spends on Google AdWords , however , I suspect that they make a lot of profit from people finding their site through Google and so would n't be particularly interested in abandoning the search engine for as little as a million dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revenue is not the same as profit.
Amazon's reported profit margin is around 3.5\%, so it takes them around two days to make a million dollars.
Given the amount that Amazon spends on Google AdWords, however, I suspect that they make a lot of profit from people finding their site through Google and so wouldn't be particularly interested in abandoning the search engine for as little as a million dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119156</id>
	<title>I will give him $1 M to shut the fuck up</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1258401060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and never talk in public again. ill give him another $1 M if he promises to never talk again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and never talk in public again .
ill give him another $ 1 M if he promises to never talk again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and never talk in public again.
ill give him another $1 M if he promises to never talk again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118436</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Consider 2 cases:</p><p>Sites with established brand names like ebay: People will find them without google easier than they will find microsoft search. And one mil is peanuts.</p><p>"Commodity" sites like popular hardware or game review sites: A million might be significant to them, but google traffic is probably crucial. And leaving would just mean that another mostly equivalent site pops up in google instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Consider 2 cases : Sites with established brand names like ebay : People will find them without google easier than they will find microsoft search .
And one mil is peanuts .
" Commodity " sites like popular hardware or game review sites : A million might be significant to them , but google traffic is probably crucial .
And leaving would just mean that another mostly equivalent site pops up in google instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Consider 2 cases:Sites with established brand names like ebay: People will find them without google easier than they will find microsoft search.
And one mil is peanuts.
"Commodity" sites like popular hardware or game review sites: A million might be significant to them, but google traffic is probably crucial.
And leaving would just mean that another mostly equivalent site pops up in google instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119320</id>
	<title>Money toss...</title>
	<author>Datamonstar</author>
	<datestamp>1258401480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.... throw money at it. It'll work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah.... throw money at it .
It 'll work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.... throw money at it.
It'll work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118712</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258399740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post?</p></div><p>Wow. For once Slashdotters want the blog post and not the article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post ? Wow .
For once Slashdotters want the blog post and not the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post?Wow.
For once Slashdotters want the blog post and not the article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118094</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>TrippTDF</author>
	<datestamp>1258397880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a growing anti-Google movement, in large part being spear-headed by Newscorp.  The writing is on the wall that traditional content protection (via physical media) no longer applies... traditional media companies are freaking out left and right and they think my locking out Google in favor of a search engine that might want to play ball their way (Microsoft), they can hold onto their media empires at the expense of their consumers... there are a lot of similarities between this idea and the RIAA suing the Napster into oblivion, only this time Google is A) not doing anything illegal and B) has the market and mindshare to not be effected by such things.<br> <br>

One possible scenario, if content publishers get their way would be a fractured internet, where Google no longer indexes content for the "big boys", and users have to turn to an alternative search engine for that sort of content (Bing) where Microsoft gives great control over the content to the publishers in exchange for some sort of fee... Users will either move all their searching over to Bing, or they won't even notice that the content is gone and wind up reading the content from smaller publishers (blogs) instead...  <br> <br>

The long of the short of it:  Big-ass media can't make money on the internet like they are used to, so they aim to destroy it.  It's not going to fly and a lot of these organizations are going to go down in flames.  I don't know if that is a good or a bad thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a growing anti-Google movement , in large part being spear-headed by Newscorp .
The writing is on the wall that traditional content protection ( via physical media ) no longer applies... traditional media companies are freaking out left and right and they think my locking out Google in favor of a search engine that might want to play ball their way ( Microsoft ) , they can hold onto their media empires at the expense of their consumers... there are a lot of similarities between this idea and the RIAA suing the Napster into oblivion , only this time Google is A ) not doing anything illegal and B ) has the market and mindshare to not be effected by such things .
One possible scenario , if content publishers get their way would be a fractured internet , where Google no longer indexes content for the " big boys " , and users have to turn to an alternative search engine for that sort of content ( Bing ) where Microsoft gives great control over the content to the publishers in exchange for some sort of fee... Users will either move all their searching over to Bing , or they wo n't even notice that the content is gone and wind up reading the content from smaller publishers ( blogs ) instead.. . The long of the short of it : Big-ass media ca n't make money on the internet like they are used to , so they aim to destroy it .
It 's not going to fly and a lot of these organizations are going to go down in flames .
I do n't know if that is a good or a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a growing anti-Google movement, in large part being spear-headed by Newscorp.
The writing is on the wall that traditional content protection (via physical media) no longer applies... traditional media companies are freaking out left and right and they think my locking out Google in favor of a search engine that might want to play ball their way (Microsoft), they can hold onto their media empires at the expense of their consumers... there are a lot of similarities between this idea and the RIAA suing the Napster into oblivion, only this time Google is A) not doing anything illegal and B) has the market and mindshare to not be effected by such things.
One possible scenario, if content publishers get their way would be a fractured internet, where Google no longer indexes content for the "big boys", and users have to turn to an alternative search engine for that sort of content (Bing) where Microsoft gives great control over the content to the publishers in exchange for some sort of fee... Users will either move all their searching over to Bing, or they won't even notice that the content is gone and wind up reading the content from smaller publishers (blogs) instead...   

The long of the short of it:  Big-ass media can't make money on the internet like they are used to, so they aim to destroy it.
It's not going to fly and a lot of these organizations are going to go down in flames.
I don't know if that is a good or a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117710</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easily done with a robots.txt tailored to exclude all google domains. Something like:<br>User-agent: *<br>Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/google.com<br>Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/gmail.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easily done with a robots.txt tailored to exclude all google domains .
Something like : User-agent : * Disallow : /google.comDisallow : /gmail.com .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easily done with a robots.txt tailored to exclude all google domains.
Something like:User-agent: *Disallow: /google.comDisallow: /gmail.com ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125348</id>
	<title>Does a top site need google?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1258387800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use google to find amazon or ebay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use google to find amazon or ebay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use google to find amazon or ebay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126950</id>
	<title>better idea</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1258450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this idea sounds stupid.</p><p>a better idea would be to give away those millions to bing users... for example by letting users participate in a free lottery, every time they make a query...</p><p>in this day and age, you know, you'll have to not only give away your service for free, you'll also have to pay your users<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this idea sounds stupid.a better idea would be to give away those millions to bing users... for example by letting users participate in a free lottery , every time they make a query...in this day and age , you know , you 'll have to not only give away your service for free , you 'll also have to pay your users : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this idea sounds stupid.a better idea would be to give away those millions to bing users... for example by letting users participate in a free lottery, every time they make a query...in this day and age, you know, you'll have to not only give away your service for free, you'll also have to pay your users :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117404</id>
	<title>Geez</title>
	<author>moogied</author>
	<datestamp>1258395960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117734</id>
	<title>Here's a bridge to jump off.  You first.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$1M isn't peanuts to everybody.  The regular public can't see Google's site rankings, but assuming they're similar to the <a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US" title="alexa.com">Alexa rankings</a> [alexa.com], there are some sites that would probably jump at a million dollars.  The porn sites, a lot of the bloggers, and some of the shakier social networking sites would probably take the money and run.</p><p>But there's something else odd about that list.  Many of the top-ranked sites -- 3 of the first 20, for example -- are Microsoft.  Again, that's not Google's ranking page, but MS sites are still findable via Google.  If MS plans to 'kill' Google, shouldn't they start by taking their own sites off that search engine first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 1M is n't peanuts to everybody .
The regular public ca n't see Google 's site rankings , but assuming they 're similar to the Alexa rankings [ alexa.com ] , there are some sites that would probably jump at a million dollars .
The porn sites , a lot of the bloggers , and some of the shakier social networking sites would probably take the money and run.But there 's something else odd about that list .
Many of the top-ranked sites -- 3 of the first 20 , for example -- are Microsoft .
Again , that 's not Google 's ranking page , but MS sites are still findable via Google .
If MS plans to 'kill ' Google , should n't they start by taking their own sites off that search engine first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$1M isn't peanuts to everybody.
The regular public can't see Google's site rankings, but assuming they're similar to the Alexa rankings [alexa.com], there are some sites that would probably jump at a million dollars.
The porn sites, a lot of the bloggers, and some of the shakier social networking sites would probably take the money and run.But there's something else odd about that list.
Many of the top-ranked sites -- 3 of the first 20, for example -- are Microsoft.
Again, that's not Google's ranking page, but MS sites are still findable via Google.
If MS plans to 'kill' Google, shouldn't they start by taking their own sites off that search engine first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124808</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My suggestion for Google's response: Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year. Pay people $1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night, while wearing Google t-shirts.</p></div><p>I've got an even better idea.  Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year.  Give the members of various Dallas area gangs a ticket and a rusty knife.  Do the same for people being released from area prisons.  Then sit back and watch the fun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion for Google 's response : Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year .
Pay people $ 1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night , while wearing Google t-shirts.I 've got an even better idea .
Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year .
Give the members of various Dallas area gangs a ticket and a rusty knife .
Do the same for people being released from area prisons .
Then sit back and watch the fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion for Google's response: Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year.
Pay people $1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night, while wearing Google t-shirts.I've got an even better idea.
Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year.
Give the members of various Dallas area gangs a ticket and a rusty knife.
Do the same for people being released from area prisons.
Then sit back and watch the fun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117826</id>
	<title>Annoying Popup On Linked Page</title>
	<author>Xesdeeni</author>
	<datestamp>1258397040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I'm just not running the right Firefox plugin (AdBlock, FlashBlock, etc.), but that in-your-face popup ad for a service I will actively avoid in retaliation for the ad itself is quite annoying.  Does anyone know how to kill this thing?</p><p>As for the article, what does MC have against MS?  I don't like MS, but I'm sure they'd have to do something to me personally before I'd be willing to spend $1 billion to prove it.</p><p>Xesdeeni</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm just not running the right Firefox plugin ( AdBlock , FlashBlock , etc .
) , but that in-your-face popup ad for a service I will actively avoid in retaliation for the ad itself is quite annoying .
Does anyone know how to kill this thing ? As for the article , what does MC have against MS ?
I do n't like MS , but I 'm sure they 'd have to do something to me personally before I 'd be willing to spend $ 1 billion to prove it.Xesdeeni</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm just not running the right Firefox plugin (AdBlock, FlashBlock, etc.
), but that in-your-face popup ad for a service I will actively avoid in retaliation for the ad itself is quite annoying.
Does anyone know how to kill this thing?As for the article, what does MC have against MS?
I don't like MS, but I'm sure they'd have to do something to me personally before I'd be willing to spend $1 billion to prove it.Xesdeeni</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30164772</id>
	<title>What would happen...</title>
	<author>DanielSmedegaardBuus</author>
	<datestamp>1258629480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you see, what would happen when using that plan, is that the top 1,000 sites would become the top 1,001 to top 2,000 sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you see , what would happen when using that plan , is that the top 1,000 sites would become the top 1,001 to top 2,000 sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you see, what would happen when using that plan, is that the top 1,000 sites would become the top 1,001 to top 2,000 sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</id>
	<title>Would this even work?</title>
	<author>PeterM from Berkeley</author>
	<datestamp>1258396080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like Google could index the top 1000 sites whether they wanted Google to index them or not.</p><p>I don't see how they could possibly stop Google from indexing information that these sites put into public view.</p><p>-PM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like Google could index the top 1000 sites whether they wanted Google to index them or not.I do n't see how they could possibly stop Google from indexing information that these sites put into public view.-PM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like Google could index the top 1000 sites whether they wanted Google to index them or not.I don't see how they could possibly stop Google from indexing information that these sites put into public view.-PM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30123294</id>
	<title>No chance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if he pays, Google can easily afford to pay the top 1000 sites $2M to stay in the index. No chance this plan might work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he pays , Google can easily afford to pay the top 1000 sites $ 2M to stay in the index .
No chance this plan might work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he pays, Google can easily afford to pay the top 1000 sites $2M to stay in the index.
No chance this plan might work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121716</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it worked for HDTV media...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it worked for HDTV media.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it worked for HDTV media...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119606</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1258402380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...which is why he should pay $1M to each of the bottom 1000 sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...which is why he should pay $ 1M to each of the bottom 1000 sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which is why he should pay $1M to each of the bottom 1000 sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30129864</id>
	<title>2 kinds of whores in this world.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>classy whores and crack whores. Mark Cuban must've been tokin' up some good sh|t to come up with this idiotic idea. Put the pipe down dude and work on your little basketball franchise. It needs it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>classy whores and crack whores .
Mark Cuban must 've been tokin ' up some good sh | t to come up with this idiotic idea .
Put the pipe down dude and work on your little basketball franchise .
It needs it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>classy whores and crack whores.
Mark Cuban must've been tokin' up some good sh|t to come up with this idiotic idea.
Put the pipe down dude and work on your little basketball franchise.
It needs it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118880</id>
	<title>Google's Answer</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1258400280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google pays them a $million to come back, then it's certainly worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google pays them a $ million to come back , then it 's certainly worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google pays them a $million to come back, then it's certainly worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117494</id>
	<title>Won't Affect Me</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1258396080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This won't affect me.  I don't search for advertisers.  In fact, getting rid of the paid cruft will make searching for true results even better.  Besides, a billion dollars is starting to fade into the noise of google's net worth.  It may hurt Google, but it won't kill Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This wo n't affect me .
I do n't search for advertisers .
In fact , getting rid of the paid cruft will make searching for true results even better .
Besides , a billion dollars is starting to fade into the noise of google 's net worth .
It may hurt Google , but it wo n't kill Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This won't affect me.
I don't search for advertisers.
In fact, getting rid of the paid cruft will make searching for true results even better.
Besides, a billion dollars is starting to fade into the noise of google's net worth.
It may hurt Google, but it won't kill Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119510</id>
	<title>YES! Because what I hate about search engines--</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1258402080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>--is their bizarre bias towards relevant results.  All I want is whatever results make the most money for billionaires.  In fact, don't even show me search results.  Just take money from my back account and show me advertisements, please.  PLEASE, Mr. Fratboy Douchenozzle Billionaire, I still have money left and they keep giving me more every other week!</htmltext>
<tokenext>--is their bizarre bias towards relevant results .
All I want is whatever results make the most money for billionaires .
In fact , do n't even show me search results .
Just take money from my back account and show me advertisements , please .
PLEASE , Mr. Fratboy Douchenozzle Billionaire , I still have money left and they keep giving me more every other week !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--is their bizarre bias towards relevant results.
All I want is whatever results make the most money for billionaires.
In fact, don't even show me search results.
Just take money from my back account and show me advertisements, please.
PLEASE, Mr. Fratboy Douchenozzle Billionaire, I still have money left and they keep giving me more every other week!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117410</id>
	<title>1 million is peanuts</title>
	<author>guyfawkes-11-5</author>
	<datestamp>1258395960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 million is peanuts.  Amazon, one of the top 100 sites,  makes that during a coffee break.  <br>
Why opt out of free product placement (Amazon usually ranks high in google) worldwide, for a pittance? <br>
Cuban's mojo has left the room.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 million is peanuts .
Amazon , one of the top 100 sites , makes that during a coffee break .
Why opt out of free product placement ( Amazon usually ranks high in google ) worldwide , for a pittance ?
Cuban 's mojo has left the room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 million is peanuts.
Amazon, one of the top 100 sites,  makes that during a coffee break.
Why opt out of free product placement (Amazon usually ranks high in google) worldwide, for a pittance?
Cuban's mojo has left the room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118274</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1258398360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless your company happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch.  In that case you get a bonus of a cool 1 million dollars (raises pinky to corner of mouth) to do exactly what the boss has been asking for repeatedly over the last several months, all courtesy of Mark Cuban.  That's got to be the win:win scenario of the year:  Cuban's idea gets some takers, some News Corp.' subsidiary CEOs get $1m, Rupert Murdoch gets his sites out of Google and, eventually, everyone finally gets rid of Rupert Murdoch when his companies become insolvent.<br> <br>

Sounds like a good plan to me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless your company happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch .
In that case you get a bonus of a cool 1 million dollars ( raises pinky to corner of mouth ) to do exactly what the boss has been asking for repeatedly over the last several months , all courtesy of Mark Cuban .
That 's got to be the win : win scenario of the year : Cuban 's idea gets some takers , some News Corp. ' subsidiary CEOs get $ 1m , Rupert Murdoch gets his sites out of Google and , eventually , everyone finally gets rid of Rupert Murdoch when his companies become insolvent .
Sounds like a good plan to me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless your company happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch.
In that case you get a bonus of a cool 1 million dollars (raises pinky to corner of mouth) to do exactly what the boss has been asking for repeatedly over the last several months, all courtesy of Mark Cuban.
That's got to be the win:win scenario of the year:  Cuban's idea gets some takers, some News Corp.' subsidiary CEOs get $1m, Rupert Murdoch gets his sites out of Google and, eventually, everyone finally gets rid of Rupert Murdoch when his companies become insolvent.
Sounds like a good plan to me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118984</id>
	<title>Re:Geez</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258400580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.</p></div><p>They certainly do. You don't buy coffee, you just rent it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.They certainly do .
You do n't buy coffee , you just rent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.They certainly do.
You don't buy coffee, you just rent it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119846</id>
	<title>I use Bing for one thing and one thing only</title>
	<author>Tetrarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1258403100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is set as my home page so I can see their cool new picture every day.  They're really good.  But for searches I just click on that google search bar in the upper right hand corner</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is set as my home page so I can see their cool new picture every day .
They 're really good .
But for searches I just click on that google search bar in the upper right hand corner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is set as my home page so I can see their cool new picture every day.
They're really good.
But for searches I just click on that google search bar in the upper right hand corner</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121950</id>
	<title>Re:Mark's Resume</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Self-promotion... he's up there.</p><p>It works (?), everyone here is talking about him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Self-promotion... he 's up there.It works ( ?
) , everyone here is talking about him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Self-promotion... he's up there.It works (?
), everyone here is talking about him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119028</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1258400700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites (which is a big if, since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft...), then would Google crash and burn?</p></div></blockquote><p>If Google no longer listed the top 1000 sites, we'd have a new list of 1000 top sites, as traffic moved from the previous 1000 to the new 1000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites ( which is a big if , since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft... ) , then would Google crash and burn ? If Google no longer listed the top 1000 sites , we 'd have a new list of 1000 top sites , as traffic moved from the previous 1000 to the new 1000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites (which is a big if, since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft...), then would Google crash and burn?If Google no longer listed the top 1000 sites, we'd have a new list of 1000 top sites, as traffic moved from the previous 1000 to the new 1000.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120426</id>
	<title>Dumb</title>
	<author>zizzo</author>
	<datestamp>1258404900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Top 1000" sites are the ones I don't bother searching for: google, microsoft, yahoo, salon, nytimes, espn, amazon: I already know what they are. You use a search engine to search for stuff you can't find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Top 1000 " sites are the ones I do n't bother searching for : google , microsoft , yahoo , salon , nytimes , espn , amazon : I already know what they are .
You use a search engine to search for stuff you ca n't find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Top 1000" sites are the ones I don't bother searching for: google, microsoft, yahoo, salon, nytimes, espn, amazon: I already know what they are.
You use a search engine to search for stuff you can't find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30123338</id>
	<title>the top 1k don't care</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1258373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if they are in the top 1k, they are already successful and obviously understand the importance of their position in search results. they aren't going to mess with that for a one-time payment of $1 million. changing how their company is advertised via search results is something that could affect them for years to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if they are in the top 1k , they are already successful and obviously understand the importance of their position in search results .
they are n't going to mess with that for a one-time payment of $ 1 million .
changing how their company is advertised via search results is something that could affect them for years to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they are in the top 1k, they are already successful and obviously understand the importance of their position in search results.
they aren't going to mess with that for a one-time payment of $1 million.
changing how their company is advertised via search results is something that could affect them for years to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117594</id>
	<title>Oblig</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1258396320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark Cuban: Here's the plan. We get the top 1000 sites on our side and we hold google ransom for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!<br>Number Two: Don't you think we should hand out *more* than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. The top number 1 site, yahoo, alone makes almost 8 billion dollars a year!<br>Mark Cuban: Really? That's a lot of money.<br>[pause]<br>Mark Cuban: Okay then, we'll hold google ransom for...<br>Mark Cuban: One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban : Here 's the plan .
We get the top 1000 sites on our side and we hold google ransom for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS ! Number Two : Do n't you think we should hand out * more * than a million dollars ?
A million dollars is n't exactly a lot of money these days .
The top number 1 site , yahoo , alone makes almost 8 billion dollars a year ! Mark Cuban : Really ?
That 's a lot of money .
[ pause ] Mark Cuban : Okay then , we 'll hold google ransom for...Mark Cuban : One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban: Here's the plan.
We get the top 1000 sites on our side and we hold google ransom for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!Number Two: Don't you think we should hand out *more* than a million dollars?
A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days.
The top number 1 site, yahoo, alone makes almost 8 billion dollars a year!Mark Cuban: Really?
That's a lot of money.
[pause]Mark Cuban: Okay then, we'll hold google ransom for...Mark Cuban: One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127766</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258464720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these robot.txt fools don't seem to realise that google will happily still return top level domains if it wants, just not any deeper links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these robot.txt fools do n't seem to realise that google will happily still return top level domains if it wants , just not any deeper links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these robot.txt fools don't seem to realise that google will happily still return top level domains if it wants, just not any deeper links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30128572</id>
	<title>Re:Top 1000 examples:</title>
	<author>bmacs27</author>
	<datestamp>1258471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was waiting for someone to point out youtube.  It just exposes how ridiculous this whole plan is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was waiting for someone to point out youtube .
It just exposes how ridiculous this whole plan is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was waiting for someone to point out youtube.
It just exposes how ridiculous this whole plan is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117754</id>
	<title>Re:illegal?</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1258396800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the Wikipedia article I think you are definitely correct.  There is a case to be made that this behavior would constitute tortious interference.  The parent deserves to be modded up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the Wikipedia article I think you are definitely correct .
There is a case to be made that this behavior would constitute tortious interference .
The parent deserves to be modded up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the Wikipedia article I think you are definitely correct.
There is a case to be made that this behavior would constitute tortious interference.
The parent deserves to be modded up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119774</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258402920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have google.com have a giant ass banner on why mavs suck...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have google.com have a giant ass banner on why mavs suck.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have google.com have a giant ass banner on why mavs suck...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117682</id>
	<title>Take him seriously!</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1258396620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it works half as well as his quest to bring an NBA championship to Dallas, Google better watch out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it works half as well as his quest to bring an NBA championship to Dallas , Google better watch out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it works half as well as his quest to bring an NBA championship to Dallas, Google better watch out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118154</id>
	<title>That's not a plan to kill google.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1258398000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a plan to kill every site that takes the bait.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a plan to kill every site that takes the bait.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a plan to kill every site that takes the bait.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118384</id>
	<title>Re:Mark Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mark+cuban&amp;l=1" title="lmgtfy.com" rel="nofollow">http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mark+cuban&amp;l=1</a> [lmgtfy.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //lmgtfy.com/ ? q = mark + cuban&amp;l = 1 [ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mark+cuban&amp;l=1 [lmgtfy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118450</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the news reporter misquoted him or had a few typos. I think the guy<br>said 1 billion for each site and not 1 mil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the news reporter misquoted him or had a few typos .
I think the guysaid 1 billion for each site and not 1 mil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the news reporter misquoted him or had a few typos.
I think the guysaid 1 billion for each site and not 1 mil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118052</id>
	<title>Track record...</title>
	<author>Digital\_Mercenary</author>
	<datestamp>1258397700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This scheme will work as well as his basketball team....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This scheme will work as well as his basketball team... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This scheme will work as well as his basketball team....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118370</id>
	<title>Amateurs can never tell cause from effect</title>
	<author>taustin</author>
	<datestamp>1258398600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the top 1000 sites are in the top 1000 because they're indexed by Google. In other words, if 1001-2000 suddenly become 1-1000, very few people will even notice the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the top 1000 sites are in the top 1000 because they 're indexed by Google .
In other words , if 1001-2000 suddenly become 1-1000 , very few people will even notice the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the top 1000 sites are in the top 1000 because they're indexed by Google.
In other words, if 1001-2000 suddenly become 1-1000, very few people will even notice the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117548</id>
	<title>Other People's Money</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1258396200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, is he offering this out of his own pocket? (a billion dollars).</p><p>Or is this just a hare-brained idea that he is tossing out there to get some spin on his own name.</p><p>Let's see the Dallas Mavericks remove themselves from anything Google first. Oh, that's right, he must have already, never heard of the team before...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is he offering this out of his own pocket ?
( a billion dollars ) .Or is this just a hare-brained idea that he is tossing out there to get some spin on his own name.Let 's see the Dallas Mavericks remove themselves from anything Google first .
Oh , that 's right , he must have already , never heard of the team before.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is he offering this out of his own pocket?
(a billion dollars).Or is this just a hare-brained idea that he is tossing out there to get some spin on his own name.Let's see the Dallas Mavericks remove themselves from anything Google first.
Oh, that's right, he must have already, never heard of the team before...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117764</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>jmyers</author>
	<datestamp>1258396800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post?</p><p><a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/" title="blogmaverick.com">http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/</a> [blogmaverick.com]</p><p>Not that it answers any of your questions, other than maybe he is a publicity hound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post ? http : //blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/ [ blogmaverick.com ] Not that it answers any of your questions , other than maybe he is a publicity hound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post?http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/ [blogmaverick.com]Not that it answers any of your questions, other than maybe he is a publicity hound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117350</id>
	<title>Bribery</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1258395720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know bribery is accepted practice in the US but here in the EU it is still frowned upon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know bribery is accepted practice in the US but here in the EU it is still frowned upon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know bribery is accepted practice in the US but here in the EU it is still frowned upon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118312</id>
	<title>The Math *Is* Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody check <i>my</i> match, but in the actual blog, he says:</p><p><i>The math starts to get interesting. At $1,000 per site average times 100k sites, thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars.</i></p><p>1,000 x 100,000 = 100,000,000 - One Hundred MILLION, not one BILLION.</p><p>But, anyway, it seems to me to be only a gedanken experiment, not an actual proposal.  He must have been chillin' in front of one of his HDTVs watching a really boring movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody check my match , but in the actual blog , he says : The math starts to get interesting .
At $ 1,000 per site average times 100k sites , thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars.1,000 x 100,000 = 100,000,000 - One Hundred MILLION , not one BILLION.But , anyway , it seems to me to be only a gedanken experiment , not an actual proposal .
He must have been chillin ' in front of one of his HDTVs watching a really boring movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody check my match, but in the actual blog, he says:The math starts to get interesting.
At $1,000 per site average times 100k sites, thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars.1,000 x 100,000 = 100,000,000 - One Hundred MILLION, not one BILLION.But, anyway, it seems to me to be only a gedanken experiment, not an actual proposal.
He must have been chillin' in front of one of his HDTVs watching a really boring movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118292</id>
	<title>Microsoft's real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before Microsoft tries to take over from the most successful search engine in the world they really need to get a better name. Can you really imagine youself using "bing" as a verb in mixed company?</p><p>The person who came up with that name must be the same one who thought it was a good idea to sell devices that allow you to "squirt" pictures of your kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before Microsoft tries to take over from the most successful search engine in the world they really need to get a better name .
Can you really imagine youself using " bing " as a verb in mixed company ? The person who came up with that name must be the same one who thought it was a good idea to sell devices that allow you to " squirt " pictures of your kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before Microsoft tries to take over from the most successful search engine in the world they really need to get a better name.
Can you really imagine youself using "bing" as a verb in mixed company?The person who came up with that name must be the same one who thought it was a good idea to sell devices that allow you to "squirt" pictures of your kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118856</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258400220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real question is, who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name "Broadcast.com" and convincing Yahoo! that it was work ~$6 billion dollars to buy out.</p></div><p>A $6 Billion redirect to my yahoo homepage.  Great investment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is , who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name " Broadcast.com " and convincing Yahoo !
that it was work ~ $ 6 billion dollars to buy out.A $ 6 Billion redirect to my yahoo homepage .
Great investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is, who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name "Broadcast.com" and convincing Yahoo!
that it was work ~$6 billion dollars to buy out.A $6 Billion redirect to my yahoo homepage.
Great investment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127210</id>
	<title>Fail at Number One</title>
	<author>oaksey</author>
	<datestamp>1258455840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main problem I see would be that Google would be the most visited website, so you would fail at number 1 of 1000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem I see would be that Google would be the most visited website , so you would fail at number 1 of 1000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem I see would be that Google would be the most visited website, so you would fail at number 1 of 1000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30185454</id>
	<title>Re:1000x1000000=10^9</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1258826280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because when Microsoft tries that, it ends up with Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because when Microsoft tries that , it ends up with Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because when Microsoft tries that, it ends up with Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117466</id>
	<title>illegal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The phrase tortious interference comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious\_interference)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phrase tortious interference comes to mind ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious \ _interference )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phrase tortious interference comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious\_interference)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117784</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>Iphtashu Fitz</author>
	<datestamp>1258396860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just a simple matter of updating the sites robots.txt files to tell Googlebot to go take a hike.  Of course Google could just "break" Googlebot and crawl those sites anyway.  But if you really want to boycott Google on your own:
<p><div class="quote"><p>User-agent: Googlebot<br>
Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just a simple matter of updating the sites robots.txt files to tell Googlebot to go take a hike .
Of course Google could just " break " Googlebot and crawl those sites anyway .
But if you really want to boycott Google on your own : User-agent : Googlebot Disallow : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just a simple matter of updating the sites robots.txt files to tell Googlebot to go take a hike.
Of course Google could just "break" Googlebot and crawl those sites anyway.
But if you really want to boycott Google on your own:
User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117716</id>
	<title>mark cuban</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258396680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>registered a domain name, snowed some clueless investors with a generic, vague pie in the sky technology idea that would never realize light of day, then timed it perfectly to leave with a pile of cash before the shit hit the fan</p><p>for doing that, he is laudable, in some fashion</p><p>he's a good businessman at best, a con artist at worst, but why whatever that man thinks should have any respect in this forum is beyond me. "News for Nerds" automatically excludes anything mark cuban thinks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>registered a domain name , snowed some clueless investors with a generic , vague pie in the sky technology idea that would never realize light of day , then timed it perfectly to leave with a pile of cash before the shit hit the fanfor doing that , he is laudable , in some fashionhe 's a good businessman at best , a con artist at worst , but why whatever that man thinks should have any respect in this forum is beyond me .
" News for Nerds " automatically excludes anything mark cuban thinks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>registered a domain name, snowed some clueless investors with a generic, vague pie in the sky technology idea that would never realize light of day, then timed it perfectly to leave with a pile of cash before the shit hit the fanfor doing that, he is laudable, in some fashionhe's a good businessman at best, a con artist at worst, but why whatever that man thinks should have any respect in this forum is beyond me.
"News for Nerds" automatically excludes anything mark cuban thinks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121218</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>soliptic</author>
	<datestamp>1258365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sheer scale of the inflated figures thrown around in the dotcom era still staggers me.  Let's imagine that yahoo found a way of monetising broadcast.com to the tune of half a million dollars profit EVERY DAY.  God alone knows how, but assuming they did - to recoup that $6bn they would still need to consistently turn in that profit for OVER THIRTY YEARS.  How can anyone take such a proposition seriously?  And, yeah, I know, stock not cash, but if you follow that line of argument to a logical conclusion, it means the investors knew how ludricously over-valued the stock is, so either way the whole market must have been running off undiluted stupid for such a deal to go through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sheer scale of the inflated figures thrown around in the dotcom era still staggers me .
Let 's imagine that yahoo found a way of monetising broadcast.com to the tune of half a million dollars profit EVERY DAY .
God alone knows how , but assuming they did - to recoup that $ 6bn they would still need to consistently turn in that profit for OVER THIRTY YEARS .
How can anyone take such a proposition seriously ?
And , yeah , I know , stock not cash , but if you follow that line of argument to a logical conclusion , it means the investors knew how ludricously over-valued the stock is , so either way the whole market must have been running off undiluted stupid for such a deal to go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sheer scale of the inflated figures thrown around in the dotcom era still staggers me.
Let's imagine that yahoo found a way of monetising broadcast.com to the tune of half a million dollars profit EVERY DAY.
God alone knows how, but assuming they did - to recoup that $6bn they would still need to consistently turn in that profit for OVER THIRTY YEARS.
How can anyone take such a proposition seriously?
And, yeah, I know, stock not cash, but if you follow that line of argument to a logical conclusion, it means the investors knew how ludricously over-valued the stock is, so either way the whole market must have been running off undiluted stupid for such a deal to go through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30123342</id>
	<title>ok so pay up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google, Gmail, picasa, google news are all in the top 1000. give google 4 million dollars do not pass go.</p><p>Also people don't search for the top 1000. They just go there and use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , Gmail , picasa , google news are all in the top 1000. give google 4 million dollars do not pass go.Also people do n't search for the top 1000 .
They just go there and use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, Gmail, picasa, google news are all in the top 1000. give google 4 million dollars do not pass go.Also people don't search for the top 1000.
They just go there and use them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120814</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1258363380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So he didn't really earn the money. How is that different from most of the other billionaires?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So he did n't really earn the money .
How is that different from most of the other billionaires ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he didn't really earn the money.
How is that different from most of the other billionaires?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121168</id>
	<title>Choking Game</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1258364820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The referenced article has this little gem in it:<br>"I'm sure Microsoft is looking for ways to choke Google. After all, that's what competitors do...."<br>Is this from the "Tonya Harding School of Business"?<br>I'm sure Microsoft should be looking for ways to best Google, otherwise there is no point in competition; as only the lowest assholes do it by hurting their competitor.  Unless its boxing, but a kick in the nuts is still against the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The referenced article has this little gem in it : " I 'm sure Microsoft is looking for ways to choke Google .
After all , that 's what competitors do.... " Is this from the " Tonya Harding School of Business " ? I 'm sure Microsoft should be looking for ways to best Google , otherwise there is no point in competition ; as only the lowest assholes do it by hurting their competitor .
Unless its boxing , but a kick in the nuts is still against the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The referenced article has this little gem in it:"I'm sure Microsoft is looking for ways to choke Google.
After all, that's what competitors do...."Is this from the "Tonya Harding School of Business"?I'm sure Microsoft should be looking for ways to best Google, otherwise there is no point in competition; as only the lowest assholes do it by hurting their competitor.
Unless its boxing, but a kick in the nuts is still against the rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125020</id>
	<title>Re:Not to be a communist here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258384800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because he's Mark Cuban. Your 100\% douche bag business guy. Giving money to the do good doesn't give the additional 15 minutes of fame as being a complete and utter turd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because he 's Mark Cuban .
Your 100 \ % douche bag business guy .
Giving money to the do good does n't give the additional 15 minutes of fame as being a complete and utter turd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because he's Mark Cuban.
Your 100\% douche bag business guy.
Giving money to the do good doesn't give the additional 15 minutes of fame as being a complete and utter turd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117726</id>
	<title>Calm down, y'all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA makes it pretty clear that this (on his personal blog) is a thought experiment, not an actual plan he has any intention to follow through. More, he is speculating about moves that Microsoft or others might take to bring Google down and what that would do to the market.</p><p>Frankly, it as much use as mine our your random musings on business: the only motivation for it making the Slashdot front page seems to be that this guy coincidentally happens to have a billion dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA makes it pretty clear that this ( on his personal blog ) is a thought experiment , not an actual plan he has any intention to follow through .
More , he is speculating about moves that Microsoft or others might take to bring Google down and what that would do to the market.Frankly , it as much use as mine our your random musings on business : the only motivation for it making the Slashdot front page seems to be that this guy coincidentally happens to have a billion dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA makes it pretty clear that this (on his personal blog) is a thought experiment, not an actual plan he has any intention to follow through.
More, he is speculating about moves that Microsoft or others might take to bring Google down and what that would do to the market.Frankly, it as much use as mine our your random musings on business: the only motivation for it making the Slashdot front page seems to be that this guy coincidentally happens to have a billion dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120736</id>
	<title>ROTFL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258362960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great way to create some NEW top 1000 websites....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great way to create some NEW top 1000 websites... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great way to create some NEW top 1000 websites....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126546</id>
	<title>Google Will Crush You, Boy</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1258488240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Crush you like they crushed your father, in the jaws of a giant mechanical dinosaur. Love them or hate them, son, you can not stand against them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crush you like they crushed your father , in the jaws of a giant mechanical dinosaur .
Love them or hate them , son , you can not stand against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crush you like they crushed your father, in the jaws of a giant mechanical dinosaur.
Love them or hate them, son, you can not stand against them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118676</id>
	<title>Fundamentally unsound business strategy</title>
	<author>Stuntmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1258399620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any business strategy that boils down to "kill off competitor X" is fundamentally unsound in this type of open market.  Michael Wolff, in his <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2009/11/michael-wolff-200911" title="vanityfair.com">recent Vanity Fair article</a> [vanityfair.com] on Rupert Murdoch's troubles succeeding on the internet, stated the issue well:</p><blockquote><div><p>Murdoch is not a modern marketer. He runs his business not on the basis of giving the consumer what he wants but through more old-fashioned methods of structural market domination. His world, and training ground, is the world of the newspaper war&mdash;a zero-sum game, where you wrestle market share from the other guy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>To view any of Google's markets as zero-sum is fundamentally myopic, and plays to Google's advantage.  Any competitor is better served identifying something that Google doesn't do well for the customer, and focusing on that instead of taking market share away from Google.  Of course, this requires real work and innovation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any business strategy that boils down to " kill off competitor X " is fundamentally unsound in this type of open market .
Michael Wolff , in his recent Vanity Fair article [ vanityfair.com ] on Rupert Murdoch 's troubles succeeding on the internet , stated the issue well : Murdoch is not a modern marketer .
He runs his business not on the basis of giving the consumer what he wants but through more old-fashioned methods of structural market domination .
His world , and training ground , is the world of the newspaper war    a zero-sum game , where you wrestle market share from the other guy .
To view any of Google 's markets as zero-sum is fundamentally myopic , and plays to Google 's advantage .
Any competitor is better served identifying something that Google does n't do well for the customer , and focusing on that instead of taking market share away from Google .
Of course , this requires real work and innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any business strategy that boils down to "kill off competitor X" is fundamentally unsound in this type of open market.
Michael Wolff, in his recent Vanity Fair article [vanityfair.com] on Rupert Murdoch's troubles succeeding on the internet, stated the issue well:Murdoch is not a modern marketer.
He runs his business not on the basis of giving the consumer what he wants but through more old-fashioned methods of structural market domination.
His world, and training ground, is the world of the newspaper war—a zero-sum game, where you wrestle market share from the other guy.
To view any of Google's markets as zero-sum is fundamentally myopic, and plays to Google's advantage.
Any competitor is better served identifying something that Google doesn't do well for the customer, and focusing on that instead of taking market share away from Google.
Of course, this requires real work and innovation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119042</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>monkeySauce</author>
	<datestamp>1258400760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He said one million, but maybe he was just having a Dr. Evil moment.
<br> <br>
So what he really meant was ONE HUNDRED... BILLION DOLLARS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said one million , but maybe he was just having a Dr. Evil moment .
So what he really meant was ONE HUNDRED... BILLION DOLLARS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said one million, but maybe he was just having a Dr. Evil moment.
So what he really meant was ONE HUNDRED... BILLION DOLLARS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118172</id>
	<title>Cuban</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1258398060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this Cuban have shares in MICROS~1</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this Cuban have shares in MICROS ~ 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this Cuban have shares in MICROS~1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119506</id>
	<title>Re:Cry Wolf</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258402080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is rather humorous to see all the responses to a typo-filled brain dump (as in the kind of dump I take when I've just finished a nice plate of Vindaloo) on a blog.</p><p>He's not doing this, he's not proposing this, he's going through scenarios as to how one might approach it if one were stupid enough to..</p><p>oh, wait, stupid enough to...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe this IS his business plan...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is rather humorous to see all the responses to a typo-filled brain dump ( as in the kind of dump I take when I 've just finished a nice plate of Vindaloo ) on a blog.He 's not doing this , he 's not proposing this , he 's going through scenarios as to how one might approach it if one were stupid enough to..oh , wait , stupid enough to... ... maybe this IS his business plan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is rather humorous to see all the responses to a typo-filled brain dump (as in the kind of dump I take when I've just finished a nice plate of Vindaloo) on a blog.He's not doing this, he's not proposing this, he's going through scenarios as to how one might approach it if one were stupid enough to..oh, wait, stupid enough to... ... maybe this IS his business plan...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119598</id>
	<title>Re:Other People's Money</title>
	<author>Rashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1258402380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's probably offering them a million worth in stocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's probably offering them a million worth in stocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's probably offering them a million worth in stocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118342</id>
	<title>Re:Mark Who?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1258398540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's somewhat well-known, yeah. He got rich in tech before he entered sports--- he used his $billions from selling out a not-very-profitable company at the height of the tech bubble to buy a sports team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's somewhat well-known , yeah .
He got rich in tech before he entered sports--- he used his $ billions from selling out a not-very-profitable company at the height of the tech bubble to buy a sports team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's somewhat well-known, yeah.
He got rich in tech before he entered sports--- he used his $billions from selling out a not-very-profitable company at the height of the tech bubble to buy a sports team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117974</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>I.M.O.G.</author>
	<datestamp>1258397460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>robots.txt - well behaved robot spiders like Google's adhere to it.  If configured properly, this would keep Google from indexing the site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>robots.txt - well behaved robot spiders like Google 's adhere to it .
If configured properly , this would keep Google from indexing the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>robots.txt - well behaved robot spiders like Google's adhere to it.
If configured properly, this would keep Google from indexing the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120004</id>
	<title>Re:Not to be a communist here...</title>
	<author>orthancstone</author>
	<datestamp>1258403580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Owning a sports team isn't enough business activity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Owning a sports team is n't enough business activity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owning a sports team isn't enough business activity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126444</id>
	<title>Analogy</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1258400520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it like giving 1 million to Obama for not to <i>contest</i> as US President?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it like giving 1 million to Obama for not to contest as US President ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it like giving 1 million to Obama for not to contest as US President?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119368</id>
	<title>almost as brilliant as bing</title>
	<author>shalomsky</author>
	<datestamp>1258401660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, this idea is almost as brilliant as bing.

Why do people want to punish success?  And why help m$?  Google may dominate search, but m$ is still bigger, richer, &amp; more powerful, right?  Or not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , this idea is almost as brilliant as bing .
Why do people want to punish success ?
And why help m $ ?
Google may dominate search , but m $ is still bigger , richer , &amp; more powerful , right ?
Or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, this idea is almost as brilliant as bing.
Why do people want to punish success?
And why help m$?
Google may dominate search, but m$ is still bigger, richer, &amp; more powerful, right?
Or not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125344</id>
	<title>Hmmm,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting idea.</p><p>Would be great if Google would accomodate Mark Cuban and cull every mention of him from their searches.</p><p>"Hey, who's this Mark Cuban guy?"</p><p>I don't know, lets google him....</p><p>Everytime you google Mark Cuban, God kills a kitten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting idea.Would be great if Google would accomodate Mark Cuban and cull every mention of him from their searches .
" Hey , who 's this Mark Cuban guy ?
" I do n't know , lets google him....Everytime you google Mark Cuban , God kills a kitten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting idea.Would be great if Google would accomodate Mark Cuban and cull every mention of him from their searches.
"Hey, who's this Mark Cuban guy?
"I don't know, lets google him....Everytime you google Mark Cuban, God kills a kitten.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124700</id>
	<title>Re:Even Ballmer has a plan to 'fu...in' kill Googl</title>
	<author>rlh100</author>
	<datestamp>1258381680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; As effective as spitting in the wind.</p><p>Well if spitting did not work, Maybe he should use more liquid and try pissing in the wind.</p><p>RLH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As effective as spitting in the wind.Well if spitting did not work , Maybe he should use more liquid and try pissing in the wind.RLH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; As effective as spitting in the wind.Well if spitting did not work, Maybe he should use more liquid and try pissing in the wind.RLH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117900</id>
	<title>You'd make $1m in Google ads</title>
	<author>phonewebcam</author>
	<datestamp>1258397220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were one of the busiest 1000 sites on the net you'd pull in $1m in what - a week?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were one of the busiest 1000 sites on the net you 'd pull in $ 1m in what - a week ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were one of the busiest 1000 sites on the net you'd pull in $1m in what - a week?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118914</id>
	<title>The best way to kill your business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258400400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know many people that even type "yahoo" on google just to get their mail. Guess what they will say when the get no results?</p><p>a) Google sucks.</p><p>b) Yahoo is broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know many people that even type " yahoo " on google just to get their mail .
Guess what they will say when the get no results ? a ) Google sucks.b ) Yahoo is broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know many people that even type "yahoo" on google just to get their mail.
Guess what they will say when the get no results?a) Google sucks.b) Yahoo is broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1258396620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah these numbers just don't add up. First off, I'm going to assume that this is a million dollars a year (or somesuch), otherwise it's ridiculous on the face of it. No high-profile web company is going to sign a perpetual contract like that. Now, the top 1,000 sites depend on internet traffic. No doubt their advertising budgets are more than a million dollars. Telling them that they can get one million dollars if they give up a huge chunk of their internet visibility is ridiculous. It's worth much more than that to them.<br> <br>

Conversely, this whole plan would cost 1 billion dollars to pull off. Sure, Microsoft could afford that, and would pay that much to destroy Google. But this is a poor plan. If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites (which is a big if, since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft...), then would Google crash and burn? Or would the sites currently ranked 1,0001-2000 suddenly see a huge upsurge in their traffic and profitability?<br> <br>

Lastly, how would this work on a technical level? Sure, you can configure your server to reject all requests from googlebot, preventing them from indexing sub-pages, but you can't technically (or legally) prevent Google from returning a link to "wsj.com" when someone searches for "Wall Street Journal". So any "de-indexing" wouldn't be complete.<br> <br>

This "plan" fails on so many levels. I'm sure Google is not too concerned about this. Any companies that participated would be signing their own death sentence: their web visibility would drop, public opinion of the company would drop, they might open themselves to legal attacks... and all for a "cool million".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah these numbers just do n't add up .
First off , I 'm going to assume that this is a million dollars a year ( or somesuch ) , otherwise it 's ridiculous on the face of it .
No high-profile web company is going to sign a perpetual contract like that .
Now , the top 1,000 sites depend on internet traffic .
No doubt their advertising budgets are more than a million dollars .
Telling them that they can get one million dollars if they give up a huge chunk of their internet visibility is ridiculous .
It 's worth much more than that to them .
Conversely , this whole plan would cost 1 billion dollars to pull off .
Sure , Microsoft could afford that , and would pay that much to destroy Google .
But this is a poor plan .
If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites ( which is a big if , since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft... ) , then would Google crash and burn ?
Or would the sites currently ranked 1,0001-2000 suddenly see a huge upsurge in their traffic and profitability ?
Lastly , how would this work on a technical level ?
Sure , you can configure your server to reject all requests from googlebot , preventing them from indexing sub-pages , but you ca n't technically ( or legally ) prevent Google from returning a link to " wsj.com " when someone searches for " Wall Street Journal " .
So any " de-indexing " would n't be complete .
This " plan " fails on so many levels .
I 'm sure Google is not too concerned about this .
Any companies that participated would be signing their own death sentence : their web visibility would drop , public opinion of the company would drop , they might open themselves to legal attacks... and all for a " cool million " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah these numbers just don't add up.
First off, I'm going to assume that this is a million dollars a year (or somesuch), otherwise it's ridiculous on the face of it.
No high-profile web company is going to sign a perpetual contract like that.
Now, the top 1,000 sites depend on internet traffic.
No doubt their advertising budgets are more than a million dollars.
Telling them that they can get one million dollars if they give up a huge chunk of their internet visibility is ridiculous.
It's worth much more than that to them.
Conversely, this whole plan would cost 1 billion dollars to pull off.
Sure, Microsoft could afford that, and would pay that much to destroy Google.
But this is a poor plan.
If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites (which is a big if, since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft...), then would Google crash and burn?
Or would the sites currently ranked 1,0001-2000 suddenly see a huge upsurge in their traffic and profitability?
Lastly, how would this work on a technical level?
Sure, you can configure your server to reject all requests from googlebot, preventing them from indexing sub-pages, but you can't technically (or legally) prevent Google from returning a link to "wsj.com" when someone searches for "Wall Street Journal".
So any "de-indexing" wouldn't be complete.
This "plan" fails on so many levels.
I'm sure Google is not too concerned about this.
Any companies that participated would be signing their own death sentence: their web visibility would drop, public opinion of the company would drop, they might open themselves to legal attacks... and all for a "cool million".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121646</id>
	<title>Hey Mark!</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1258366860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm ready for my check! Just tell me when!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ready for my check !
Just tell me when !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ready for my check!
Just tell me when!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117822</id>
	<title>Context</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258397040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real Cuban article is in <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/" title="blogmaverick.com">his blog</a> [blogmaverick.com]. Is not like he did a legal proposal, listed the top 1k sites and offered them that money. Was doing a bit of math, and the rtfa took it out of context or proportion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real Cuban article is in his blog [ blogmaverick.com ] .
Is not like he did a legal proposal , listed the top 1k sites and offered them that money .
Was doing a bit of math , and the rtfa took it out of context or proportion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real Cuban article is in his blog [blogmaverick.com].
Is not like he did a legal proposal, listed the top 1k sites and offered them that money.
Was doing a bit of math, and the rtfa took it out of context or proportion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121034</id>
	<title>Anti-trust violation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no lawyer, but this sounds an awful lot like it would be an anti-trust violation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no lawyer , but this sounds an awful lot like it would be an anti-trust violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no lawyer, but this sounds an awful lot like it would be an anti-trust violation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122162</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1258368240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it worth $1 million to leave Google?  I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.</p></div><p>Maybe if you are a top seller for the search "Left-handed, monkey, wrenches, Nowhere BFE".... must start the design process and SEO ASAP....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it worth $ 1 million to leave Google ?
I 'm guessing most of the sites would say no , that 's incredibly short sighted.Maybe if you are a top seller for the search " Left-handed , monkey , wrenches , Nowhere BFE " .... must start the design process and SEO ASAP... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it worth $1 million to leave Google?
I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.Maybe if you are a top seller for the search "Left-handed, monkey, wrenches, Nowhere BFE".... must start the design process and SEO ASAP....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119456</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1258401960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In his posts in May 2008, Cuban sides with Murdoch against Google during their recent paid content discussions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In his posts in May 2008 , Cuban sides with Murdoch against Google during their recent paid content discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In his posts in May 2008, Cuban sides with Murdoch against Google during their recent paid content discussions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117420</id>
	<title>Proxy War</title>
	<author>digitalPhant0m</author>
	<datestamp>1258395960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At this point, I don't see what's in it for Mark Cuban except nearly half of his net worth, and probably more in legal fees once google sues.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , I do n't see what 's in it for Mark Cuban except nearly half of his net worth , and probably more in legal fees once google sues .
" Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, I don't see what's in it for Mark Cuban except nearly half of his net worth, and probably more in legal fees once google sues.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120332</id>
	<title>Maybe....</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1258404600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark Cuban should just give all that money to charity AND remove himself from the internet, in every way, shape or form, forever.</p><p>Now, IMHO, that would be a great use of his money and effort, benefiting us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban should just give all that money to charity AND remove himself from the internet , in every way , shape or form , forever.Now , IMHO , that would be a great use of his money and effort , benefiting us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban should just give all that money to charity AND remove himself from the internet, in every way, shape or form, forever.Now, IMHO, that would be a great use of his money and effort, benefiting us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117616</id>
	<title>Cry Wolf</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1258396380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I should file this under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark\_Cuban#2008\_Presidential\_endorsement" title="wikipedia.org">Mark Cuban's plan to defeat Barack Obama</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas\_Maverickshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas\_Mavericks" title="wikipedia.org">Mark Cuban's plan to dominate basketball</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://www.hd.net/" title="hd.net">Mark Cuban's plan to dominate HD television content</a> [hd.net], and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org">Mark Cuban's plan to destroy theatrical motion picture distribution.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I should file this under Mark Cuban 's plan to defeat Barack Obama [ wikipedia.org ] , Mark Cuban 's plan to dominate basketball [ wikipedia.org ] , Mark Cuban 's plan to dominate HD television content [ hd.net ] , and Mark Cuban 's plan to destroy theatrical motion picture distribution .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I should file this under Mark Cuban's plan to defeat Barack Obama [wikipedia.org], Mark Cuban's plan to dominate basketball [wikipedia.org], Mark Cuban's plan to dominate HD television content [hd.net], and Mark Cuban's plan to destroy theatrical motion picture distribution.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120786</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1258363260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does he want to do this?</p></div><p>Because he owns $2B worth of Yahoo stock.</p><p>I don't think you have to dig deeper for the answer, really.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does he want to do this ? Because he owns $ 2B worth of Yahoo stock.I do n't think you have to dig deeper for the answer , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does he want to do this?Because he owns $2B worth of Yahoo stock.I don't think you have to dig deeper for the answer, really.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121822</id>
	<title>War of the Roses</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1258367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The phrase tortious interference comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious\_interference)</p></div></blockquote><p>I was just reading about Order of Succession.  Lacking a papal bull to assert otherwise, this post is the legitimate heir to the bastard son of an anonymous coward, who had a notion but failed to make an assertion.  I would have liked social studies a lot more if we had done a comparative survey of succession methods (such as Tanistry) with the British Isles providing the case studies in strife and dysfunction.  "For today's lesson in the optics of legitimate conception, we turn again to the British Isles."</p><p>From what I can see, tortious interference doesn't kick in until there is breach of contract.  Nor am I aware of anything in law against forming market partnerships short of exploiting monopoly powers.</p><p>This whole thread, people seem not to get the point: if content is king, there's no reason why the owners of content shouldn't engage in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination\_game" title="wikipedia.org">coordination game</a> [wikipedia.org] to protect their collective interests.  It's not obvious that the search engine middle people should have gained the dominant economic hand.</p><p>The key phrase here being "if content is king".  The content owners would like to think so, but the internet says otherwise: there is a heck of a lot of base load in pornography, drugs, and Asian merchandise.  The government can bulk relocate the top 1000 street corner drug dealers in LA to the Chino human storage facility and it would dent the drug supply for weeks, or maybe even days or hours.  There is also the long tail, user created content not yet aggregated at a major social networking site, and the content formerly known as knowledge.</p><p>Against this you have the cultural lock-in of impressionable young adults, and baby boomers who haven't yet figured out that if Elvis is still alive, he's probably fatter than Marlin Brando and creepier than Howard Hughs (who disappeared from sight for a good while himself).</p><p>There is also highly precarious tier of mass-market content manufactured against the better post-evolutionary judgement of its customer base.  The macro breweries became successful, in part, because they managed to make the taste of a good beer a dim memory.  Similarly, news products are continually debased, and rely more on customer momentum than choice opportunities.</p><p>It's extremely dangerous for a mass-market success story which has invested billions of dollars lulling their primary market to sleep on quality issues to introduce a choice event into the marketplace.  It could be that some people discover that Google without many of the current top 1000 sites actually returns more interesting search results, as an acquired taste, given a fifteen minute taste test.  Who knew?</p><p>There are more precarious market gorillas out there than people think.  Cigarettes make women ugly at a younger age.  Natural Coke and Pepsi make you obese.  The holy trinity of corn/soy/sodium are an express train to the afterlife.  Sports are the life obsession of the politically disenfranchised (for myself, hockey scores improve my minutes, while destroying my hours and days).  The tripe on most news services actively sabotages attention span and issue comprehension.  Duff Beer does not make you sexy.  The seven never-fail sex tips of an airbrushed super model is not going to save your marriage (if the male sexual response proved too subtle to master in private study).</p><p>You can't just randomly yank the chain on these captive markets without risk of waking your customers up.  There was a story here a few days ago about intelligence: many people have it, few use it.  Requires effort.  It's less effort to delegate to the lower brain functions, as shaped by evolutionary psychology that outlived its crown.  Mmmm beer.  Mmmm donuts.  Mmmm bacon.</p><p>What gives the marketers an orgasm is the old joke "Whenever I feel like exercise, I lie down until the feeling passes."  This is the reflex they relentlessly inculcate into a person who might act upon a momentary urge to make a considered decision involving higher faculties, not so easily seduced by cleavage of young women in beer commercials who would curl their lips if you ever met one in real life.  Once you are lulled into forming a cognitive beer belly, its ten times as hard to get off the mental couch, but if this were allowed to happen by the powers that be, the lulled customer might discover it actually feels good.</p><p>This is the make or break cohort Cuban is hoping to sway against Google with his thought experiment concerning a content-is-king coordination game.  An apt counterpoint to my recent reading on War of the Roses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The phrase tortious interference comes to mind ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious \ _interference ) I was just reading about Order of Succession .
Lacking a papal bull to assert otherwise , this post is the legitimate heir to the bastard son of an anonymous coward , who had a notion but failed to make an assertion .
I would have liked social studies a lot more if we had done a comparative survey of succession methods ( such as Tanistry ) with the British Isles providing the case studies in strife and dysfunction .
" For today 's lesson in the optics of legitimate conception , we turn again to the British Isles .
" From what I can see , tortious interference does n't kick in until there is breach of contract .
Nor am I aware of anything in law against forming market partnerships short of exploiting monopoly powers.This whole thread , people seem not to get the point : if content is king , there 's no reason why the owners of content should n't engage in a coordination game [ wikipedia.org ] to protect their collective interests .
It 's not obvious that the search engine middle people should have gained the dominant economic hand.The key phrase here being " if content is king " .
The content owners would like to think so , but the internet says otherwise : there is a heck of a lot of base load in pornography , drugs , and Asian merchandise .
The government can bulk relocate the top 1000 street corner drug dealers in LA to the Chino human storage facility and it would dent the drug supply for weeks , or maybe even days or hours .
There is also the long tail , user created content not yet aggregated at a major social networking site , and the content formerly known as knowledge.Against this you have the cultural lock-in of impressionable young adults , and baby boomers who have n't yet figured out that if Elvis is still alive , he 's probably fatter than Marlin Brando and creepier than Howard Hughs ( who disappeared from sight for a good while himself ) .There is also highly precarious tier of mass-market content manufactured against the better post-evolutionary judgement of its customer base .
The macro breweries became successful , in part , because they managed to make the taste of a good beer a dim memory .
Similarly , news products are continually debased , and rely more on customer momentum than choice opportunities.It 's extremely dangerous for a mass-market success story which has invested billions of dollars lulling their primary market to sleep on quality issues to introduce a choice event into the marketplace .
It could be that some people discover that Google without many of the current top 1000 sites actually returns more interesting search results , as an acquired taste , given a fifteen minute taste test .
Who knew ? There are more precarious market gorillas out there than people think .
Cigarettes make women ugly at a younger age .
Natural Coke and Pepsi make you obese .
The holy trinity of corn/soy/sodium are an express train to the afterlife .
Sports are the life obsession of the politically disenfranchised ( for myself , hockey scores improve my minutes , while destroying my hours and days ) .
The tripe on most news services actively sabotages attention span and issue comprehension .
Duff Beer does not make you sexy .
The seven never-fail sex tips of an airbrushed super model is not going to save your marriage ( if the male sexual response proved too subtle to master in private study ) .You ca n't just randomly yank the chain on these captive markets without risk of waking your customers up .
There was a story here a few days ago about intelligence : many people have it , few use it .
Requires effort .
It 's less effort to delegate to the lower brain functions , as shaped by evolutionary psychology that outlived its crown .
Mmmm beer .
Mmmm donuts .
Mmmm bacon.What gives the marketers an orgasm is the old joke " Whenever I feel like exercise , I lie down until the feeling passes .
" This is the reflex they relentlessly inculcate into a person who might act upon a momentary urge to make a considered decision involving higher faculties , not so easily seduced by cleavage of young women in beer commercials who would curl their lips if you ever met one in real life .
Once you are lulled into forming a cognitive beer belly , its ten times as hard to get off the mental couch , but if this were allowed to happen by the powers that be , the lulled customer might discover it actually feels good.This is the make or break cohort Cuban is hoping to sway against Google with his thought experiment concerning a content-is-king coordination game .
An apt counterpoint to my recent reading on War of the Roses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phrase tortious interference comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious\_interference)I was just reading about Order of Succession.
Lacking a papal bull to assert otherwise, this post is the legitimate heir to the bastard son of an anonymous coward, who had a notion but failed to make an assertion.
I would have liked social studies a lot more if we had done a comparative survey of succession methods (such as Tanistry) with the British Isles providing the case studies in strife and dysfunction.
"For today's lesson in the optics of legitimate conception, we turn again to the British Isles.
"From what I can see, tortious interference doesn't kick in until there is breach of contract.
Nor am I aware of anything in law against forming market partnerships short of exploiting monopoly powers.This whole thread, people seem not to get the point: if content is king, there's no reason why the owners of content shouldn't engage in a coordination game [wikipedia.org] to protect their collective interests.
It's not obvious that the search engine middle people should have gained the dominant economic hand.The key phrase here being "if content is king".
The content owners would like to think so, but the internet says otherwise: there is a heck of a lot of base load in pornography, drugs, and Asian merchandise.
The government can bulk relocate the top 1000 street corner drug dealers in LA to the Chino human storage facility and it would dent the drug supply for weeks, or maybe even days or hours.
There is also the long tail, user created content not yet aggregated at a major social networking site, and the content formerly known as knowledge.Against this you have the cultural lock-in of impressionable young adults, and baby boomers who haven't yet figured out that if Elvis is still alive, he's probably fatter than Marlin Brando and creepier than Howard Hughs (who disappeared from sight for a good while himself).There is also highly precarious tier of mass-market content manufactured against the better post-evolutionary judgement of its customer base.
The macro breweries became successful, in part, because they managed to make the taste of a good beer a dim memory.
Similarly, news products are continually debased, and rely more on customer momentum than choice opportunities.It's extremely dangerous for a mass-market success story which has invested billions of dollars lulling their primary market to sleep on quality issues to introduce a choice event into the marketplace.
It could be that some people discover that Google without many of the current top 1000 sites actually returns more interesting search results, as an acquired taste, given a fifteen minute taste test.
Who knew?There are more precarious market gorillas out there than people think.
Cigarettes make women ugly at a younger age.
Natural Coke and Pepsi make you obese.
The holy trinity of corn/soy/sodium are an express train to the afterlife.
Sports are the life obsession of the politically disenfranchised (for myself, hockey scores improve my minutes, while destroying my hours and days).
The tripe on most news services actively sabotages attention span and issue comprehension.
Duff Beer does not make you sexy.
The seven never-fail sex tips of an airbrushed super model is not going to save your marriage (if the male sexual response proved too subtle to master in private study).You can't just randomly yank the chain on these captive markets without risk of waking your customers up.
There was a story here a few days ago about intelligence: many people have it, few use it.
Requires effort.
It's less effort to delegate to the lower brain functions, as shaped by evolutionary psychology that outlived its crown.
Mmmm beer.
Mmmm donuts.
Mmmm bacon.What gives the marketers an orgasm is the old joke "Whenever I feel like exercise, I lie down until the feeling passes.
"  This is the reflex they relentlessly inculcate into a person who might act upon a momentary urge to make a considered decision involving higher faculties, not so easily seduced by cleavage of young women in beer commercials who would curl their lips if you ever met one in real life.
Once you are lulled into forming a cognitive beer belly, its ten times as hard to get off the mental couch, but if this were allowed to happen by the powers that be, the lulled customer might discover it actually feels good.This is the make or break cohort Cuban is hoping to sway against Google with his thought experiment concerning a content-is-king coordination game.
An apt counterpoint to my recent reading on War of the Roses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117932</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>rock\_climbing\_guy</author>
	<datestamp>1258397340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have gluten sensitivity, so I don't eat it anyways.  Now where is my nickel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have gluten sensitivity , so I do n't eat it anyways .
Now where is my nickel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have gluten sensitivity, so I don't eat it anyways.
Now where is my nickel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122976</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are one of the top 1000 sites on Google, not only is a million chump change to you, google is probably brining you a million in sales every few minutes.</p><p>Nobody will take this offer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are one of the top 1000 sites on Google , not only is a million chump change to you , google is probably brining you a million in sales every few minutes.Nobody will take this offer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are one of the top 1000 sites on Google, not only is a million chump change to you, google is probably brining you a million in sales every few minutes.Nobody will take this offer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The American Airlines Center where the Mavs play seats about 20,000.  There are 82 games in a basketball season, meaning the Mavs will have about half that at home.  Let's round it to 40 games.  If they make the playoffs, that number could potentially double, so doing a little basic math here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I don't see any reason to expect them to be in the playoffs, let alone have home court advantage, so we'll keep the game total at 40.
<br> <br>
20,000 seats times 40 games is 800,000 seats.  $1 billion / 800k = $1250 per seat per game.
<br> <br>
My suggestion for Google's response:  Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year.  Pay people $1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night, while wearing Google t-shirts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The American Airlines Center where the Mavs play seats about 20,000 .
There are 82 games in a basketball season , meaning the Mavs will have about half that at home .
Let 's round it to 40 games .
If they make the playoffs , that number could potentially double , so doing a little basic math here ... yeah ... I do n't see any reason to expect them to be in the playoffs , let alone have home court advantage , so we 'll keep the game total at 40 .
20,000 seats times 40 games is 800,000 seats .
$ 1 billion / 800k = $ 1250 per seat per game .
My suggestion for Google 's response : Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year .
Pay people $ 1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night , while wearing Google t-shirts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American Airlines Center where the Mavs play seats about 20,000.
There are 82 games in a basketball season, meaning the Mavs will have about half that at home.
Let's round it to 40 games.
If they make the playoffs, that number could potentially double, so doing a little basic math here ...  yeah ... I don't see any reason to expect them to be in the playoffs, let alone have home court advantage, so we'll keep the game total at 40.
20,000 seats times 40 games is 800,000 seats.
$1 billion / 800k = $1250 per seat per game.
My suggestion for Google's response:  Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year.
Pay people $1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night, while wearing Google t-shirts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118178</id>
	<title>Re:1 million is peanuts</title>
	<author>dlgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258398060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 million in a coffee break? At first I thought this was an exaggeration, but then I ran the numbers. Amazon had 5,449 million USD in revenue last quarter, so that's about $60mil/day, or 1 million every 24 minutes (obviously this assumes a flat time distribution which is clearly not true, but lets keep going). A 24 minute coffee break is a bit excessive, but not completely out of the question. Once you take the non-averaged distribution into account, you can probably make a million in a 5-8 minute coffee break.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 million in a coffee break ?
At first I thought this was an exaggeration , but then I ran the numbers .
Amazon had 5,449 million USD in revenue last quarter , so that 's about $ 60mil/day , or 1 million every 24 minutes ( obviously this assumes a flat time distribution which is clearly not true , but lets keep going ) .
A 24 minute coffee break is a bit excessive , but not completely out of the question .
Once you take the non-averaged distribution into account , you can probably make a million in a 5-8 minute coffee break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 million in a coffee break?
At first I thought this was an exaggeration, but then I ran the numbers.
Amazon had 5,449 million USD in revenue last quarter, so that's about $60mil/day, or 1 million every 24 minutes (obviously this assumes a flat time distribution which is clearly not true, but lets keep going).
A 24 minute coffee break is a bit excessive, but not completely out of the question.
Once you take the non-averaged distribution into account, you can probably make a million in a 5-8 minute coffee break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118472</id>
	<title>There are some outliers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I heard there was a pirate ship taking on water off the coast of Sweden.</p><p>A million represents a sizeable portion of their fine and it's not like they take a hit for leaving Google in the wake of the other problems they face.</p><p>Of course, that's assuming they're indexed in the top 1000. I'm far too lazy to see if their Alexa rank translates accordingly.</p><p>For all the sites actually looking to do business, it's not worth the time to point out the shortcomings of his offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I heard there was a pirate ship taking on water off the coast of Sweden.A million represents a sizeable portion of their fine and it 's not like they take a hit for leaving Google in the wake of the other problems they face.Of course , that 's assuming they 're indexed in the top 1000 .
I 'm far too lazy to see if their Alexa rank translates accordingly.For all the sites actually looking to do business , it 's not worth the time to point out the shortcomings of his offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I heard there was a pirate ship taking on water off the coast of Sweden.A million represents a sizeable portion of their fine and it's not like they take a hit for leaving Google in the wake of the other problems they face.Of course, that's assuming they're indexed in the top 1000.
I'm far too lazy to see if their Alexa rank translates accordingly.For all the sites actually looking to do business, it's not worth the time to point out the shortcomings of his offer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117942</id>
	<title>Re:Can he even afford it? Do sites even care?</title>
	<author>Gothic\_Walrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258397400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, for loser websites ranked 987th, it might be interesting, but would them off Google make any difference? Hell no it won't. Nobody would ever notice, except maybe the webmaster.</p></div><p>I think you're severely underestimating the size of the sites in the top 1000.</p><p>I'm not sure how accurate <a href="http://www.netlingo.com/news/Top\_1000\_Google\_Page\_Rank\_Sites.htm" title="netlingo.com">this ranking is</a> [netlingo.com] (and it cuts off at 973, for some reason), but the bottom 100 there include sites like Target, Best Buy, Delta Airlines, Air France, and the New York Post - large retailers, airlines with high traffic, and big newspapers.  I don't think any of those sites would accept the money to be removed from the listings - even at that level, it's still not worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , for loser websites ranked 987th , it might be interesting , but would them off Google make any difference ?
Hell no it wo n't .
Nobody would ever notice , except maybe the webmaster.I think you 're severely underestimating the size of the sites in the top 1000.I 'm not sure how accurate this ranking is [ netlingo.com ] ( and it cuts off at 973 , for some reason ) , but the bottom 100 there include sites like Target , Best Buy , Delta Airlines , Air France , and the New York Post - large retailers , airlines with high traffic , and big newspapers .
I do n't think any of those sites would accept the money to be removed from the listings - even at that level , it 's still not worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, for loser websites ranked 987th, it might be interesting, but would them off Google make any difference?
Hell no it won't.
Nobody would ever notice, except maybe the webmaster.I think you're severely underestimating the size of the sites in the top 1000.I'm not sure how accurate this ranking is [netlingo.com] (and it cuts off at 973, for some reason), but the bottom 100 there include sites like Target, Best Buy, Delta Airlines, Air France, and the New York Post - large retailers, airlines with high traffic, and big newspapers.
I don't think any of those sites would accept the money to be removed from the listings - even at that level, it's still not worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118380</id>
	<title>A Million Dollars</title>
	<author>methano</author>
	<datestamp>1258398600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's kind of interesting that in this economy that so many people here in slashdotville find it easy to say just how little a million dollars is.
<br> <br>
"A million dollars. Shucks, that ain't nothing.  I once<nobr> <wbr></nobr>........"
<br> <br>
It must make you feel rich to dismiss a million dollars as trivial.  Just an observation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's kind of interesting that in this economy that so many people here in slashdotville find it easy to say just how little a million dollars is .
" A million dollars .
Shucks , that ai n't nothing .
I once ........ " It must make you feel rich to dismiss a million dollars as trivial .
Just an observation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's kind of interesting that in this economy that so many people here in slashdotville find it easy to say just how little a million dollars is.
"A million dollars.
Shucks, that ain't nothing.
I once ........"
 
It must make you feel rich to dismiss a million dollars as trivial.
Just an observation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126258</id>
	<title>Re:Calm down, y'all</title>
	<author>UnanimousCoward</author>
	<datestamp>1258398420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only is it a thought experiment, it is waaaaaaaaaaay old f'ing news:  I made a <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/805482/Mark-Cuban-muses-on-how-to-beat-Google?art\_pos=11" title="slashdot.org">submission</a> [slashdot.org] on it over a year ago and it's only getting play on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. now?  Oh yeah, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>TFA makes it pretty clear that this (on his personal blog) is a thought experiment, not an actual plan he has any intention to follow through. More, he is speculating about moves that Microsoft or others might take to bring Google down and what that would do to the market.</p><p>Frankly, it as much use as mine our your random musings on business: the only motivation for it making the Slashdot front page seems to be that this guy coincidentally happens to have a billion dollars.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is it a thought experiment , it is waaaaaaaaaaay old f'ing news : I made a submission [ slashdot.org ] on it over a year ago and it 's only getting play on / .
now ? Oh yeah , this is / .
...TFA makes it pretty clear that this ( on his personal blog ) is a thought experiment , not an actual plan he has any intention to follow through .
More , he is speculating about moves that Microsoft or others might take to bring Google down and what that would do to the market.Frankly , it as much use as mine our your random musings on business : the only motivation for it making the Slashdot front page seems to be that this guy coincidentally happens to have a billion dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is it a thought experiment, it is waaaaaaaaaaay old f'ing news:  I made a submission [slashdot.org] on it over a year ago and it's only getting play on /.
now?  Oh yeah, this is /.
...TFA makes it pretty clear that this (on his personal blog) is a thought experiment, not an actual plan he has any intention to follow through.
More, he is speculating about moves that Microsoft or others might take to bring Google down and what that would do to the market.Frankly, it as much use as mine our your random musings on business: the only motivation for it making the Slashdot front page seems to be that this guy coincidentally happens to have a billion dollars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117636</id>
	<title>Who would notice?</title>
	<author>TornCityVenz</author>
	<datestamp>1258396500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the top 1000 sites left google...would anyone notice? the answer is yes..the next 1000 that would replace them..and my guess is there are a couple that would stay in the top 1000 after getting the exposure even if the others came back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the top 1000 sites left google...would anyone notice ?
the answer is yes..the next 1000 that would replace them..and my guess is there are a couple that would stay in the top 1000 after getting the exposure even if the others came back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the top 1000 sites left google...would anyone notice?
the answer is yes..the next 1000 that would replace them..and my guess is there are a couple that would stay in the top 1000 after getting the exposure even if the others came back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119656</id>
	<title>Google's Richer</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1258402560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google can just pay them a $million each to come back. Or $1.5 million. Google's a lot richer than Mark Cuban is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can just pay them a $ million each to come back .
Or $ 1.5 million .
Google 's a lot richer than Mark Cuban is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google can just pay them a $million each to come back.
Or $1.5 million.
Google's a lot richer than Mark Cuban is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119312</id>
	<title>Well, his name *is* Cuban!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258401420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(ducks)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( ducks )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(ducks)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118</id>
	<title>Not to be a communist here...</title>
	<author>Arcaeris</author>
	<datestamp>1258397940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but if he's going to just throw a billion dollars away, why doesn't he do something decent with it like feed the poor or cure a disease or give computers to schools or fund music programs?</p><p>Or start a new business to help America get its shit together and beat this recession?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but if he 's going to just throw a billion dollars away , why does n't he do something decent with it like feed the poor or cure a disease or give computers to schools or fund music programs ? Or start a new business to help America get its shit together and beat this recession ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but if he's going to just throw a billion dollars away, why doesn't he do something decent with it like feed the poor or cure a disease or give computers to schools or fund music programs?Or start a new business to help America get its shit together and beat this recession?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117770</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do I enter my bank account number for that nickle? </p><p>I don't understand what the surprise is about.  Hasn't MS already shown it will do anything it can think of to win, in any area they can?</p><p>It does seem like Mark Cuban (Chabenisky) might have some undisclosed financial interest, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do I enter my bank account number for that nickle ?
I do n't understand what the surprise is about .
Has n't MS already shown it will do anything it can think of to win , in any area they can ? It does seem like Mark Cuban ( Chabenisky ) might have some undisclosed financial interest , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do I enter my bank account number for that nickle?
I don't understand what the surprise is about.
Hasn't MS already shown it will do anything it can think of to win, in any area they can?It does seem like Mark Cuban (Chabenisky) might have some undisclosed financial interest, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119498</id>
	<title>I'll do it.</title>
	<author>youngdev</author>
	<datestamp>1258402080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My site gets about 10 hits per week.  Of course, I have not done anything specific to increase my googleablity but if he gives me a million dollars I'll sell my domain to him he can do what he likes.  If he gives me 500k I'll go index my site in bing.  shit I'll do it for 100K.  No takers?  50 K?  going once....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My site gets about 10 hits per week .
Of course , I have not done anything specific to increase my googleablity but if he gives me a million dollars I 'll sell my domain to him he can do what he likes .
If he gives me 500k I 'll go index my site in bing .
shit I 'll do it for 100K .
No takers ?
50 K ?
going once... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My site gets about 10 hits per week.
Of course, I have not done anything specific to increase my googleablity but if he gives me a million dollars I'll sell my domain to him he can do what he likes.
If he gives me 500k I'll go index my site in bing.
shit I'll do it for 100K.
No takers?
50 K?
going once....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30123592</id>
	<title>...Then they fight you. Then you win.&rdquo;</title>
	<author>anton\_kg</author>
	<datestamp>1258374480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> &ldquo;First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.&rdquo; &ndash; Mohandas Gandhi quote at Red Hat headquarters.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   First they ignore you .
Then they laugh at you .
Then they fight you .
Then you win.       Mohandas Gandhi quote at Red Hat headquarters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> “First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.” – Mohandas Gandhi quote at Red Hat headquarters.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126786</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>I cant believe its n</author>
	<datestamp>1258448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does he want to do this? Did Google frighten him when he was a baby?</p></div><p>His wife left him for their latest service: Google Male.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does he want to do this ?
Did Google frighten him when he was a baby ? His wife left him for their latest service : Google Male .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does he want to do this?
Did Google frighten him when he was a baby?His wife left him for their latest service: Google Male.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120976</id>
	<title>For the top 1000 sites, $1 mil isn't that much</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258363980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So maybe $1 mil is a lot of money for the average blogger. But take a multi-billion dollar company such as Yahoo? I don't think that they would remove themselves from the #1 search engine for a mere $1 mil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So maybe $ 1 mil is a lot of money for the average blogger .
But take a multi-billion dollar company such as Yahoo ?
I do n't think that they would remove themselves from the # 1 search engine for a mere $ 1 mil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So maybe $1 mil is a lot of money for the average blogger.
But take a multi-billion dollar company such as Yahoo?
I don't think that they would remove themselves from the #1 search engine for a mere $1 mil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118390</id>
	<title>Cure for cancer found</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's it, 4chan. Take the cash and run while you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's it , 4chan .
Take the cash and run while you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's it, 4chan.
Take the cash and run while you can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118428</id>
	<title>is it just me...</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1258398780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is Cuban getting crazier and crazier with each passing year?</p><p>I used to have huge respect for him, but everything he says in public nowadays makes him look like a moron. This comment included. Not to mention there is no reason mentioned why Cuban wants to kill Google in the first place, I don't see how they compete with any of his businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is Cuban getting crazier and crazier with each passing year ? I used to have huge respect for him , but everything he says in public nowadays makes him look like a moron .
This comment included .
Not to mention there is no reason mentioned why Cuban wants to kill Google in the first place , I do n't see how they compete with any of his businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is Cuban getting crazier and crazier with each passing year?I used to have huge respect for him, but everything he says in public nowadays makes him look like a moron.
This comment included.
Not to mention there is no reason mentioned why Cuban wants to kill Google in the first place, I don't see how they compete with any of his businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124390</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>thebigbluecheez</author>
	<datestamp>1258379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is he still holding stock in Yahoo! from their buying his ownership in broadcast.com?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is he still holding stock in Yahoo !
from their buying his ownership in broadcast.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is he still holding stock in Yahoo!
from their buying his ownership in broadcast.com?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117804</id>
	<title>Major douchebag</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1258396920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm puzzled by all the attention paid to that guy.  From what I can see, the dude's a serial hustler who got lucky once (and big time) during dot-bomb bubble, and have been milking it ever since.  At least other douches like Marc Andressen actually developed something of great signficance.  What exactly has Cuban brought to the table?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm puzzled by all the attention paid to that guy .
From what I can see , the dude 's a serial hustler who got lucky once ( and big time ) during dot-bomb bubble , and have been milking it ever since .
At least other douches like Marc Andressen actually developed something of great signficance .
What exactly has Cuban brought to the table ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm puzzled by all the attention paid to that guy.
From what I can see, the dude's a serial hustler who got lucky once (and big time) during dot-bomb bubble, and have been milking it ever since.
At least other douches like Marc Andressen actually developed something of great signficance.
What exactly has Cuban brought to the table?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117712</id>
	<title>Silly idea...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1258396680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it takes most web sites more than $1m (development costs, advertising etc.) to enter the top-1000 and stay there. Also, for every web site that is successfully bribed out of the Google index, the value of staying there increases for the other web sites (while Google still has the current market share).
<p>
I'm sorry guys, better spend that $1b on copying Google's technology and then keep it running without Google's Achilles tendon: just say no to collecting personal information and you'll win in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it takes most web sites more than $ 1m ( development costs , advertising etc .
) to enter the top-1000 and stay there .
Also , for every web site that is successfully bribed out of the Google index , the value of staying there increases for the other web sites ( while Google still has the current market share ) .
I 'm sorry guys , better spend that $ 1b on copying Google 's technology and then keep it running without Google 's Achilles tendon : just say no to collecting personal information and you 'll win in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it takes most web sites more than $1m (development costs, advertising etc.
) to enter the top-1000 and stay there.
Also, for every web site that is successfully bribed out of the Google index, the value of staying there increases for the other web sites (while Google still has the current market share).
I'm sorry guys, better spend that $1b on copying Google's technology and then keep it running without Google's Achilles tendon: just say no to collecting personal information and you'll win in the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117394</id>
	<title>Even Ballmer has a plan to 'fu...in' kill Google..</title>
	<author>jkrise</author>
	<datestamp>1258395900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it involves a piece of furniture and some kinetic energy. As effective as spitting in the wind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it involves a piece of furniture and some kinetic energy .
As effective as spitting in the wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it involves a piece of furniture and some kinetic energy.
As effective as spitting in the wind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124878</id>
	<title>Start with #1.</title>
	<author>denbesten</author>
	<datestamp>1258383480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mark Cuban may find it a bit difficult to get the site in <a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites" title="alexa.com" rel="nofollow">Alexia's #1 position</a> [alexa.com] to remove themselves from their own list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban may find it a bit difficult to get the site in Alexia 's # 1 position [ alexa.com ] to remove themselves from their own list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban may find it a bit difficult to get the site in Alexia's #1 position [alexa.com] to remove themselves from their own list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117406</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>cronco</author>
	<datestamp>1258395960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the dude have stock at Microsoft? Or what's it to him?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the dude have stock at Microsoft ?
Or what 's it to him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the dude have stock at Microsoft?
Or what's it to him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126034</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1258395420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn you... you've let the cat out of the bag... That was Mark's plan the whole time, don't you understand... all he wanted was for Google to buy out all of his games for a cool 1 Billion while paying out only what 1,000 x 1 million = 1 Billion? crap, that doesn't add up... what are we talking about again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn you... you 've let the cat out of the bag... That was Mark 's plan the whole time , do n't you understand... all he wanted was for Google to buy out all of his games for a cool 1 Billion while paying out only what 1,000 x 1 million = 1 Billion ?
crap , that does n't add up... what are we talking about again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn you... you've let the cat out of the bag... That was Mark's plan the whole time, don't you understand... all he wanted was for Google to buy out all of his games for a cool 1 Billion while paying out only what 1,000 x 1 million = 1 Billion?
crap, that doesn't add up... what are we talking about again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117860</id>
	<title>Mark Who?</title>
	<author>ebcdic</author>
	<datestamp>1258397160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are the comments of the owner of what I assume is some kind of sports team of any interest?  Is this person well know in American technology circles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are the comments of the owner of what I assume is some kind of sports team of any interest ?
Is this person well know in American technology circles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are the comments of the owner of what I assume is some kind of sports team of any interest?
Is this person well know in American technology circles?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121002</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>CarlDenny</author>
	<datestamp>1258364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy enough to exclude google in your robots.txt

Google would take a huge PR hit if they started ignoring robots.txt or using new user agents specifically to get around these.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy enough to exclude google in your robots.txt Google would take a huge PR hit if they started ignoring robots.txt or using new user agents specifically to get around these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy enough to exclude google in your robots.txt

Google would take a huge PR hit if they started ignoring robots.txt or using new user agents specifically to get around these.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120384</id>
	<title>Competition Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258404780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's continual utter failure to comprehend the difference between "trying to win" and "trying to make the other guy lose" is exactly why they got hit with monopoly suits in the first place. Way to go not learning anything, Microsoft.</p><p>Why do so many powerful people still fail to understand captialism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's continual utter failure to comprehend the difference between " trying to win " and " trying to make the other guy lose " is exactly why they got hit with monopoly suits in the first place .
Way to go not learning anything , Microsoft.Why do so many powerful people still fail to understand captialism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's continual utter failure to comprehend the difference between "trying to win" and "trying to make the other guy lose" is exactly why they got hit with monopoly suits in the first place.
Way to go not learning anything, Microsoft.Why do so many powerful people still fail to understand captialism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119078</id>
	<title>1000 porn sites more to bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258400880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so it will mean that a 1,000 porn sites will move to bing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so it will mean that a 1,000 porn sites will move to bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so it will mean that a 1,000 porn sites will move to bing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30136042</id>
	<title>I'll take that $</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258456680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take that cash, I'm #1 on Google for a very competitive phrase and I hate Google!</p><p>http://redtideflorida.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take that cash , I 'm # 1 on Google for a very competitive phrase and I hate Google ! http : //redtideflorida.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take that cash, I'm #1 on Google for a very competitive phrase and I hate Google!http://redtideflorida.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118022</id>
	<title>Hmm..</title>
	<author>dagamer34</author>
	<datestamp>1258397580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Cuban just stole Jason Calcanus idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Cuban just stole Jason Calcanus idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Cuban just stole Jason Calcanus idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119006</id>
	<title>Re:Can he even afford it? Do sites even care?</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1258400640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that the list was compiled almost seven years ago, quite a bit has changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that the list was compiled almost seven years ago , quite a bit has changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that the list was compiled almost seven years ago, quite a bit has changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118534</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>slodan</author>
	<datestamp>1258399140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google respects <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots\_exclusion\_standard" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">robots.txt</a> [wikipedia.org], as any good web spider does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google respects robots.txt [ wikipedia.org ] , as any good web spider does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google respects robots.txt [wikipedia.org], as any good web spider does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119848</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>zztong</author>
	<datestamp>1258403100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is Mark Cuban? I cannot seem to find him via Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is Mark Cuban ?
I can not seem to find him via Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is Mark Cuban?
I cannot seem to find him via Google...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119548</id>
	<title>Analyzing the Top 50 Sites as a Sample</title>
	<author>SpaceToast</author>
	<datestamp>1258402200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's just look at the top 50 sites to get an idea of the feasibility of this plan, as reported by <a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites" title="alexa.com" rel="nofollow">Alexa</a> [alexa.com].

</p><p>First, we filter out all of the Google properties. By my count, that leaves 30.</p><p>Next, filter out Microsoft's properties, as the scheme would put theme in the antitrust crosshairs: That leaves 26.</p><p>Forget Yahoo; they make a lot more than $1MM annually from Google. We're down to 22.</p><p>What's left? Forget LinkedIn -- search results are their bread-and-butter. Likewise the IMDb, Craigslist, Twitter, eBay and Myspace. Wikipedia and the BBC would consider it a breach of their charters. Facebook might be tempted, but their users would protest too much. Only 13 out of 50 remain. Of these, which would play ball? RapidShare would -- they're rather be ignored by search traffic. The Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Turkish social networking sites might. Likewise the porn sites. In truth though, we have only five or six "maybes" in the top 50.</p><p>Bottom line, it's an absurd notion -- more old media fantasies of crippling the internet with blunt 19th century methods. I'm not saying that Google is unassailable, but a challenge by a competitor who hasn't put in the sweat-equity is a guaranteed to failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just look at the top 50 sites to get an idea of the feasibility of this plan , as reported by Alexa [ alexa.com ] .
First , we filter out all of the Google properties .
By my count , that leaves 30.Next , filter out Microsoft 's properties , as the scheme would put theme in the antitrust crosshairs : That leaves 26.Forget Yahoo ; they make a lot more than $ 1MM annually from Google .
We 're down to 22.What 's left ?
Forget LinkedIn -- search results are their bread-and-butter .
Likewise the IMDb , Craigslist , Twitter , eBay and Myspace .
Wikipedia and the BBC would consider it a breach of their charters .
Facebook might be tempted , but their users would protest too much .
Only 13 out of 50 remain .
Of these , which would play ball ?
RapidShare would -- they 're rather be ignored by search traffic .
The Russian , Chinese , Japanese and Turkish social networking sites might .
Likewise the porn sites .
In truth though , we have only five or six " maybes " in the top 50.Bottom line , it 's an absurd notion -- more old media fantasies of crippling the internet with blunt 19th century methods .
I 'm not saying that Google is unassailable , but a challenge by a competitor who has n't put in the sweat-equity is a guaranteed to failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just look at the top 50 sites to get an idea of the feasibility of this plan, as reported by Alexa [alexa.com].
First, we filter out all of the Google properties.
By my count, that leaves 30.Next, filter out Microsoft's properties, as the scheme would put theme in the antitrust crosshairs: That leaves 26.Forget Yahoo; they make a lot more than $1MM annually from Google.
We're down to 22.What's left?
Forget LinkedIn -- search results are their bread-and-butter.
Likewise the IMDb, Craigslist, Twitter, eBay and Myspace.
Wikipedia and the BBC would consider it a breach of their charters.
Facebook might be tempted, but their users would protest too much.
Only 13 out of 50 remain.
Of these, which would play ball?
RapidShare would -- they're rather be ignored by search traffic.
The Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Turkish social networking sites might.
Likewise the porn sites.
In truth though, we have only five or six "maybes" in the top 50.Bottom line, it's an absurd notion -- more old media fantasies of crippling the internet with blunt 19th century methods.
I'm not saying that Google is unassailable, but a challenge by a competitor who hasn't put in the sweat-equity is a guaranteed to failure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127754</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258464420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wich only works by grace of google. If google was realy hurting, i doubt they would keep this policy up. They could for example do partial indexing when they find a robot.txt or noindex metatag</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wich only works by grace of google .
If google was realy hurting , i doubt they would keep this policy up .
They could for example do partial indexing when they find a robot.txt or noindex metatag</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wich only works by grace of google.
If google was realy hurting, i doubt they would keep this policy up.
They could for example do partial indexing when they find a robot.txt or noindex metatag</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118286</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he actually loves Google and it's reverse marketing... "See how great Google is: these sites wouldn't switch from it to Bing for a million dollars!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he actually loves Google and it 's reverse marketing... " See how great Google is : these sites would n't switch from it to Bing for a million dollars !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he actually loves Google and it's reverse marketing... "See how great Google is: these sites wouldn't switch from it to Bing for a million dollars!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120096</id>
	<title>1000-not position</title>
	<author>symmatrix</author>
	<datestamp>1258403880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from being a plan or not the exercise is a bit cool - I mean the exercise of the effects if someone does it. I wonder what would happen with the position 1001+ over the google left overs..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from being a plan or not the exercise is a bit cool - I mean the exercise of the effects if someone does it .
I wonder what would happen with the position 1001 + over the google left overs. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from being a plan or not the exercise is a bit cool - I mean the exercise of the effects if someone does it.
I wonder what would happen with the position 1001+ over the google left overs..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118308</id>
	<title>Dumb way to attack Google.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1258398480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What a dumb idea.
</p><p>
There are ways in which Google is vulnerable, but that isn't one of them.
</p><p>
Google's real vulnerability is that if organic search is good enough, nobody ever need click on the ads. <b>When organic search takes you to the right place on the first try, Google makes no money.</b>  So the organic search results have to suck, just a little, to make the ads look more attractive.  Google needs for some of the traffic to go to ad-heavy pages.  That's how Google gets much of their revenue. That's where they're vulnerable.
</p><p>
Google advertisers are about <a href="http://www.sitetruth.net/" title="sitetruth.net">36\% "bottom-feeders",</a> [sitetruth.net] sites that don't have an identifiable, real-world business behind them.  Most of those are ad sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a dumb idea .
There are ways in which Google is vulnerable , but that is n't one of them .
Google 's real vulnerability is that if organic search is good enough , nobody ever need click on the ads .
When organic search takes you to the right place on the first try , Google makes no money .
So the organic search results have to suck , just a little , to make the ads look more attractive .
Google needs for some of the traffic to go to ad-heavy pages .
That 's how Google gets much of their revenue .
That 's where they 're vulnerable .
Google advertisers are about 36 \ % " bottom-feeders " , [ sitetruth.net ] sites that do n't have an identifiable , real-world business behind them .
Most of those are ad sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What a dumb idea.
There are ways in which Google is vulnerable, but that isn't one of them.
Google's real vulnerability is that if organic search is good enough, nobody ever need click on the ads.
When organic search takes you to the right place on the first try, Google makes no money.
So the organic search results have to suck, just a little, to make the ads look more attractive.
Google needs for some of the traffic to go to ad-heavy pages.
That's how Google gets much of their revenue.
That's where they're vulnerable.
Google advertisers are about 36\% "bottom-feeders", [sitetruth.net] sites that don't have an identifiable, real-world business behind them.
Most of those are ad sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117756</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Titoxd</author>
	<datestamp>1258396800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's official, Cuban has lost it. Does he really think that $1M will persuade any of the big players? Heck, even Wikimedia (<a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites" title="alexa.com">sixth in Alexa rankings</a> [alexa.com]) is not trying to make a profit, would <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/a3/2009-10\_Wikimedia\_Foundation\_Annual\_Plan\_FINAL\_July2.pdf" title="wikimedia.org">only meet 12\% of its operational expenses</a> [wikimedia.org] with a free million. Does he really think Amazon or Ebay would let go one of their major revenue streams?

That said, maybe Windows Live (5th in Alexa) wouldn't mind the extra million...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's official , Cuban has lost it .
Does he really think that $ 1M will persuade any of the big players ?
Heck , even Wikimedia ( sixth in Alexa rankings [ alexa.com ] ) is not trying to make a profit , would only meet 12 \ % of its operational expenses [ wikimedia.org ] with a free million .
Does he really think Amazon or Ebay would let go one of their major revenue streams ?
That said , maybe Windows Live ( 5th in Alexa ) would n't mind the extra million.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's official, Cuban has lost it.
Does he really think that $1M will persuade any of the big players?
Heck, even Wikimedia (sixth in Alexa rankings [alexa.com]) is not trying to make a profit, would only meet 12\% of its operational expenses [wikimedia.org] with a free million.
Does he really think Amazon or Ebay would let go one of their major revenue streams?
That said, maybe Windows Live (5th in Alexa) wouldn't mind the extra million...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119378</id>
	<title>my company</title>
	<author>cantcomplain</author>
	<datestamp>1258401660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My company (well not my company, but the one I work for) is a multi-tier retailer, ranked around 8000 by Alexa, and top 5 in it's niche.  We are struggling and could use $1M.  But there's no way we'd take it to forgo the Google hits.  It just wouldn't make any sense, if only for branding reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company ( well not my company , but the one I work for ) is a multi-tier retailer , ranked around 8000 by Alexa , and top 5 in it 's niche .
We are struggling and could use $ 1M .
But there 's no way we 'd take it to forgo the Google hits .
It just would n't make any sense , if only for branding reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company (well not my company, but the one I work for) is a multi-tier retailer, ranked around 8000 by Alexa, and top 5 in it's niche.
We are struggling and could use $1M.
But there's no way we'd take it to forgo the Google hits.
It just wouldn't make any sense, if only for branding reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119776</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258402920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cuban's a moron.  If sites remove themselves from Google searches, many millions of people will just never see those sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuban 's a moron .
If sites remove themselves from Google searches , many millions of people will just never see those sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuban's a moron.
If sites remove themselves from Google searches, many millions of people will just never see those sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119218</id>
	<title>Centrist Vs. Shared System</title>
	<author>Sleen</author>
	<datestamp>1258401180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The essential message here and a trend I see taking place on websites is not the destruction of google, but the destruction of the internet.  What Cuban here is suggesting is not to simply entice sites away from google, but to make them participate in a system that is not democratic and elective, but entirely under the control of one authority.</p><p>All the comments above citing the estimation and price being off are symptomatic of the brain freeze that M$ would use to accomplish this.  The point is, whether 1 million is correct, that there is a price or probably a single number that could disrupt the top 1000 list.  Now from the standpoint of the SEO community and analysis there are potential benefits not only to migrating the list, but also in destroying it completely.</p><p>While the things that Cuban suggests are flawed on so many levels, the ignorance contained should be seen as information itself and representing common misperceptions about the internet, free systems and the universe.</p><p>The best way I can logically express the problem with using money as an incentive in this case is pushing a string.</p><p>While this is not itself an ad for Bing, it implies that Bing would be the next best choice after Google, and this is reflected in responses here.  This is also advertizing for Bing itself.  For the time being, a number 2 position after google would be quite an accomplishment itself.</p><p>I think perhaps the real motivation in the comment is simply to encourage people to imagine an internet without google, and to spread the idea that the internet is just another application or hole through which to pour video garbage and advertizements.  Peoples' choice and sites' choice seems to be disregarded.</p><p>Cuban and M$ are against free principles and Google was born of the internet.</p><p>While Google is not the internet, it is a species that evolved from the conditions of the internet.  Paying someone money to leave a system they would otherwise find beneficial should be the biggest insult to any other alternative.  If a site removed themselves from the google index, they should do so not because someone offered them a bribe, but because of a better idea or merits.</p><p>Perhaps Bin Laden will take Cuban's idea and offer citizens of respective nations the option of 1 million dollars for becoming one of his followers.  Well, a place in heaven or the Bin Laden afterlife fantasy might be just as  attractive.</p><p>The attraction will work for some, and given the balance of irrational fundamentalist thought in the world today among those who have a choice we should not be surprised that such a successful capitalist would speak to the insane than engage the intelligent.</p><p>The internet cannot be manipulated and managed like a sports team and the sites are not athletes in your portfolio.</p><p>If there is a perception that there should be more than 1 successful rank, then there should be alternatives and maybe there is some monopoly perceived when more choices are desired.  I think the intelligent observation here is that if there is a better way than google, it should not take tender to to convince the popular sites.  Unless of course it is a complete accident that they find themselves so popular like winning the lottery.  Maybe they are so popular because google is playing favorites and helping themselves in the process, instead of reflecting culture at a point in time.</p><p>And this is the benefit of understanding inverse advertizing.  What Cuban has expressed through inversion is his understanding of google as a manifestation or mapping of his own principles.  If he was google, he would play favorites and he would reward his golf buddies and this is expressed through his proposal.  Free systems like the internet are always under the attack of the Lenins, Bin Ladens and Cubans of the world.  It comes from megalomania and they see it inside everyone and everything around them.  The sympathetic break allows these types to operate quite efficiently without the hindrance of others' motivations and feelings.  Th</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The essential message here and a trend I see taking place on websites is not the destruction of google , but the destruction of the internet .
What Cuban here is suggesting is not to simply entice sites away from google , but to make them participate in a system that is not democratic and elective , but entirely under the control of one authority.All the comments above citing the estimation and price being off are symptomatic of the brain freeze that M $ would use to accomplish this .
The point is , whether 1 million is correct , that there is a price or probably a single number that could disrupt the top 1000 list .
Now from the standpoint of the SEO community and analysis there are potential benefits not only to migrating the list , but also in destroying it completely.While the things that Cuban suggests are flawed on so many levels , the ignorance contained should be seen as information itself and representing common misperceptions about the internet , free systems and the universe.The best way I can logically express the problem with using money as an incentive in this case is pushing a string.While this is not itself an ad for Bing , it implies that Bing would be the next best choice after Google , and this is reflected in responses here .
This is also advertizing for Bing itself .
For the time being , a number 2 position after google would be quite an accomplishment itself.I think perhaps the real motivation in the comment is simply to encourage people to imagine an internet without google , and to spread the idea that the internet is just another application or hole through which to pour video garbage and advertizements .
Peoples ' choice and sites ' choice seems to be disregarded.Cuban and M $ are against free principles and Google was born of the internet.While Google is not the internet , it is a species that evolved from the conditions of the internet .
Paying someone money to leave a system they would otherwise find beneficial should be the biggest insult to any other alternative .
If a site removed themselves from the google index , they should do so not because someone offered them a bribe , but because of a better idea or merits.Perhaps Bin Laden will take Cuban 's idea and offer citizens of respective nations the option of 1 million dollars for becoming one of his followers .
Well , a place in heaven or the Bin Laden afterlife fantasy might be just as attractive.The attraction will work for some , and given the balance of irrational fundamentalist thought in the world today among those who have a choice we should not be surprised that such a successful capitalist would speak to the insane than engage the intelligent.The internet can not be manipulated and managed like a sports team and the sites are not athletes in your portfolio.If there is a perception that there should be more than 1 successful rank , then there should be alternatives and maybe there is some monopoly perceived when more choices are desired .
I think the intelligent observation here is that if there is a better way than google , it should not take tender to to convince the popular sites .
Unless of course it is a complete accident that they find themselves so popular like winning the lottery .
Maybe they are so popular because google is playing favorites and helping themselves in the process , instead of reflecting culture at a point in time.And this is the benefit of understanding inverse advertizing .
What Cuban has expressed through inversion is his understanding of google as a manifestation or mapping of his own principles .
If he was google , he would play favorites and he would reward his golf buddies and this is expressed through his proposal .
Free systems like the internet are always under the attack of the Lenins , Bin Ladens and Cubans of the world .
It comes from megalomania and they see it inside everyone and everything around them .
The sympathetic break allows these types to operate quite efficiently without the hindrance of others ' motivations and feelings .
Th</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The essential message here and a trend I see taking place on websites is not the destruction of google, but the destruction of the internet.
What Cuban here is suggesting is not to simply entice sites away from google, but to make them participate in a system that is not democratic and elective, but entirely under the control of one authority.All the comments above citing the estimation and price being off are symptomatic of the brain freeze that M$ would use to accomplish this.
The point is, whether 1 million is correct, that there is a price or probably a single number that could disrupt the top 1000 list.
Now from the standpoint of the SEO community and analysis there are potential benefits not only to migrating the list, but also in destroying it completely.While the things that Cuban suggests are flawed on so many levels, the ignorance contained should be seen as information itself and representing common misperceptions about the internet, free systems and the universe.The best way I can logically express the problem with using money as an incentive in this case is pushing a string.While this is not itself an ad for Bing, it implies that Bing would be the next best choice after Google, and this is reflected in responses here.
This is also advertizing for Bing itself.
For the time being, a number 2 position after google would be quite an accomplishment itself.I think perhaps the real motivation in the comment is simply to encourage people to imagine an internet without google, and to spread the idea that the internet is just another application or hole through which to pour video garbage and advertizements.
Peoples' choice and sites' choice seems to be disregarded.Cuban and M$ are against free principles and Google was born of the internet.While Google is not the internet, it is a species that evolved from the conditions of the internet.
Paying someone money to leave a system they would otherwise find beneficial should be the biggest insult to any other alternative.
If a site removed themselves from the google index, they should do so not because someone offered them a bribe, but because of a better idea or merits.Perhaps Bin Laden will take Cuban's idea and offer citizens of respective nations the option of 1 million dollars for becoming one of his followers.
Well, a place in heaven or the Bin Laden afterlife fantasy might be just as  attractive.The attraction will work for some, and given the balance of irrational fundamentalist thought in the world today among those who have a choice we should not be surprised that such a successful capitalist would speak to the insane than engage the intelligent.The internet cannot be manipulated and managed like a sports team and the sites are not athletes in your portfolio.If there is a perception that there should be more than 1 successful rank, then there should be alternatives and maybe there is some monopoly perceived when more choices are desired.
I think the intelligent observation here is that if there is a better way than google, it should not take tender to to convince the popular sites.
Unless of course it is a complete accident that they find themselves so popular like winning the lottery.
Maybe they are so popular because google is playing favorites and helping themselves in the process, instead of reflecting culture at a point in time.And this is the benefit of understanding inverse advertizing.
What Cuban has expressed through inversion is his understanding of google as a manifestation or mapping of his own principles.
If he was google, he would play favorites and he would reward his golf buddies and this is expressed through his proposal.
Free systems like the internet are always under the attack of the Lenins, Bin Ladens and Cubans of the world.
It comes from megalomania and they see it inside everyone and everything around them.
The sympathetic break allows these types to operate quite efficiently without the hindrance of others' motivations and feelings.
Th</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118190</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is why does anyone continue to listen to Mark Cuban?  Outside of bilking Yahoo out of ~$6bil for a software product they ultimately discarded, why is this guy interesting?<br>
<br>
He frequently likes to make outlandish statements about p2p, and other tech world topics, but these <i>never</i> ring true...  I've had enough of these false prophets...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is why does anyone continue to listen to Mark Cuban ?
Outside of bilking Yahoo out of ~ $ 6bil for a software product they ultimately discarded , why is this guy interesting ?
He frequently likes to make outlandish statements about p2p , and other tech world topics , but these never ring true... I 've had enough of these false prophets.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is why does anyone continue to listen to Mark Cuban?
Outside of bilking Yahoo out of ~$6bil for a software product they ultimately discarded, why is this guy interesting?
He frequently likes to make outlandish statements about p2p, and other tech world topics, but these never ring true...  I've had enough of these false prophets...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122636</id>
	<title>Re:Get this crap off slashdot</title>
	<author>Anarchduke</author>
	<datestamp>1258369980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't let the door hit you on the way out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't let the door hit you on the way out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't let the door hit you on the way out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120240</id>
	<title>Re:Geez</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1258404420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.</p></div><p>Wikipedia is a top 10 site, maybe even top 5, but the Wikimedia Foundation made only <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL\_08\_09From\_KPMG.pdf" title="wikimedia.org">$8,658,006 in revenue</a> [wikimedia.org] for FY2008&ndash;9.  And come on, we're talking top 1000 here, not top ten.  I've run an Alexa top 10,000 site on under $5,000 a year.  (Currently it's more like 15&ndash;25k, it's a gaming site and popularity fluctuates with release cycles.)  It doesn't cost much to run a big website.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.Wikipedia is a top 10 site , maybe even top 5 , but the Wikimedia Foundation made only $ 8,658,006 in revenue [ wikimedia.org ] for FY2008    9 .
And come on , we 're talking top 1000 here , not top ten .
I 've run an Alexa top 10,000 site on under $ 5,000 a year .
( Currently it 's more like 15    25k , it 's a gaming site and popularity fluctuates with release cycles .
) It does n't cost much to run a big website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.Wikipedia is a top 10 site, maybe even top 5, but the Wikimedia Foundation made only $8,658,006 in revenue [wikimedia.org] for FY2008–9.
And come on, we're talking top 1000 here, not top ten.
I've run an Alexa top 10,000 site on under $5,000 a year.
(Currently it's more like 15–25k, it's a gaming site and popularity fluctuates with release cycles.
)  It doesn't cost much to run a big website.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118372</id>
	<title>Wikipedia</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1258398600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Wikipedia results disappeared from Google, I'd start using a different search engine.  Cuban *only* needs to figure out how much money to give to Jimmy Wales and a technical way to take Wikipedia off the Google search results and he'll have gone and done major damage to Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Wikipedia results disappeared from Google , I 'd start using a different search engine .
Cuban * only * needs to figure out how much money to give to Jimmy Wales and a technical way to take Wikipedia off the Google search results and he 'll have gone and done major damage to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Wikipedia results disappeared from Google, I'd start using a different search engine.
Cuban *only* needs to figure out how much money to give to Jimmy Wales and a technical way to take Wikipedia off the Google search results and he'll have gone and done major damage to Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121518</id>
	<title>Re:Not to be a communist here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258366320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm off-topic, but I'd like to point out that your suggestion (which I certainly agree with in sentiment) is no more "communist" than anything else this private citizen would do with his money. It's an unfortunate misunderstanding of the opinions of libertarian-leaning people like me that we're necessarily against any kind of communal or social betterment--in fact, what we (or I, anyway) largely object to is the compulsion toward this kind of action. You can't choose not to participate when the government decides it wants to do something.</p><p>A small difference in practice, perhaps, at least for most people, and I certainly don't deny that it's done a great deal of good to our society (roads, police, and fire departments come to mind). But it's a world away in principle, and I'm really concerned that with bailouts of huge corporations on one hand and an ever-increasing set of social entitlements on the other, we (the US, I mean) are heading for a fundamental shift in the way the country functions.</p><p>tl;dr - Crazy wingnut wrings his hands; nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm off-topic , but I 'd like to point out that your suggestion ( which I certainly agree with in sentiment ) is no more " communist " than anything else this private citizen would do with his money .
It 's an unfortunate misunderstanding of the opinions of libertarian-leaning people like me that we 're necessarily against any kind of communal or social betterment--in fact , what we ( or I , anyway ) largely object to is the compulsion toward this kind of action .
You ca n't choose not to participate when the government decides it wants to do something.A small difference in practice , perhaps , at least for most people , and I certainly do n't deny that it 's done a great deal of good to our society ( roads , police , and fire departments come to mind ) .
But it 's a world away in principle , and I 'm really concerned that with bailouts of huge corporations on one hand and an ever-increasing set of social entitlements on the other , we ( the US , I mean ) are heading for a fundamental shift in the way the country functions.tl ; dr - Crazy wingnut wrings his hands ; nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm off-topic, but I'd like to point out that your suggestion (which I certainly agree with in sentiment) is no more "communist" than anything else this private citizen would do with his money.
It's an unfortunate misunderstanding of the opinions of libertarian-leaning people like me that we're necessarily against any kind of communal or social betterment--in fact, what we (or I, anyway) largely object to is the compulsion toward this kind of action.
You can't choose not to participate when the government decides it wants to do something.A small difference in practice, perhaps, at least for most people, and I certainly don't deny that it's done a great deal of good to our society (roads, police, and fire departments come to mind).
But it's a world away in principle, and I'm really concerned that with bailouts of huge corporations on one hand and an ever-increasing set of social entitlements on the other, we (the US, I mean) are heading for a fundamental shift in the way the country functions.tl;dr - Crazy wingnut wrings his hands; nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119090</id>
	<title>Has anyone consulted Al Gore?</title>
	<author>toilettext</author>
	<datestamp>1258400940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all, Al Gore is solely responsible for creating the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , Al Gore is solely responsible for creating the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, Al Gore is solely responsible for creating the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120034</id>
	<title>Benjamin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258403700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a dolt...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a dolt.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a dolt...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30123652</id>
	<title>Yeah!  Break up the evil search monopoly...</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1258374780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and hand it over to Microsoft!!!

<p>Wait, why would anyone do that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and hand it over to Microsoft ! ! !
Wait , why would anyone do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and hand it over to Microsoft!!!
Wait, why would anyone do that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121068</id>
	<title>Peanuts</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1258364400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Likely the top 1000 made about 1 million in the time it took me to read the article.</p><p>Excuse me while I start a grassroots campaign to get my website in the top 1000! Slashdot and Stephen Cobare I need you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Likely the top 1000 made about 1 million in the time it took me to read the article.Excuse me while I start a grassroots campaign to get my website in the top 1000 !
Slashdot and Stephen Cobare I need you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likely the top 1000 made about 1 million in the time it took me to read the article.Excuse me while I start a grassroots campaign to get my website in the top 1000!
Slashdot and Stephen Cobare I need you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120876</id>
	<title>Right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258363560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I await the day when Microsoft can no longer buy their way out of a mistake and keep trucking on. While their coffers are quite big I'm sure it'l end at some point, esp. when you got idiots such as this guy helping ruin their reputation(as if they needed help). One day microsoft is gonna do another stupid move and then suddenly find that their old method of burning through cash will no longer work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I await the day when Microsoft can no longer buy their way out of a mistake and keep trucking on .
While their coffers are quite big I 'm sure it'l end at some point , esp .
when you got idiots such as this guy helping ruin their reputation ( as if they needed help ) .
One day microsoft is gon na do another stupid move and then suddenly find that their old method of burning through cash will no longer work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I await the day when Microsoft can no longer buy their way out of a mistake and keep trucking on.
While their coffers are quite big I'm sure it'l end at some point, esp.
when you got idiots such as this guy helping ruin their reputation(as if they needed help).
One day microsoft is gonna do another stupid move and then suddenly find that their old method of burning through cash will no longer work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117468</id>
	<title>If your a CEO...</title>
	<author>dakkon1024</author>
	<datestamp>1258396080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you better make sure you have that million safely in your account before your company goes belly up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you better make sure you have that million safely in your account before your company goes belly up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you better make sure you have that million safely in your account before your company goes belly up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126072</id>
	<title>ME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258395900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol so lets pay the top 1000 sites to never get any hits again... great idea.. good luck with that!<br>you'd get better results by writing your search on a dirty car window and leaving your phone number! hahaha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol so lets pay the top 1000 sites to never get any hits again... great idea.. good luck with that ! you 'd get better results by writing your search on a dirty car window and leaving your phone number !
hahaha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol so lets pay the top 1000 sites to never get any hits again... great idea.. good luck with that!you'd get better results by writing your search on a dirty car window and leaving your phone number!
hahaha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118088</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole thousand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258397820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And what's to stop Google from re-indexing them?</p></div><p>robots.txt</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's to stop Google from re-indexing them ? robots.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's to stop Google from re-indexing them?robots.txt
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124460</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258379760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not really a verb, but:  "bada bing! bada boom! you get fucked coz this search engine can't help you find squat."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not really a verb , but : " bada bing !
bada boom !
you get fucked coz this search engine ca n't help you find squat .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not really a verb, but:  "bada bing!
bada boom!
you get fucked coz this search engine can't help you find squat.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119714</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>dhammond</author>
	<datestamp>1258402740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All a site has to do is put up an appropriate robots.txt file, unless Google stopped honoring robots.txt files, which would make them no better than a spammer and would, ultimately, lead to their demise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All a site has to do is put up an appropriate robots.txt file , unless Google stopped honoring robots.txt files , which would make them no better than a spammer and would , ultimately , lead to their demise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All a site has to do is put up an appropriate robots.txt file, unless Google stopped honoring robots.txt files, which would make them no better than a spammer and would, ultimately, lead to their demise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117440</id>
	<title>why would the top 1000 sites WANT to leave google?</title>
	<author>arkham6</author>
	<datestamp>1258396020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the top 1000, a million bucks is not a lot of money. Why risk alienating the population for what is to them a drop in the bucket?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the top 1000 , a million bucks is not a lot of money .
Why risk alienating the population for what is to them a drop in the bucket ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the top 1000, a million bucks is not a lot of money.
Why risk alienating the population for what is to them a drop in the bucket?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118220</id>
	<title>You Don't Need Cuban To Kill Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is big enough to fund a Google-killer.</p><p>Yours In Astrakhan,<br>Kilgore T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is big enough to fund a Google-killer.Yours In Astrakhan,Kilgore T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is big enough to fund a Google-killer.Yours In Astrakhan,Kilgore T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117852</id>
	<title>Cuban is no visionary</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1258397100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being lucky one time at the top of the tech bubble may make you rich, but if you do nothing else like Cuban has you are nothing but a lucky blowhard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being lucky one time at the top of the tech bubble may make you rich , but if you do nothing else like Cuban has you are nothing but a lucky blowhard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being lucky one time at the top of the tech bubble may make you rich, but if you do nothing else like Cuban has you are nothing but a lucky blowhard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30133728</id>
	<title>Back in grade school?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can pay me five dollars a week to be your friend, and for an extra dollar, I will give you-know-who a dirty look and call them &ldquo;poo poo head&rdquo; every time I see them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can pay me five dollars a week to be your friend , and for an extra dollar , I will give you-know-who a dirty look and call them    poo poo head    every time I see them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can pay me five dollars a week to be your friend, and for an extra dollar, I will give you-know-who a dirty look and call them “poo poo head” every time I see them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119576</id>
	<title>What a stupid plan...</title>
	<author>lewp</author>
	<datestamp>1258402320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so first, in order to make this work you'd have to outspend Google. I mean, for Microsoft and pals (you know, anybody who can afford to spend a billion+ dollars to topple Google), search is a nice business that they want; but for Google it's their core business (well, it's what powers their core business). You'd need someone else willing to bet their company (or someone who dwarfs Google, maybe GE or BP wants a search engine really bad?), because the stakes will be that high for Google. At the first sign of a strategy like this working, Google simply shows up with a bigger check. You think it would be easy for people to lure Google away with a million dollar check? How easy would it be to convince them to stay with a two million dollar check?</p><p>Second, Google has lobbying muscle now. Assuming this is legal, it might not be soon. They'll probably outlaw it in an amendment to the next Puppies for Orphanages Act that comes through. "It's not Evil, it's Democracy!"</p><p>This strategy would have worked great before the IPO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so first , in order to make this work you 'd have to outspend Google .
I mean , for Microsoft and pals ( you know , anybody who can afford to spend a billion + dollars to topple Google ) , search is a nice business that they want ; but for Google it 's their core business ( well , it 's what powers their core business ) .
You 'd need someone else willing to bet their company ( or someone who dwarfs Google , maybe GE or BP wants a search engine really bad ?
) , because the stakes will be that high for Google .
At the first sign of a strategy like this working , Google simply shows up with a bigger check .
You think it would be easy for people to lure Google away with a million dollar check ?
How easy would it be to convince them to stay with a two million dollar check ? Second , Google has lobbying muscle now .
Assuming this is legal , it might not be soon .
They 'll probably outlaw it in an amendment to the next Puppies for Orphanages Act that comes through .
" It 's not Evil , it 's Democracy !
" This strategy would have worked great before the IPO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so first, in order to make this work you'd have to outspend Google.
I mean, for Microsoft and pals (you know, anybody who can afford to spend a billion+ dollars to topple Google), search is a nice business that they want; but for Google it's their core business (well, it's what powers their core business).
You'd need someone else willing to bet their company (or someone who dwarfs Google, maybe GE or BP wants a search engine really bad?
), because the stakes will be that high for Google.
At the first sign of a strategy like this working, Google simply shows up with a bigger check.
You think it would be easy for people to lure Google away with a million dollar check?
How easy would it be to convince them to stay with a two million dollar check?Second, Google has lobbying muscle now.
Assuming this is legal, it might not be soon.
They'll probably outlaw it in an amendment to the next Puppies for Orphanages Act that comes through.
"It's not Evil, it's Democracy!
"This strategy would have worked great before the IPO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117728</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1258396740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drop off Google, and you cease to exist as far as a very large percentage of the average Internet users are concerned.</p><p>I doubt any company in Google's top 1000 is worth so little that its worth $1m cash to shut their business down.</p><p>That said, if Mark Cuban is reading this, I'll gladly remove my sites from Google for $1m.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drop off Google , and you cease to exist as far as a very large percentage of the average Internet users are concerned.I doubt any company in Google 's top 1000 is worth so little that its worth $ 1m cash to shut their business down.That said , if Mark Cuban is reading this , I 'll gladly remove my sites from Google for $ 1m .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drop off Google, and you cease to exist as far as a very large percentage of the average Internet users are concerned.I doubt any company in Google's top 1000 is worth so little that its worth $1m cash to shut their business down.That said, if Mark Cuban is reading this, I'll gladly remove my sites from Google for $1m.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119292</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>miggyb</author>
	<datestamp>1258401360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, is that something that search engines are legally bound to, like some sort of contract, or is it just a "suggestion" or something done out of good faith? Because in the end, it's Google's choice if they're going to index something or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , is that something that search engines are legally bound to , like some sort of contract , or is it just a " suggestion " or something done out of good faith ?
Because in the end , it 's Google 's choice if they 're going to index something or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, is that something that search engines are legally bound to, like some sort of contract, or is it just a "suggestion" or something done out of good faith?
Because in the end, it's Google's choice if they're going to index something or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120068</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258403820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure, but guaranteeing that the Mavs sell out all 40 home games probably isn't the type of thing Mark Cuban would cower in fear of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure , but guaranteeing that the Mavs sell out all 40 home games probably is n't the type of thing Mark Cuban would cower in fear of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure, but guaranteeing that the Mavs sell out all 40 home games probably isn't the type of thing Mark Cuban would cower in fear of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124082</id>
	<title>Re:Top 1000 examples:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258377300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having google in that list is silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having google in that list is silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having google in that list is silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118114</id>
	<title>Re:Can he even afford it? Do sites even care?</title>
	<author>mrlarone</author>
	<datestamp>1258397940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>now i don't know if alexa is the best source but it's what google gave me first...

searching for slashdot showed it ranks 1,305...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Nobody would ever notice, except maybe the webmaster???</htmltext>
<tokenext>now i do n't know if alexa is the best source but it 's what google gave me first.. . searching for slashdot showed it ranks 1,305... ...Nobody would ever notice , except maybe the webmaster ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now i don't know if alexa is the best source but it's what google gave me first...

searching for slashdot showed it ranks 1,305... ...Nobody would ever notice, except maybe the webmaster??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126634</id>
	<title>His first task...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258489320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>would be to convince google to unlist themselves from the google index</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>would be to convince google to unlist themselves from the google index</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would be to convince google to unlist themselves from the google index</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117508</id>
	<title>Do the math...</title>
	<author>Pollux</author>
	<datestamp>1258396140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I think the top 1,000 sites would easily calculate that their losses in ad revenue and web traffic would be worth more than $1,000,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I think the top 1,000 sites would easily calculate that their losses in ad revenue and web traffic would be worth more than $ 1,000,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I think the top 1,000 sites would easily calculate that their losses in ad revenue and web traffic would be worth more than $1,000,000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117962</id>
	<title>Because Microsoft is so much better</title>
	<author>marquinhocb</author>
	<datestamp>1258397400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woohoo let's kill Google so that Microsoft can rule the world even more.  Why didn't I think of that...</p><p>Not to mention that like many others mentioned, the top 1000 sites (some which are owned by Google, like maps, orkut, gmail, etc.) piss away $1 million a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woohoo let 's kill Google so that Microsoft can rule the world even more .
Why did n't I think of that...Not to mention that like many others mentioned , the top 1000 sites ( some which are owned by Google , like maps , orkut , gmail , etc .
) piss away $ 1 million a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woohoo let's kill Google so that Microsoft can rule the world even more.
Why didn't I think of that...Not to mention that like many others mentioned, the top 1000 sites (some which are owned by Google, like maps, orkut, gmail, etc.
) piss away $1 million a week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118492</id>
	<title>Is it me..</title>
	<author>log0n</author>
	<datestamp>1258399020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or does the article seem poorly written due to an unclear idea?  I understand the premise.. the whole thing just doesn't make a lot of sense.</p><p>Every time I see one of these nonsensical (referring to the content itself) I get the impression that it's some sort of run on quick advertising income.  Make up something (anything) that would get a lot of notice and profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or does the article seem poorly written due to an unclear idea ?
I understand the premise.. the whole thing just does n't make a lot of sense.Every time I see one of these nonsensical ( referring to the content itself ) I get the impression that it 's some sort of run on quick advertising income .
Make up something ( anything ) that would get a lot of notice and profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or does the article seem poorly written due to an unclear idea?
I understand the premise.. the whole thing just doesn't make a lot of sense.Every time I see one of these nonsensical (referring to the content itself) I get the impression that it's some sort of run on quick advertising income.
Make up something (anything) that would get a lot of notice and profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119494</id>
	<title>Very Interesting Math Indeed</title>
	<author>Wannabe Code Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1258402080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found this gem from <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/" title="blogmaverick.com">Mark's original post</a> [blogmaverick.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>The math starts to get interesting. At $1,000 per site average times 100k sites, thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars.</p></div></blockquote><p>Lovely multiplication work there Mark... He goes on to say, </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The distribution would obviously favor the larger sites, so of that billion dollars, would the top 1k sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest ?</p></div><p> First of all, why is this a question? It's your dumb plan, I don't have the answer. It would be like asking "How much manure would you have to fling in people's faces to earn back the cost of buying the manure?" Second of all, everyone's already discussing how idiotic it would be to leave the google index for even $1 million; $500 thousand would even worse. And third, </p><p><div class="quote"><p>the remaining 99k split the rest</p></div><p> ("the rest" being $500 tousand), so you're saying that you'll get 99,000 sites to leave Google all for just over $5.05 a piece? Let's say I'm the #2 result for the word "shoes" on Google; the #1 result just took their $500 thousand bribe and ran. You really think I'll give up my newly found #1 spot on the most popular search engine for a one time payment of $5.05?</p><p>He then goes on to write, </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Given the stakes, why stop at $ 1 Billion Dollars ? Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $1mm each.</p></div><p> So his actual plan to give the top thousand sites $1 million, actually involves more than just $1 billion, because he still plans on paying the next 99,000 sites something to leave as well. If I owned any stock in any company that Mark Cuban is currently working for or on the board of, I would sell it this second.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this gem from Mark 's original post [ blogmaverick.com ] : The math starts to get interesting .
At $ 1,000 per site average times 100k sites , thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars.Lovely multiplication work there Mark... He goes on to say , The distribution would obviously favor the larger sites , so of that billion dollars , would the top 1k sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest ?
First of all , why is this a question ?
It 's your dumb plan , I do n't have the answer .
It would be like asking " How much manure would you have to fling in people 's faces to earn back the cost of buying the manure ?
" Second of all , everyone 's already discussing how idiotic it would be to leave the google index for even $ 1 million ; $ 500 thousand would even worse .
And third , the remaining 99k split the rest ( " the rest " being $ 500 tousand ) , so you 're saying that you 'll get 99,000 sites to leave Google all for just over $ 5.05 a piece ?
Let 's say I 'm the # 2 result for the word " shoes " on Google ; the # 1 result just took their $ 500 thousand bribe and ran .
You really think I 'll give up my newly found # 1 spot on the most popular search engine for a one time payment of $ 5.05 ? He then goes on to write , Given the stakes , why stop at $ 1 Billion Dollars ?
Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $ 1mm each .
So his actual plan to give the top thousand sites $ 1 million , actually involves more than just $ 1 billion , because he still plans on paying the next 99,000 sites something to leave as well .
If I owned any stock in any company that Mark Cuban is currently working for or on the board of , I would sell it this second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this gem from Mark's original post [blogmaverick.com]:The math starts to get interesting.
At $1,000 per site average times 100k sites, thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars.Lovely multiplication work there Mark... He goes on to say, The distribution would obviously favor the larger sites, so of that billion dollars, would the top 1k sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest ?
First of all, why is this a question?
It's your dumb plan, I don't have the answer.
It would be like asking "How much manure would you have to fling in people's faces to earn back the cost of buying the manure?
" Second of all, everyone's already discussing how idiotic it would be to leave the google index for even $1 million; $500 thousand would even worse.
And third, the remaining 99k split the rest ("the rest" being $500 tousand), so you're saying that you'll get 99,000 sites to leave Google all for just over $5.05 a piece?
Let's say I'm the #2 result for the word "shoes" on Google; the #1 result just took their $500 thousand bribe and ran.
You really think I'll give up my newly found #1 spot on the most popular search engine for a one time payment of $5.05?He then goes on to write, Given the stakes, why stop at $ 1 Billion Dollars ?
Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $1mm each.
So his actual plan to give the top thousand sites $1 million, actually involves more than just $1 billion, because he still plans on paying the next 99,000 sites something to leave as well.
If I owned any stock in any company that Mark Cuban is currently working for or on the board of, I would sell it this second.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118036</id>
	<title>This is a PHANTOM MENACE</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1258397700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the real threat to Google is Murdoch trying to get the rest of the publishing/content world to threaten lack of access to Google unless they pay them.</p><p>And if they don't?  They will allow Bing! to index their sites (after being paid a hefty fee by Microsoft).</p><p>This is actually pretty smart in a number of ways.  It changes the balance of power from the search engines to the content providers.  "Pay us or you won't be allowed to search our sites".  Not only does it help Murdoch get his content paid for but he's running to the correct knight (in black evil armor) to rescue him, Microsoft.  What's the one thing that Microsoft still has that Google can't compete with?  Cash, Microsoft CAN BUY ITS WAY to the top of the search engine heap.  THAT'S how Google can be killed.  (I wonder if anti-trust laws will prevent Murdoch from explicitly organizing against Google).</p><p>I wish I could say I thought this on my own but I read it on TechCrunch.  (No I'm not affiliated with them in any way).  P.S. While we're on the subject with Murdoch, even before he gets into bed with M$, what the F*** is he, a FOREIGNER (sorry Aussies) screwing up the media in our (U.S.) country?  Aren't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets?  And he's so blatantly trying to force his right wing viewpoints down our throats!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the real threat to Google is Murdoch trying to get the rest of the publishing/content world to threaten lack of access to Google unless they pay them.And if they do n't ?
They will allow Bing !
to index their sites ( after being paid a hefty fee by Microsoft ) .This is actually pretty smart in a number of ways .
It changes the balance of power from the search engines to the content providers .
" Pay us or you wo n't be allowed to search our sites " .
Not only does it help Murdoch get his content paid for but he 's running to the correct knight ( in black evil armor ) to rescue him , Microsoft .
What 's the one thing that Microsoft still has that Google ca n't compete with ?
Cash , Microsoft CAN BUY ITS WAY to the top of the search engine heap .
THAT 'S how Google can be killed .
( I wonder if anti-trust laws will prevent Murdoch from explicitly organizing against Google ) .I wish I could say I thought this on my own but I read it on TechCrunch .
( No I 'm not affiliated with them in any way ) .
P.S. While we 're on the subject with Murdoch , even before he gets into bed with M $ , what the F * * * is he , a FOREIGNER ( sorry Aussies ) screwing up the media in our ( U.S. ) country ?
Are n't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets ?
And he 's so blatantly trying to force his right wing viewpoints down our throats !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the real threat to Google is Murdoch trying to get the rest of the publishing/content world to threaten lack of access to Google unless they pay them.And if they don't?
They will allow Bing!
to index their sites (after being paid a hefty fee by Microsoft).This is actually pretty smart in a number of ways.
It changes the balance of power from the search engines to the content providers.
"Pay us or you won't be allowed to search our sites".
Not only does it help Murdoch get his content paid for but he's running to the correct knight (in black evil armor) to rescue him, Microsoft.
What's the one thing that Microsoft still has that Google can't compete with?
Cash, Microsoft CAN BUY ITS WAY to the top of the search engine heap.
THAT'S how Google can be killed.
(I wonder if anti-trust laws will prevent Murdoch from explicitly organizing against Google).I wish I could say I thought this on my own but I read it on TechCrunch.
(No I'm not affiliated with them in any way).
P.S. While we're on the subject with Murdoch, even before he gets into bed with M$, what the F*** is he, a FOREIGNER (sorry Aussies) screwing up the media in our (U.S.) country?
Aren't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets?
And he's so blatantly trying to force his right wing viewpoints down our throats!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118434</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shouldn't have to pay people to stop eating bread; just inform them of the <a href="http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/breadkills.html" title="monster-island.org" rel="nofollow">adverse effects</a> [monster-island.org] it may have on their health.  If they're smart, they'll stop eating bread immediately without any further incentive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should n't have to pay people to stop eating bread ; just inform them of the adverse effects [ monster-island.org ] it may have on their health .
If they 're smart , they 'll stop eating bread immediately without any further incentive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldn't have to pay people to stop eating bread; just inform them of the adverse effects [monster-island.org] it may have on their health.
If they're smart, they'll stop eating bread immediately without any further incentive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118204</id>
	<title>And this would be good for the consumers how?</title>
	<author>merc</author>
	<datestamp>1258398120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>History has already demonstrated how Microsoft reacts when they are fully in control of technology.  How do you think they would act if they are in control of vital Internet search results?  Do you think they would serve the interests of the general public or their own pecuniary interests?  Do you think they would stilfe search results that are critical of Microsoft or promote true free speech?  Do you think if they were the dominant search engine they would use it to leverage themselves unfairly into other markets or compete fairly?</p><p>I don't need to answer these questions; as I already said history has shown us what they are willing to do.  I think we the users have the final say though.  I use Google and Yahoo! and have found that bing results, while typically fair aren't necessarily much better.  As a matter of preference I have no reason to switch from Google, et al, and won't, even if the top 1,000 top-dogs switch to Microsoft.  If that happens they lost me, I didn't lose them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>History has already demonstrated how Microsoft reacts when they are fully in control of technology .
How do you think they would act if they are in control of vital Internet search results ?
Do you think they would serve the interests of the general public or their own pecuniary interests ?
Do you think they would stilfe search results that are critical of Microsoft or promote true free speech ?
Do you think if they were the dominant search engine they would use it to leverage themselves unfairly into other markets or compete fairly ? I do n't need to answer these questions ; as I already said history has shown us what they are willing to do .
I think we the users have the final say though .
I use Google and Yahoo !
and have found that bing results , while typically fair are n't necessarily much better .
As a matter of preference I have no reason to switch from Google , et al , and wo n't , even if the top 1,000 top-dogs switch to Microsoft .
If that happens they lost me , I did n't lose them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>History has already demonstrated how Microsoft reacts when they are fully in control of technology.
How do you think they would act if they are in control of vital Internet search results?
Do you think they would serve the interests of the general public or their own pecuniary interests?
Do you think they would stilfe search results that are critical of Microsoft or promote true free speech?
Do you think if they were the dominant search engine they would use it to leverage themselves unfairly into other markets or compete fairly?I don't need to answer these questions; as I already said history has shown us what they are willing to do.
I think we the users have the final say though.
I use Google and Yahoo!
and have found that bing results, while typically fair aren't necessarily much better.
As a matter of preference I have no reason to switch from Google, et al, and won't, even if the top 1,000 top-dogs switch to Microsoft.
If that happens they lost me, I didn't lose them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120472</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258405080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My question is his motivation and solution. He apparently sees the point of his exercise as breaking Google's web dominance. But he wants to hand it over to... one of the largest most predatory monopolists in modern American business? WTF Cuban? You got rich using that fucked up brain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My question is his motivation and solution .
He apparently sees the point of his exercise as breaking Google 's web dominance .
But he wants to hand it over to... one of the largest most predatory monopolists in modern American business ?
WTF Cuban ?
You got rich using that fucked up brain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question is his motivation and solution.
He apparently sees the point of his exercise as breaking Google's web dominance.
But he wants to hand it over to... one of the largest most predatory monopolists in modern American business?
WTF Cuban?
You got rich using that fucked up brain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117560</id>
	<title>1000x1000000=10^9</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1258396260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? Spending one BILLION/MILLIARD dollars for what is essentially an advertising campaign? Sounds pretty risky to me. If you have that kind of money to gamble with, why not spend that money on actually building a better search engine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Spending one BILLION/MILLIARD dollars for what is essentially an advertising campaign ?
Sounds pretty risky to me .
If you have that kind of money to gamble with , why not spend that money on actually building a better search engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Spending one BILLION/MILLIARD dollars for what is essentially an advertising campaign?
Sounds pretty risky to me.
If you have that kind of money to gamble with, why not spend that money on actually building a better search engine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117916</id>
	<title>site 1001 feels bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258397280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you imagine how bad you'd feel if you were site 1001 and had just kissed $1m goodbye?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine how bad you 'd feel if you were site 1001 and had just kissed $ 1m goodbye ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine how bad you'd feel if you were site 1001 and had just kissed $1m goodbye?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118458</id>
	<title>Mr Cuban is a douche</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258398900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry but clearly he thinks more of his opinion than he should. Money doesn't make you smart, especially if you're from Texas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but clearly he thinks more of his opinion than he should .
Money does n't make you smart , especially if you 're from Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but clearly he thinks more of his opinion than he should.
Money doesn't make you smart, especially if you're from Texas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120982</id>
	<title>Moron</title>
	<author>great\_snoopy</author>
	<datestamp>1258363980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the index that counts now, it's the users.
Today "searching the internet" is synonymous with google and with "to google". Unlisting from google's index would mean absolutely nothing. Users (usually) do not use google to search for  "Company X". Users usually search for products and services. Take away the first entries and users will click on the following results, eventually buying from the "underdogs". Unsubscribing from google's index would be suicidal from a sales point of view and only a moron or digital era impaired old dinosaur like murdoch could actually believe such a scenario would be good for business.
Not to talk about the fact that 1000 sites is a grain of sand in the desert of google's index.
And not to mention about the proposed sum being too little to bribe giants that could be significant. (1 mil is peanuts for ibm, hp or amazon, for example).
These being said,  this must be  some april fools' joke or that guy is smoking some serious shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the index that counts now , it 's the users .
Today " searching the internet " is synonymous with google and with " to google " .
Unlisting from google 's index would mean absolutely nothing .
Users ( usually ) do not use google to search for " Company X " .
Users usually search for products and services .
Take away the first entries and users will click on the following results , eventually buying from the " underdogs " .
Unsubscribing from google 's index would be suicidal from a sales point of view and only a moron or digital era impaired old dinosaur like murdoch could actually believe such a scenario would be good for business .
Not to talk about the fact that 1000 sites is a grain of sand in the desert of google 's index .
And not to mention about the proposed sum being too little to bribe giants that could be significant .
( 1 mil is peanuts for ibm , hp or amazon , for example ) .
These being said , this must be some april fools ' joke or that guy is smoking some serious shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the index that counts now, it's the users.
Today "searching the internet" is synonymous with google and with "to google".
Unlisting from google's index would mean absolutely nothing.
Users (usually) do not use google to search for  "Company X".
Users usually search for products and services.
Take away the first entries and users will click on the following results, eventually buying from the "underdogs".
Unsubscribing from google's index would be suicidal from a sales point of view and only a moron or digital era impaired old dinosaur like murdoch could actually believe such a scenario would be good for business.
Not to talk about the fact that 1000 sites is a grain of sand in the desert of google's index.
And not to mention about the proposed sum being too little to bribe giants that could be significant.
(1 mil is peanuts for ibm, hp or amazon, for example).
These being said,  this must be  some april fools' joke or that guy is smoking some serious shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117402</id>
	<title>....What?</title>
	<author>Velorium</author>
	<datestamp>1258395900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just stupid unless any of these sites are going downhill already. Opting out of Google would just ensure it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just stupid unless any of these sites are going downhill already .
Opting out of Google would just ensure it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just stupid unless any of these sites are going downhill already.
Opting out of Google would just ensure it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118378</id>
	<title>have fun</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1258398600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>taking the top thousand, Mark.  users will determine the pace of it, ultimately not business.  its as profound as saying "im going to ruin slashdot by taking the top 1000 posters and advertisers!"<br> <br>
if google didnt have a "do no evil" clause, id suggest an app to identify, ostracise, and deter Mark from ever using google or google resources in the future.  Perhaps this would put into perspective just how reliant he is on their financial interface, their API, and their apps which are used in another million other sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>taking the top thousand , Mark .
users will determine the pace of it , ultimately not business .
its as profound as saying " im going to ruin slashdot by taking the top 1000 posters and advertisers !
" if google didnt have a " do no evil " clause , id suggest an app to identify , ostracise , and deter Mark from ever using google or google resources in the future .
Perhaps this would put into perspective just how reliant he is on their financial interface , their API , and their apps which are used in another million other sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>taking the top thousand, Mark.
users will determine the pace of it, ultimately not business.
its as profound as saying "im going to ruin slashdot by taking the top 1000 posters and advertisers!
" 
if google didnt have a "do no evil" clause, id suggest an app to identify, ostracise, and deter Mark from ever using google or google resources in the future.
Perhaps this would put into perspective just how reliant he is on their financial interface, their API, and their apps which are used in another million other sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390</id>
	<title>Motivation?</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1258395840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What TFA is short on is any sense of motivation on Mark Cuban's part. Why does he want to do this? Did Google frighten him when he was a baby?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What TFA is short on is any sense of motivation on Mark Cuban 's part .
Why does he want to do this ?
Did Google frighten him when he was a baby ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What TFA is short on is any sense of motivation on Mark Cuban's part.
Why does he want to do this?
Did Google frighten him when he was a baby?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120588</id>
	<title>Re:Mark's Resume</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1258362360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark was also on <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-simpsons/the-burns-and-the-bees/episode/1237972/summary.html" title="tv.com">The Simpsons</a> [tv.com] after <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/47646/the-simpsons-betting-people" title="hulu.com">Mr. Burns won Austin Celtics</a> [hulu.com] team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark was also on The Simpsons [ tv.com ] after Mr. Burns won Austin Celtics [ hulu.com ] team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark was also on The Simpsons [tv.com] after Mr. Burns won Austin Celtics [hulu.com] team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122706</id>
	<title>What is the point?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258370280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is in it for him? He think Microsoft will give him money? He just got a deathwish?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is in it for him ?
He think Microsoft will give him money ?
He just got a deathwish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is in it for him?
He think Microsoft will give him money?
He just got a deathwish?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</id>
	<title>wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>digitalsushi</author>
	<datestamp>1258395780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll give the top 1000 folks on slashdot who eat bread a nickel never to eat it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give the top 1000 folks on slashdot who eat bread a nickel never to eat it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give the top 1000 folks on slashdot who eat bread a nickel never to eat it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121036</id>
	<title>Hm...</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1258364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Spam googles index with 1000 sites<br>2. Wait for payment to move to microsoft<br>3. Profit<br>4. ????</p><p>(Ok, wrong order but this time the profit comes without extra work on our part....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Spam googles index with 1000 sites2 .
Wait for payment to move to microsoft3 .
Profit4. ? ? ? ?
( Ok , wrong order but this time the profit comes without extra work on our part.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Spam googles index with 1000 sites2.
Wait for payment to move to microsoft3.
Profit4. ????
(Ok, wrong order but this time the profit comes without extra work on our part....)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117412</id>
	<title>Google for "top 1000 list"</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1258395960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem solved.  Or, just link to "top 1000 dunderheads who tried
hiding" off the Google home page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem solved .
Or , just link to " top 1000 dunderheads who tried hiding " off the Google home page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem solved.
Or, just link to "top 1000 dunderheads who tried
hiding" off the Google home page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120400</id>
	<title>No going to happen</title>
	<author>DeadRat4life</author>
	<datestamp>1258404840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>all 1000 would have to leave in order for it to make a difference, and convincing 1000 people to ditch the site that gives them the most traffic would be very hard, even for a million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>all 1000 would have to leave in order for it to make a difference , and convincing 1000 people to ditch the site that gives them the most traffic would be very hard , even for a million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all 1000 would have to leave in order for it to make a difference, and convincing 1000 people to ditch the site that gives them the most traffic would be very hard, even for a million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118544</id>
	<title>The perfect advisor....</title>
	<author>motherjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1258399200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah if I were one of those top sites or even Microsoft, I would want Mark giving me advise.</p><p><a href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/08/markcubandancing.jpg" title="gawker.com" rel="nofollow">http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/08/markcubandancing.jpg</a> [gawker.com]</p><p>Thanks, but errr no thanks.</p><p>Take care,<br>Joe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah if I were one of those top sites or even Microsoft , I would want Mark giving me advise.http : //cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/08/markcubandancing.jpg [ gawker.com ] Thanks , but errr no thanks.Take care,Joe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah if I were one of those top sites or even Microsoft, I would want Mark giving me advise.http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/08/markcubandancing.jpg [gawker.com]Thanks, but errr no thanks.Take care,Joe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118530</id>
	<title>Re:This is a PHANTOM MENACE</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258399140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He is a US citizen too. He only became a US citizen because, as you've correctly pointed out, foreigners can not own US television stations.
<br> <br>
He doesn't care about being a citizen and he only got it because he has money.
<br> <br>
Quite frankly someone should revoke his citizenship for helping spread hate and ignorance through his so called news stations and tell him to fuck off back to Australia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is a US citizen too .
He only became a US citizen because , as you 've correctly pointed out , foreigners can not own US television stations .
He does n't care about being a citizen and he only got it because he has money .
Quite frankly someone should revoke his citizenship for helping spread hate and ignorance through his so called news stations and tell him to fuck off back to Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is a US citizen too.
He only became a US citizen because, as you've correctly pointed out, foreigners can not own US television stations.
He doesn't care about being a citizen and he only got it because he has money.
Quite frankly someone should revoke his citizenship for helping spread hate and ignorance through his so called news stations and tell him to fuck off back to Australia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118612</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258399380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run one of the top 60,000 sites and I'd happily take the million.</p><p>But that's 60x farther down the list than the offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run one of the top 60,000 sites and I 'd happily take the million.But that 's 60x farther down the list than the offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run one of the top 60,000 sites and I'd happily take the million.But that's 60x farther down the list than the offer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120082</id>
	<title>Google's top 1000 sites?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1258403880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's something I don't understand. To have results you have to do a search first. I have several websites that come in the top 1000 list depending on the search word I use.</p><p>Where are my millions, Mr. Cuban?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's something I do n't understand .
To have results you have to do a search first .
I have several websites that come in the top 1000 list depending on the search word I use.Where are my millions , Mr. Cuban ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's something I don't understand.
To have results you have to do a search first.
I have several websites that come in the top 1000 list depending on the search word I use.Where are my millions, Mr. Cuban?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117436</id>
	<title>wow, a whole thousand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the "top 1000" sites accepted the bribe, that wouldn't make much of a dent.  How small does this pilgrim think the internet is?</p><p>And what's to stop Google from re-indexing them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the " top 1000 " sites accepted the bribe , that would n't make much of a dent .
How small does this pilgrim think the internet is ? And what 's to stop Google from re-indexing them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the "top 1000" sites accepted the bribe, that wouldn't make much of a dent.
How small does this pilgrim think the internet is?And what's to stop Google from re-indexing them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117858</id>
	<title>Smoke and Mirrors</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1258397100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know what his motivation is, other than to generate controversy and be a twit, but he's obviously full of shit - he's not even doing it himself. Do a google search for "Mark Cuban" and the third result is his own blog. If he's not even willing to do it, why would anyone else, even for the paltry amount of $1 million? Smoke and mirrors. I'm just curious why.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what his motivation is , other than to generate controversy and be a twit , but he 's obviously full of shit - he 's not even doing it himself .
Do a google search for " Mark Cuban " and the third result is his own blog .
If he 's not even willing to do it , why would anyone else , even for the paltry amount of $ 1 million ?
Smoke and mirrors .
I 'm just curious why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what his motivation is, other than to generate controversy and be a twit, but he's obviously full of shit - he's not even doing it himself.
Do a google search for "Mark Cuban" and the third result is his own blog.
If he's not even willing to do it, why would anyone else, even for the paltry amount of $1 million?
Smoke and mirrors.
I'm just curious why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118636</id>
	<title>Pay the users.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1258399500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always said you'd have to pay me to use Bing. How about bribing 1 million heavy users with $1000 to switch and evangalize about it? That's one epic astroturf right there.
<br> <br>
Nice to know our richest people fail at finding uses for their spare cash that actually benefit the human civilization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always said you 'd have to pay me to use Bing .
How about bribing 1 million heavy users with $ 1000 to switch and evangalize about it ?
That 's one epic astroturf right there .
Nice to know our richest people fail at finding uses for their spare cash that actually benefit the human civilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always said you'd have to pay me to use Bing.
How about bribing 1 million heavy users with $1000 to switch and evangalize about it?
That's one epic astroturf right there.
Nice to know our richest people fail at finding uses for their spare cash that actually benefit the human civilization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119012</id>
	<title>Re:Cry Wolf</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1258400640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know what you mean. Seriously...I think Mr. Cuban expects most people to just pee on themselves to show submission as soon as he walks into a room. Look Mark, we are real sorry your Daddy didn't get you that pony when you were 8. Get over over it dude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what you mean .
Seriously...I think Mr. Cuban expects most people to just pee on themselves to show submission as soon as he walks into a room .
Look Mark , we are real sorry your Daddy did n't get you that pony when you were 8 .
Get over over it dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what you mean.
Seriously...I think Mr. Cuban expects most people to just pee on themselves to show submission as soon as he walks into a room.
Look Mark, we are real sorry your Daddy didn't get you that pony when you were 8.
Get over over it dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124836</id>
	<title>Re:1 million is peanuts</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1258383180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make a million bucks in a coffee break, you can afford to have a long coffee break<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make a million bucks in a coffee break , you can afford to have a long coffee break : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make a million bucks in a coffee break, you can afford to have a long coffee break :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122964</id>
	<title>Wouldn't he have to pay google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure google is one of the top 1000 site. Wouldn't he have to pay google to get google out of google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure google is one of the top 1000 site .
Would n't he have to pay google to get google out of google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure google is one of the top 1000 site.
Wouldn't he have to pay google to get google out of google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30140634</id>
	<title>Is Cuban RELATED to Murdoch?</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257105840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/2234213/Rupert-Murdoch-Says-Google-Is-Stealing-His-Content" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/2234213/Rupert-Murdoch-Says-Google-Is-Stealing-His-Content</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/2234213/Rupert-Murdoch-Says-Google-Is-Stealing-His-Content [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/2234213/Rupert-Murdoch-Says-Google-Is-Stealing-His-Content [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118578</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258399260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope Google goes bankrupt. Microsoft is hardly a good alternative though.  startpage or scroogle are more my style.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>Here's to the downfall of ALL the major tech monopolies! Bye bye!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Google goes bankrupt .
Microsoft is hardly a good alternative though .
startpage or scroogle are more my style .
: DHere 's to the downfall of ALL the major tech monopolies !
Bye bye !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Google goes bankrupt.
Microsoft is hardly a good alternative though.
startpage or scroogle are more my style.
:DHere's to the downfall of ALL the major tech monopolies!
Bye bye!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118300</id>
	<title>Two probs:  anti-trust &amp; chump change</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1258398420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two problems:  for many of the larger sites, one million USD is just not that much money.  Bought loyalty is very fickle.</p><p>Second, while it escaped punishment, Microsoft is still a adjudged (conviced) monopolist.  It has to be careful how it does all business dealings, especially any that might be seen as extending its monopoly.  This move would be very clearly anti-competitive, and even though it is not dominant in the search market, it is in the nearby browser market.  One of these days, MS will slip and they'll go the way of Standard Oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two problems : for many of the larger sites , one million USD is just not that much money .
Bought loyalty is very fickle.Second , while it escaped punishment , Microsoft is still a adjudged ( conviced ) monopolist .
It has to be careful how it does all business dealings , especially any that might be seen as extending its monopoly .
This move would be very clearly anti-competitive , and even though it is not dominant in the search market , it is in the nearby browser market .
One of these days , MS will slip and they 'll go the way of Standard Oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two problems:  for many of the larger sites, one million USD is just not that much money.
Bought loyalty is very fickle.Second, while it escaped punishment, Microsoft is still a adjudged (conviced) monopolist.
It has to be careful how it does all business dealings, especially any that might be seen as extending its monopoly.
This move would be very clearly anti-competitive, and even though it is not dominant in the search market, it is in the nearby browser market.
One of these days, MS will slip and they'll go the way of Standard Oil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638</id>
	<title>Mark's Resume</title>
	<author>MyLongNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1258396500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From wikipedia: "In 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender,[13][14] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software, one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas. He was terminated less than a year later, after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.</p><p>Cuban started a company, MicroSolutions, with support from his previous customers from Your Business Software. MicroSolutions was initially a system integrator and software reseller. The company was an early proponent of technologies such as Carbon Copy, Lotus Notes, and CompuServe.[15] One of the company's largest clients was Perot Systems.[16] In 1990, Cuban sold MicroSolutions to CompuServe--then a subsidiary of H&amp;R Block--for $6 million.[17] He retained approximately $2 million after taxes on the deal.[18]</p><p>In 1995, Cuban and fellow Indiana University alumnus Todd Wagner started Audionet, combining their mutual interest in college basketball and webcasting. With a single server and ISDN line[19], Audionet became Broadcast.com in 1998. By 1999, Broadcast.com had grown to 330 employees and $13.5 million in revenue for the second quarter.[20] In 1999, during the Dot-com boom, Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo! for $5.9 billion in Yahoo! stock.[21]"</p><p>This man is not a business genius. He is a good self-promoter, and has leveraged this to making a  lot of money. Re-read the last couple sentences. he had a business with 13.5 million in revenue in 3 months (not profit... with 330 employees, it was much, much lower). He then sold it for likely a 500+ P/E ratio.</p><p>The tech stock market bubble made this man. I don't disparage him for that. However, any business advice coming from this man is virtually worthless. Self-promotion... he's up there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From wikipedia : " In 1982 , Cuban moved to Dallas , Texas .
Cuban first found work as a bartender , [ 13 ] [ 14 ] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software , one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas .
He was terminated less than a year later , after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.Cuban started a company , MicroSolutions , with support from his previous customers from Your Business Software .
MicroSolutions was initially a system integrator and software reseller .
The company was an early proponent of technologies such as Carbon Copy , Lotus Notes , and CompuServe .
[ 15 ] One of the company 's largest clients was Perot Systems .
[ 16 ] In 1990 , Cuban sold MicroSolutions to CompuServe--then a subsidiary of H&amp;R Block--for $ 6 million .
[ 17 ] He retained approximately $ 2 million after taxes on the deal .
[ 18 ] In 1995 , Cuban and fellow Indiana University alumnus Todd Wagner started Audionet , combining their mutual interest in college basketball and webcasting .
With a single server and ISDN line [ 19 ] , Audionet became Broadcast.com in 1998 .
By 1999 , Broadcast.com had grown to 330 employees and $ 13.5 million in revenue for the second quarter .
[ 20 ] In 1999 , during the Dot-com boom , Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo !
for $ 5.9 billion in Yahoo !
stock. [ 21 ] " This man is not a business genius .
He is a good self-promoter , and has leveraged this to making a lot of money .
Re-read the last couple sentences .
he had a business with 13.5 million in revenue in 3 months ( not profit... with 330 employees , it was much , much lower ) .
He then sold it for likely a 500 + P/E ratio.The tech stock market bubble made this man .
I do n't disparage him for that .
However , any business advice coming from this man is virtually worthless .
Self-promotion... he 's up there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From wikipedia: "In 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas.
Cuban first found work as a bartender,[13][14] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software, one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas.
He was terminated less than a year later, after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.Cuban started a company, MicroSolutions, with support from his previous customers from Your Business Software.
MicroSolutions was initially a system integrator and software reseller.
The company was an early proponent of technologies such as Carbon Copy, Lotus Notes, and CompuServe.
[15] One of the company's largest clients was Perot Systems.
[16] In 1990, Cuban sold MicroSolutions to CompuServe--then a subsidiary of H&amp;R Block--for $6 million.
[17] He retained approximately $2 million after taxes on the deal.
[18]In 1995, Cuban and fellow Indiana University alumnus Todd Wagner started Audionet, combining their mutual interest in college basketball and webcasting.
With a single server and ISDN line[19], Audionet became Broadcast.com in 1998.
By 1999, Broadcast.com had grown to 330 employees and $13.5 million in revenue for the second quarter.
[20] In 1999, during the Dot-com boom, Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo!
for $5.9 billion in Yahoo!
stock.[21]"This man is not a business genius.
He is a good self-promoter, and has leveraged this to making a  lot of money.
Re-read the last couple sentences.
he had a business with 13.5 million in revenue in 3 months (not profit... with 330 employees, it was much, much lower).
He then sold it for likely a 500+ P/E ratio.The tech stock market bubble made this man.
I don't disparage him for that.
However, any business advice coming from this man is virtually worthless.
Self-promotion... he's up there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122444</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1258369320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Yeah if you're one of the top sites on Google a million probably doesn't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does."</p></div></blockquote><p>Your statement assumes that Mark Cuban thinks, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yeah if you 're one of the top sites on Google a million probably does n't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does .
" Your statement assumes that Mark Cuban thinks , despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yeah if you're one of the top sites on Google a million probably doesn't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does.
"Your statement assumes that Mark Cuban thinks, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117546</id>
	<title>Go Google</title>
	<author>DiademBedfordshire</author>
	<datestamp>1258396200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow what a testament to Google. Mark Cuban is basically saying that nobody has a product that could even hope of competing with Google and the only way to conceivably take them down is to bribe their clients with gobs of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow what a testament to Google .
Mark Cuban is basically saying that nobody has a product that could even hope of competing with Google and the only way to conceivably take them down is to bribe their clients with gobs of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow what a testament to Google.
Mark Cuban is basically saying that nobody has a product that could even hope of competing with Google and the only way to conceivably take them down is to bribe their clients with gobs of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30138396</id>
	<title>Slashdot Editors' Plan to RTFA</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1258469040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[This page intentionally left blank]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ This page intentionally left blank ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[This page intentionally left blank]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118706</id>
	<title>You first, Mark</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1258399740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at Mark Cuban's robots.txt file ( <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/robots.txt" title="blogmaverick.com">http://blogmaverick.com/robots.txt</a> [blogmaverick.com] ), I see that he's not blocking Googlebot.  Therefore, he is listed in Google's index.  So why should someone take $1 million from him to leave the Google index when he clearly does not want to leave Google's index himself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at Mark Cuban 's robots.txt file ( http : //blogmaverick.com/robots.txt [ blogmaverick.com ] ) , I see that he 's not blocking Googlebot .
Therefore , he is listed in Google 's index .
So why should someone take $ 1 million from him to leave the Google index when he clearly does not want to leave Google 's index himself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at Mark Cuban's robots.txt file ( http://blogmaverick.com/robots.txt [blogmaverick.com] ), I see that he's not blocking Googlebot.
Therefore, he is listed in Google's index.
So why should someone take $1 million from him to leave the Google index when he clearly does not want to leave Google's index himself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121606</id>
	<title>You can't fight Google using Google!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could just create a few domains, set them as top 1000th, and get the money. It's the best business plan ever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could just create a few domains , set them as top 1000th , and get the money .
It 's the best business plan ever : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could just create a few domains, set them as top 1000th, and get the money.
It's the best business plan ever :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117542</id>
	<title>Chair?</title>
	<author>nighty5</author>
	<datestamp>1258396200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean, it doesn't involve chair throwing!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , it does n't involve chair throwing !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, it doesn't involve chair throwing!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127292</id>
	<title>'Leave the Google index'?</title>
	<author>DomHawken</author>
	<datestamp>1258456920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly do you actually do that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly do you actually do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly do you actually do that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119416</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258401780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.02 each I'll tell you how to find substitutes that won't be cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And for .02 each I 'll tell you how to find substitutes that wo n't be cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for .02 each I'll tell you how to find substitutes that won't be cheating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117908</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>jacksonj04</author>
	<datestamp>1258397220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technical level is easy: <a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=156412" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=156412</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technical level is easy : http : //www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py ? hl = en&amp;answer = 156412 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technical level is easy: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=156412 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117700</id>
	<title>Top 1000 examples:</title>
	<author>ErroneousBee</author>
	<datestamp>1258396680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> That <a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites" title="alexa.com">top 1000</a> [alexa.com] would include:

</p><ul>
<li>Reddit</li>
<li>Digg</li>
<li>wordpress</li>
<li>eBay</li>
<li>amazon</li>
<li>craigslist</li>
<li>youtube</li>
<li>google</li>
</ul><p>All of whom would see an immediate drop in revenues if google stopped indexing them, and some of which are actually google owned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That top 1000 [ alexa.com ] would include : Reddit Digg wordpress eBay amazon craigslist youtube google All of whom would see an immediate drop in revenues if google stopped indexing them , and some of which are actually google owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That top 1000 [alexa.com] would include:


Reddit
Digg
wordpress
eBay
amazon
craigslist
youtube
google
All of whom would see an immediate drop in revenues if google stopped indexing them, and some of which are actually google owned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120826</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258363380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.</i></p><p>Ah, like most shareholder demands for immediate profit in the US, yes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing most of the sites would say no , that 's incredibly short sighted.Ah , like most shareholder demands for immediate profit in the US , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.Ah, like most shareholder demands for immediate profit in the US, yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118230</id>
	<title>Seems like a difficult task to stay removed?</title>
	<author>danking</author>
	<datestamp>1258398240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't Google just rewrite their bots to not broadcast Googlebot as the useragent? Fake it as Firefox or something. I'm sure something similar to this has been argued in court but can a website on the open internet now allow itself to be indexed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't Google just rewrite their bots to not broadcast Googlebot as the useragent ?
Fake it as Firefox or something .
I 'm sure something similar to this has been argued in court but can a website on the open internet now allow itself to be indexed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't Google just rewrite their bots to not broadcast Googlebot as the useragent?
Fake it as Firefox or something.
I'm sure something similar to this has been argued in court but can a website on the open internet now allow itself to be indexed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>shawn(at)fsu</author>
	<datestamp>1258395900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah if you're one of the top sites on Google a million probably doesn't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah if you 're one of the top sites on Google a million probably does n't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah if you're one of the top sites on Google a million probably doesn't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118516</id>
	<title>Mark Cuban's Plan</title>
	<author>PCWizardsinc</author>
	<datestamp>1258399140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good Luck with that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Luck with that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Luck with that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117738</id>
	<title>Your kidding right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am no lawyer or DA but it sounds to me like the Judges will be warming up the bench for this one..  Sounds like a whole slew of laws would be broken.  The ethics of it alone are just bad and if Microsoft was involved in something like this it would be the preverbial straw that broke the camels back.  If Digital Rights Mismanagement and Windows Genuine Disadvantage are not enough to bring this company down as it is, I can see this at the very least as a very good Linux magnet.  People want choice, do not want to be controlled, and do not want to nor need to be shepherded like sheep.  Google is where it is because it works and is easy and when you go to Google it is a simple web page with no insidious graphics, or java scripts or crap.  It is just a simple box the indexes the information in the tubes.  If the Internet were a truck that you dump something on then it would be more likely that Microsoft would prevail as they tend to dump things on us that we don't like regardless, but since it is a series of tubes Google is much better for tube searching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am no lawyer or DA but it sounds to me like the Judges will be warming up the bench for this one.. Sounds like a whole slew of laws would be broken .
The ethics of it alone are just bad and if Microsoft was involved in something like this it would be the preverbial straw that broke the camels back .
If Digital Rights Mismanagement and Windows Genuine Disadvantage are not enough to bring this company down as it is , I can see this at the very least as a very good Linux magnet .
People want choice , do not want to be controlled , and do not want to nor need to be shepherded like sheep .
Google is where it is because it works and is easy and when you go to Google it is a simple web page with no insidious graphics , or java scripts or crap .
It is just a simple box the indexes the information in the tubes .
If the Internet were a truck that you dump something on then it would be more likely that Microsoft would prevail as they tend to dump things on us that we do n't like regardless , but since it is a series of tubes Google is much better for tube searching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am no lawyer or DA but it sounds to me like the Judges will be warming up the bench for this one..  Sounds like a whole slew of laws would be broken.
The ethics of it alone are just bad and if Microsoft was involved in something like this it would be the preverbial straw that broke the camels back.
If Digital Rights Mismanagement and Windows Genuine Disadvantage are not enough to bring this company down as it is, I can see this at the very least as a very good Linux magnet.
People want choice, do not want to be controlled, and do not want to nor need to be shepherded like sheep.
Google is where it is because it works and is easy and when you go to Google it is a simple web page with no insidious graphics, or java scripts or crap.
It is just a simple box the indexes the information in the tubes.
If the Internet were a truck that you dump something on then it would be more likely that Microsoft would prevail as they tend to dump things on us that we don't like regardless, but since it is a series of tubes Google is much better for tube searching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122740</id>
	<title>Oh, Mark Cuban...</title>
	<author>demon</author>
	<datestamp>1258370460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you care so much about Microsoft over Google? What's the angle? Besides, don't you have enough money?</p><p>And, as others have pointed out, Google got where they were because they're (arguably, anyway) better than anything else out there. Why would the top 1000 sites take a one-time $1m payoff, knowing all the search-driven traffic they'd lose, which if they're a top 1000 site, would probably quickly overshadow that $1m? It doesn't make any sense. It'd be like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.</p><p>How about, oh, making a better search engine? That might beat Google. Or maybe Google's just done so well, no one will ever beat them. (Yeah, right.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you care so much about Microsoft over Google ?
What 's the angle ?
Besides , do n't you have enough money ? And , as others have pointed out , Google got where they were because they 're ( arguably , anyway ) better than anything else out there .
Why would the top 1000 sites take a one-time $ 1m payoff , knowing all the search-driven traffic they 'd lose , which if they 're a top 1000 site , would probably quickly overshadow that $ 1m ?
It does n't make any sense .
It 'd be like cutting off one 's nose to spite one 's face.How about , oh , making a better search engine ?
That might beat Google .
Or maybe Google 's just done so well , no one will ever beat them .
( Yeah , right .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you care so much about Microsoft over Google?
What's the angle?
Besides, don't you have enough money?And, as others have pointed out, Google got where they were because they're (arguably, anyway) better than anything else out there.
Why would the top 1000 sites take a one-time $1m payoff, knowing all the search-driven traffic they'd lose, which if they're a top 1000 site, would probably quickly overshadow that $1m?
It doesn't make any sense.
It'd be like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.How about, oh, making a better search engine?
That might beat Google.
Or maybe Google's just done so well, no one will ever beat them.
(Yeah, right.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121152</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1258364760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no no...either leave the seats empty, or send a \_single\_ person decked out in Google gear (no to be confused with ZipZoomFly). Playing for a year in an empty house would be much more demoralizing (and financially damaging) than having the seats filled with oppotistion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no no...either leave the seats empty , or send a \ _single \ _ person decked out in Google gear ( no to be confused with ZipZoomFly ) .
Playing for a year in an empty house would be much more demoralizing ( and financially damaging ) than having the seats filled with oppotistion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no no...either leave the seats empty, or send a \_single\_ person decked out in Google gear (no to be confused with ZipZoomFly).
Playing for a year in an empty house would be much more demoralizing (and financially damaging) than having the seats filled with oppotistion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is, who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name "Broadcast.com" and convincing Yahoo! that it was work ~$6 billion dollars to buy out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is , who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name " Broadcast.com " and convincing Yahoo !
that it was work ~ $ 6 billion dollars to buy out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is, who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name "Broadcast.com" and convincing Yahoo!
that it was work ~$6 billion dollars to buy out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120064</id>
	<title>You got it all wrong</title>
	<author>bgspence</author>
	<datestamp>1258403820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he meant the top 1000 Cuban web  sites</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he meant the top 1000 Cuban web sites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he meant the top 1000 Cuban web  sites</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118170</id>
	<title>Microsoft has been there done that.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1258398060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the web server market place, Microsoft want to play the numbers game and "marketshare" with Apache. So they paid oodles of money to get the hosting providers like Go Daddy and One-on-One(?) to switch to IIS from Apache. So the total number of sites, percentage swung wildly. Take a look at netcraft.com But you dig further and get million most popular sites, there is no swing. Apache at stead 67\%, IIS at steady 25\% or so steadily declining, its loss being gain of google.<p>

Microsoft also included some kind of Cash back scheme to woo sites away from google and into bing!. So it is not anything new. It has not worked so far. But if they throw a billion dollars at it, who knows what would happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the web server market place , Microsoft want to play the numbers game and " marketshare " with Apache .
So they paid oodles of money to get the hosting providers like Go Daddy and One-on-One ( ?
) to switch to IIS from Apache .
So the total number of sites , percentage swung wildly .
Take a look at netcraft.com But you dig further and get million most popular sites , there is no swing .
Apache at stead 67 \ % , IIS at steady 25 \ % or so steadily declining , its loss being gain of google .
Microsoft also included some kind of Cash back scheme to woo sites away from google and into bing ! .
So it is not anything new .
It has not worked so far .
But if they throw a billion dollars at it , who knows what would happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the web server market place, Microsoft want to play the numbers game and "marketshare" with Apache.
So they paid oodles of money to get the hosting providers like Go Daddy and One-on-One(?
) to switch to IIS from Apache.
So the total number of sites, percentage swung wildly.
Take a look at netcraft.com But you dig further and get million most popular sites, there is no swing.
Apache at stead 67\%, IIS at steady 25\% or so steadily declining, its loss being gain of google.
Microsoft also included some kind of Cash back scheme to woo sites away from google and into bing!.
So it is not anything new.
It has not worked so far.
But if they throw a billion dollars at it, who knows what would happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121864</id>
	<title>Would Google *have* to delist the sites?</title>
	<author>Spaceman Spiff II</author>
	<datestamp>1258367460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like anyone ought to be able to put up a web page that happens to link to any website. Google currently provides the courtesy of allowing people to de-list, but are they legally obligated to in some way? On my personal website am I not allowed to link to whatever website I want?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like anyone ought to be able to put up a web page that happens to link to any website .
Google currently provides the courtesy of allowing people to de-list , but are they legally obligated to in some way ?
On my personal website am I not allowed to link to whatever website I want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like anyone ought to be able to put up a web page that happens to link to any website.
Google currently provides the courtesy of allowing people to de-list, but are they legally obligated to in some way?
On my personal website am I not allowed to link to whatever website I want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117498</id>
	<title>How would that affect any legitimate search?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically google would be listing 1000 less pr0n sites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically google would be listing 1000 less pr0n sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically google would be listing 1000 less pr0n sites?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30135160</id>
	<title>Did Mark Cuban Rape and Murder Google in 2009?</title>
	<author>Polimath</author>
	<datestamp>1258453380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is nobody asking the important questions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is nobody asking the important questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is nobody asking the important questions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117748</id>
	<title>Cuban's Broadcast.com is a Microsoft partner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.techagreements.com/agreement-preview.aspx?num=441" title="techagreements.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.techagreements.com/agreement-preview.aspx?num=441</a> [techagreements.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.techagreements.com/agreement-preview.aspx ? num = 441 [ techagreements.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.techagreements.com/agreement-preview.aspx?num=441 [techagreements.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118618</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258399440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has always had a policy of honoring<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/robots.txt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has always had a policy of honoring /robots.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has always had a policy of honoring /robots.txt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118988</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258400580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA covered that, but the thing is that just wouldn't work. A thousand sites out of how many millions of web sites there are? Mark Cuban must be REALLY bad at math. Was he born into money? Because he certainly didn't get rich because of his intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA covered that , but the thing is that just would n't work .
A thousand sites out of how many millions of web sites there are ?
Mark Cuban must be REALLY bad at math .
Was he born into money ?
Because he certainly did n't get rich because of his intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA covered that, but the thing is that just wouldn't work.
A thousand sites out of how many millions of web sites there are?
Mark Cuban must be REALLY bad at math.
Was he born into money?
Because he certainly didn't get rich because of his intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120678</id>
	<title>At Least I know how to read</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its obvious that most posters here either dont know how to read or too lazy to read the post before commenting. For those who are at least literate:</p><p>THis is the post from blogmaverick<br>***********</p><p>And as the Google, Murdoch discussions continue, some people have actually started to recognize there might be something to what I wrote in May of 08</p><p>Is there anything more fun than sitting around, growing your hair, drinking a Bud while listening to Jethro Tull and pondering how to change the balance of power in the search world and unseat Google ?<br>Better search ? Too subjective. Better monetization ? After the fact. Better User Interface ? Will we know it when we see it ? A new and different search ? Semantic ? Human powered ? We won&rsquo;t know till we know.</p><p>But what about the Google Index, all the websites that are indexed by Google ? What is it worth to be in the Google Index ? What would you, as a website owner require in order to remove your site from the Google Index and no longer be available when someone does a google search ?</p><p>It should just be a matter of dollars and cents and sense, shouldn&rsquo;t it ?</p><p>How many websites would have to recuse themselves from the Google Index before Google Search was negatively impacted ?</p><p>Mahalo.com thinks it needs to support the 25k most common search terms in order to be successful. What would happen if MicroSoft or Yahoo or a MicroHoo went to the 5 top results for the top 25k searches and paid them to leave the Google Index ?</p><p>A theoretical maximum of 125k sites, but with overlap, probably closer to 100k or less, times how much per site on average ?</p><p>The math starts to get interesting. At $1,000 per site average times 100k sites, thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars. The distribution would obviously favor the larger sites, so of that billion dollars, would the top 1k sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest ?</p><p>Given the stakes, why stop at $ 1 Billion Dollars ? Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $1mm each, plus a committment from MicroSoft or Yahoo to drive traffic through their search engines to more than make up for the lost Google Traffic. After all, once consumers realized that Google no longer had valid search results for the top 25k searchs, that traffic would most likely go to MicroSoft and Yahoo.</p><p>And why we are at it, why not require that these 100k sites switch from Googles Publisher Network to Yahoo&rsquo;s or MicroSofts ? It would start to earn back the $1 Billion paid out very quickly.</p><p>On top of that, in order to grease the skids even further, why not issue advertising credits to the sites that switched off Google ? Its soft dollars, that would sweeten the pot and drive more traffic.</p><p>IN essence, its no different that any other content aggregation play. Its paying for content . But, It would take some big ones to go for it and see if it worked. However, without question, every search engine has some number of core sites, that when removed from its index , destabilizes the value of its search.</p><p>The question is how many ? What would it cost to get that number of sites to turn Google off and stay off, and would the traffic created as users switch from Google more than compensate for the cost ?</p><p>Or would Google recognize the risk and jump in and offer more to websites to stay ?</p><p>Sure would be interesting to find out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its obvious that most posters here either dont know how to read or too lazy to read the post before commenting .
For those who are at least literate : THis is the post from blogmaverick * * * * * * * * * * * And as the Google , Murdoch discussions continue , some people have actually started to recognize there might be something to what I wrote in May of 08Is there anything more fun than sitting around , growing your hair , drinking a Bud while listening to Jethro Tull and pondering how to change the balance of power in the search world and unseat Google ? Better search ?
Too subjective .
Better monetization ?
After the fact .
Better User Interface ?
Will we know it when we see it ?
A new and different search ?
Semantic ?
Human powered ?
We won    t know till we know.But what about the Google Index , all the websites that are indexed by Google ?
What is it worth to be in the Google Index ?
What would you , as a website owner require in order to remove your site from the Google Index and no longer be available when someone does a google search ? It should just be a matter of dollars and cents and sense , shouldn    t it ? How many websites would have to recuse themselves from the Google Index before Google Search was negatively impacted ? Mahalo.com thinks it needs to support the 25k most common search terms in order to be successful .
What would happen if MicroSoft or Yahoo or a MicroHoo went to the 5 top results for the top 25k searches and paid them to leave the Google Index ? A theoretical maximum of 125k sites , but with overlap , probably closer to 100k or less , times how much per site on average ? The math starts to get interesting .
At $ 1,000 per site average times 100k sites , thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars .
The distribution would obviously favor the larger sites , so of that billion dollars , would the top 1k sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest ? Given the stakes , why stop at $ 1 Billion Dollars ?
Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $ 1mm each , plus a committment from MicroSoft or Yahoo to drive traffic through their search engines to more than make up for the lost Google Traffic .
After all , once consumers realized that Google no longer had valid search results for the top 25k searchs , that traffic would most likely go to MicroSoft and Yahoo.And why we are at it , why not require that these 100k sites switch from Googles Publisher Network to Yahoo    s or MicroSofts ?
It would start to earn back the $ 1 Billion paid out very quickly.On top of that , in order to grease the skids even further , why not issue advertising credits to the sites that switched off Google ?
Its soft dollars , that would sweeten the pot and drive more traffic.IN essence , its no different that any other content aggregation play .
Its paying for content .
But , It would take some big ones to go for it and see if it worked .
However , without question , every search engine has some number of core sites , that when removed from its index , destabilizes the value of its search.The question is how many ?
What would it cost to get that number of sites to turn Google off and stay off , and would the traffic created as users switch from Google more than compensate for the cost ? Or would Google recognize the risk and jump in and offer more to websites to stay ? Sure would be interesting to find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its obvious that most posters here either dont know how to read or too lazy to read the post before commenting.
For those who are at least literate:THis is the post from blogmaverick***********And as the Google, Murdoch discussions continue, some people have actually started to recognize there might be something to what I wrote in May of 08Is there anything more fun than sitting around, growing your hair, drinking a Bud while listening to Jethro Tull and pondering how to change the balance of power in the search world and unseat Google ?Better search ?
Too subjective.
Better monetization ?
After the fact.
Better User Interface ?
Will we know it when we see it ?
A new and different search ?
Semantic ?
Human powered ?
We won’t know till we know.But what about the Google Index, all the websites that are indexed by Google ?
What is it worth to be in the Google Index ?
What would you, as a website owner require in order to remove your site from the Google Index and no longer be available when someone does a google search ?It should just be a matter of dollars and cents and sense, shouldn’t it ?How many websites would have to recuse themselves from the Google Index before Google Search was negatively impacted ?Mahalo.com thinks it needs to support the 25k most common search terms in order to be successful.
What would happen if MicroSoft or Yahoo or a MicroHoo went to the 5 top results for the top 25k searches and paid them to leave the Google Index ?A theoretical maximum of 125k sites, but with overlap, probably closer to 100k or less, times how much per site on average ?The math starts to get interesting.
At $1,000 per site average times 100k sites, thats only $ 1 Billion Dollars.
The distribution would obviously favor the larger sites, so of that billion dollars, would the top 1k sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest ?Given the stakes, why stop at $ 1 Billion Dollars ?
Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $1mm each, plus a committment from MicroSoft or Yahoo to drive traffic through their search engines to more than make up for the lost Google Traffic.
After all, once consumers realized that Google no longer had valid search results for the top 25k searchs, that traffic would most likely go to MicroSoft and Yahoo.And why we are at it, why not require that these 100k sites switch from Googles Publisher Network to Yahoo’s or MicroSofts ?
It would start to earn back the $1 Billion paid out very quickly.On top of that, in order to grease the skids even further, why not issue advertising credits to the sites that switched off Google ?
Its soft dollars, that would sweeten the pot and drive more traffic.IN essence, its no different that any other content aggregation play.
Its paying for content .
But, It would take some big ones to go for it and see if it worked.
However, without question, every search engine has some number of core sites, that when removed from its index , destabilizes the value of its search.The question is how many ?
What would it cost to get that number of sites to turn Google off and stay off, and would the traffic created as users switch from Google more than compensate for the cost ?Or would Google recognize the risk and jump in and offer more to websites to stay ?Sure would be interesting to find out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118592</id>
	<title>Um.</title>
	<author>\_KiTA\_</author>
	<datestamp>1258399320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>But could such a plan ever work?</b></p><p>No.  You can't voluntarily leave the Google Index.  And being found by Googlers is worth more than 1 Million Dollars to these companies.  Now, paying a million so your biggest <i>competitor</i> isn't in the Google Index?  That would be worth a million.</p><p>Simple question, simple answer.  Next clueless rich idiot, please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But could such a plan ever work ? No .
You ca n't voluntarily leave the Google Index .
And being found by Googlers is worth more than 1 Million Dollars to these companies .
Now , paying a million so your biggest competitor is n't in the Google Index ?
That would be worth a million.Simple question , simple answer .
Next clueless rich idiot , please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But could such a plan ever work?No.
You can't voluntarily leave the Google Index.
And being found by Googlers is worth more than 1 Million Dollars to these companies.
Now, paying a million so your biggest competitor isn't in the Google Index?
That would be worth a million.Simple question, simple answer.
Next clueless rich idiot, please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117518</id>
	<title>Get this crap off slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is simple, complete rubbish, spoken by a fool. One million dollars would be nowhere near enough for any profitable site to take itself off the world's biggest search engine, effectively killing future growth.</p><p>Also, assuming these sites aren't in competition with google directly, and most websites aren't, why would they care about trying to knock down Google, for a trivial sum?</p><p>That's it, today is the day I give up on slashdot. Bye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simple , complete rubbish , spoken by a fool .
One million dollars would be nowhere near enough for any profitable site to take itself off the world 's biggest search engine , effectively killing future growth.Also , assuming these sites are n't in competition with google directly , and most websites are n't , why would they care about trying to knock down Google , for a trivial sum ? That 's it , today is the day I give up on slashdot .
Bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is simple, complete rubbish, spoken by a fool.
One million dollars would be nowhere near enough for any profitable site to take itself off the world's biggest search engine, effectively killing future growth.Also, assuming these sites aren't in competition with google directly, and most websites aren't, why would they care about trying to knock down Google, for a trivial sum?That's it, today is the day I give up on slashdot.
Bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119538</id>
	<title>Cuban Has No Such Plans</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1258402200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is bogus. Cuban speculated on it being done, but did not speculate on who would much less claim he intended to himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is bogus .
Cuban speculated on it being done , but did not speculate on who would much less claim he intended to himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is bogus.
Cuban speculated on it being done, but did not speculate on who would much less claim he intended to himself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118970</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1258400520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There's a growing anti-Google movement, in large part being spear-headed by Newscorp." There is a growing anti-Google movement? Murdoch pissing in the wind because he's not making enough money on his empire doesn't count. Where's the evidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's a growing anti-Google movement , in large part being spear-headed by Newscorp .
" There is a growing anti-Google movement ?
Murdoch pissing in the wind because he 's not making enough money on his empire does n't count .
Where 's the evidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's a growing anti-Google movement, in large part being spear-headed by Newscorp.
" There is a growing anti-Google movement?
Murdoch pissing in the wind because he's not making enough money on his empire doesn't count.
Where's the evidence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117996</id>
	<title>Is this the best they can do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258397520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cuban's proposal tells me a lot about his confidence in MS' ability to build a better search engine.  Evidently, he think MS is either not up to the task OR it will cost more than $1B to do it.  Buying customers is for losers who can't get them via conventional means, much as a man might use a prostitute when he can't score any other way.  My guess is that Cuban got the idea from watching Ballmer at a singles bar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuban 's proposal tells me a lot about his confidence in MS ' ability to build a better search engine .
Evidently , he think MS is either not up to the task OR it will cost more than $ 1B to do it .
Buying customers is for losers who ca n't get them via conventional means , much as a man might use a prostitute when he ca n't score any other way .
My guess is that Cuban got the idea from watching Ballmer at a singles bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuban's proposal tells me a lot about his confidence in MS' ability to build a better search engine.
Evidently, he think MS is either not up to the task OR it will cost more than $1B to do it.
Buying customers is for losers who can't get them via conventional means, much as a man might use a prostitute when he can't score any other way.
My guess is that Cuban got the idea from watching Ballmer at a singles bar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121370</id>
	<title>The evil plan</title>
	<author>jimand</author>
	<datestamp>1258365600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Suggest plan to have Microsoft pay $1B to lure the top-1000 sites away from Google.<br>
2. Have your revenue sites, currently ranked between 1001 and 2000 at Google, move to the top 1000.<br>
3. ????<br>
4. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Suggest plan to have Microsoft pay $ 1B to lure the top-1000 sites away from Google .
2. Have your revenue sites , currently ranked between 1001 and 2000 at Google , move to the top 1000 .
3. ? ? ? ?
4. Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Suggest plan to have Microsoft pay $1B to lure the top-1000 sites away from Google.
2. Have your revenue sites, currently ranked between 1001 and 2000 at Google, move to the top 1000.
3. ????
4. Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117982</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258397520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh. I know it's waaay too much to ask, but if you actually read <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/" title="blogmaverick.com">his blog post</a> [blogmaverick.com] it's not a plan at all - just some ideas that he's throwing around. The headline in TFA (and thence TFS) is misleading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh .
I know it 's waaay too much to ask , but if you actually read his blog post [ blogmaverick.com ] it 's not a plan at all - just some ideas that he 's throwing around .
The headline in TFA ( and thence TFS ) is misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh.
I know it's waaay too much to ask, but if you actually read his blog post [blogmaverick.com] it's not a plan at all - just some ideas that he's throwing around.
The headline in TFA (and thence TFS) is misleading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121700</id>
	<title>Free millions!</title>
	<author>morethanapapercert</author>
	<datestamp>1258367040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see many posts to the effect of whether or not this is a good idea or whether or not this constitutes bribery. Here's my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.02$ worth: <p>
1) it it is a horribly BAD idea.</p><p>
a) any business that could use the million would probably be cutting thier own throats. (Can a million buy enough advertising to make up the lost new customers that dropping off the Google radar would cost you? I doubt it)</p><p>
b) The top 1000 is not a static list. Granted, there might not be a lot of change-over, players like Yahoo!, NASDAQ etc will always have a place, but motherjones.com, w3schools.com etc are not so secure in thier position. If a site is on the top 1000 for a week, does it get an offer too?</p><p>
c) As others have pointed out, it might give Bing a bad rep for "buying" it's prominence. </p><p>
d) Is this deal going to be a lifetime agreement? Does it cover alternate domain names etc? I can't imagine any company agreeing to keep any domain and any web accessible pages out of Google's index in perpetuity. </p><p>
2) it's not bribery, it's perfectly legal chicanery. If I want to pay Mike's Rustproofing a sum to never again use print media advertising in any form (I do so hate windshield fliers! and the owner agrees, that is perfectly legal, even if other customers have no objection to the fliers or even derive some benefit from them. I would argue that such a deal is even in the public interest, since many of us hate windshield fliers and tat collection of fliers, pamphlets and newspaper inserts that cover our porches like dead leaves. The chicanery comes in if I happen to own shares in a rival rust proofing company, or, as in this case, I own shares in another advertising medium.

Personally, I'm surprised and slightly disappointed in my fellow slashdotters. I for one hope this deal becomes a reality, because then a cool million U$ is just a googlebomb away! Get out there and get busy crafting the perfect googlebomb* guys!
</p><p>


*a suggestion for the perfect googlebomb: Try to get the profile pages of the top 500 slashdotters (measured by whatever criteria you like, lifetime karma rating, total number of posts, lowest 500 UID's whatever) into the top 1000 of google. Make a pre-arranged agreement that any slashdotter whose profile makes it into the top 1000 will use 10\% of the free money to buy gift subscriptions for the rest of us! That's 20,000 subscriptions at the standard rate. We would only need 50 sucessfully googlebombed profiles to be able to buy subscriptions for everybody here! Hell, we could probably even buy a subscription for our most prolific member AC if we felt like being nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see many posts to the effect of whether or not this is a good idea or whether or not this constitutes bribery .
Here 's my .02 $ worth : 1 ) it it is a horribly BAD idea .
a ) any business that could use the million would probably be cutting thier own throats .
( Can a million buy enough advertising to make up the lost new customers that dropping off the Google radar would cost you ?
I doubt it ) b ) The top 1000 is not a static list .
Granted , there might not be a lot of change-over , players like Yahoo ! , NASDAQ etc will always have a place , but motherjones.com , w3schools.com etc are not so secure in thier position .
If a site is on the top 1000 for a week , does it get an offer too ?
c ) As others have pointed out , it might give Bing a bad rep for " buying " it 's prominence .
d ) Is this deal going to be a lifetime agreement ?
Does it cover alternate domain names etc ?
I ca n't imagine any company agreeing to keep any domain and any web accessible pages out of Google 's index in perpetuity .
2 ) it 's not bribery , it 's perfectly legal chicanery .
If I want to pay Mike 's Rustproofing a sum to never again use print media advertising in any form ( I do so hate windshield fliers !
and the owner agrees , that is perfectly legal , even if other customers have no objection to the fliers or even derive some benefit from them .
I would argue that such a deal is even in the public interest , since many of us hate windshield fliers and tat collection of fliers , pamphlets and newspaper inserts that cover our porches like dead leaves .
The chicanery comes in if I happen to own shares in a rival rust proofing company , or , as in this case , I own shares in another advertising medium .
Personally , I 'm surprised and slightly disappointed in my fellow slashdotters .
I for one hope this deal becomes a reality , because then a cool million U $ is just a googlebomb away !
Get out there and get busy crafting the perfect googlebomb * guys !
* a suggestion for the perfect googlebomb : Try to get the profile pages of the top 500 slashdotters ( measured by whatever criteria you like , lifetime karma rating , total number of posts , lowest 500 UID 's whatever ) into the top 1000 of google .
Make a pre-arranged agreement that any slashdotter whose profile makes it into the top 1000 will use 10 \ % of the free money to buy gift subscriptions for the rest of us !
That 's 20,000 subscriptions at the standard rate .
We would only need 50 sucessfully googlebombed profiles to be able to buy subscriptions for everybody here !
Hell , we could probably even buy a subscription for our most prolific member AC if we felt like being nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see many posts to the effect of whether or not this is a good idea or whether or not this constitutes bribery.
Here's my .02$ worth: 
1) it it is a horribly BAD idea.
a) any business that could use the million would probably be cutting thier own throats.
(Can a million buy enough advertising to make up the lost new customers that dropping off the Google radar would cost you?
I doubt it)
b) The top 1000 is not a static list.
Granted, there might not be a lot of change-over, players like Yahoo!, NASDAQ etc will always have a place, but motherjones.com, w3schools.com etc are not so secure in thier position.
If a site is on the top 1000 for a week, does it get an offer too?
c) As others have pointed out, it might give Bing a bad rep for "buying" it's prominence.
d) Is this deal going to be a lifetime agreement?
Does it cover alternate domain names etc?
I can't imagine any company agreeing to keep any domain and any web accessible pages out of Google's index in perpetuity.
2) it's not bribery, it's perfectly legal chicanery.
If I want to pay Mike's Rustproofing a sum to never again use print media advertising in any form (I do so hate windshield fliers!
and the owner agrees, that is perfectly legal, even if other customers have no objection to the fliers or even derive some benefit from them.
I would argue that such a deal is even in the public interest, since many of us hate windshield fliers and tat collection of fliers, pamphlets and newspaper inserts that cover our porches like dead leaves.
The chicanery comes in if I happen to own shares in a rival rust proofing company, or, as in this case, I own shares in another advertising medium.
Personally, I'm surprised and slightly disappointed in my fellow slashdotters.
I for one hope this deal becomes a reality, because then a cool million U$ is just a googlebomb away!
Get out there and get busy crafting the perfect googlebomb* guys!
*a suggestion for the perfect googlebomb: Try to get the profile pages of the top 500 slashdotters (measured by whatever criteria you like, lifetime karma rating, total number of posts, lowest 500 UID's whatever) into the top 1000 of google.
Make a pre-arranged agreement that any slashdotter whose profile makes it into the top 1000 will use 10\% of the free money to buy gift subscriptions for the rest of us!
That's 20,000 subscriptions at the standard rate.
We would only need 50 sucessfully googlebombed profiles to be able to buy subscriptions for everybody here!
Hell, we could probably even buy a subscription for our most prolific member AC if we felt like being nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117912</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1258397220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does that count tortillas and pita too? Because if not... I'M IN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that count tortillas and pita too ?
Because if not... I 'M IN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that count tortillas and pita too?
Because if not... I'M IN!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122574</id>
	<title>Prisoner's dilemma</title>
	<author>glacote02</author>
	<datestamp>1258369740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This would trivially fail as even if the top 1000 sites were to agree to leave Google, each one would *individually* have interest in betraying the plot and staying.

I.e. the bribe price shall not be the *average* but the rational price of betrayal, which is much higher, and actually increases with the number of participants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would trivially fail as even if the top 1000 sites were to agree to leave Google , each one would * individually * have interest in betraying the plot and staying .
I.e. the bribe price shall not be the * average * but the rational price of betrayal , which is much higher , and actually increases with the number of participants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would trivially fail as even if the top 1000 sites were to agree to leave Google, each one would *individually* have interest in betraying the plot and staying.
I.e. the bribe price shall not be the *average* but the rational price of betrayal, which is much higher, and actually increases with the number of participants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118388</id>
	<title>Re:Would this even work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>robots.txt comes to mind, assuming google honors it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>robots.txt comes to mind , assuming google honors it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>robots.txt comes to mind, assuming google honors it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30128130</id>
	<title>Don't forget about SEC charges of insider trading</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1258468920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Important part of his resume, IMO:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark\_Cuban#Insider\_trading\_allegations" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark\_Cuban#Insider\_trading\_allegations</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Important part of his resume , IMO : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark \ _Cuban # Insider \ _trading \ _allegations [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Important part of his resume, IMO:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark\_Cuban#Insider\_trading\_allegations [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120160</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>tdyer</author>
	<datestamp>1258404120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't about Cuban paying. it is about MSFT paying sites to be "exclusive" to bing.

Calacanis and Cuban have been developing this thought ever since murdoch said he was going to de-index the wsj.

the idea is to allow content creators to monetize the site by creating partnerships with Bing and allowing Bing to advertise, "if you want the best news, search with bing" or something like that. This way it drives market share to Bing, which then pays back to the content creator.

Lets face the facts. if the 1001st site is geocities then you aint gonna click it regardless of whether google lists it number 1.

If google results are crap people will leave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about Cuban paying .
it is about MSFT paying sites to be " exclusive " to bing .
Calacanis and Cuban have been developing this thought ever since murdoch said he was going to de-index the wsj .
the idea is to allow content creators to monetize the site by creating partnerships with Bing and allowing Bing to advertise , " if you want the best news , search with bing " or something like that .
This way it drives market share to Bing , which then pays back to the content creator .
Lets face the facts .
if the 1001st site is geocities then you aint gon na click it regardless of whether google lists it number 1 .
If google results are crap people will leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about Cuban paying.
it is about MSFT paying sites to be "exclusive" to bing.
Calacanis and Cuban have been developing this thought ever since murdoch said he was going to de-index the wsj.
the idea is to allow content creators to monetize the site by creating partnerships with Bing and allowing Bing to advertise, "if you want the best news, search with bing" or something like that.
This way it drives market share to Bing, which then pays back to the content creator.
Lets face the facts.
if the 1001st site is geocities then you aint gonna click it regardless of whether google lists it number 1.
If google results are crap people will leave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122702</id>
	<title>One... MILLION... Dollars!</title>
	<author>EEBaum</author>
	<datestamp>1258370220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think perhaps he's watched too much Austin Powers, or not enough...<br>
<br>
Now if he offered 100 BILLION dollars, he might get some takers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think perhaps he 's watched too much Austin Powers , or not enough.. . Now if he offered 100 BILLION dollars , he might get some takers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think perhaps he's watched too much Austin Powers, or not enough...

Now if he offered 100 BILLION dollars, he might get some takers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</id>
	<title>So, the question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258395780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it worth $1 million to leave Google?  I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it worth $ 1 million to leave Google ?
I 'm guessing most of the sites would say no , that 's incredibly short sighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it worth $1 million to leave Google?
I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125086</id>
	<title>I think he should do it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258385400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark Cuban would be a billion dollars poorer, presumably the EU would relieve him of a bit more. Bing would still suck. And we could point it out for ever more as an example of extreme stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Cuban would be a billion dollars poorer , presumably the EU would relieve him of a bit more .
Bing would still suck .
And we could point it out for ever more as an example of extreme stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Cuban would be a billion dollars poorer, presumably the EU would relieve him of a bit more.
Bing would still suck.
And we could point it out for ever more as an example of extreme stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118768</id>
	<title>Re:This is a PHANTOM MENACE</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1258399920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Aren't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets?</i></p><p>From <a href="http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/PracticeNote.1803.html" title="ictregulationtoolkit.org">here</a> [ictregulationtoolkit.org]: "The U.S. Department of Treasury's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews the national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies.  CFIUS is an interagency group composed of major Executive Branch departments, agencies and offices, including the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security, which reviews foreign investment submissions under the authority of the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950.  This act grants the President authority to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States...</p><p>The President can only exercise his authority under the Exon-Florio provision if he finds that: (a) credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and (b) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect national security...</p><p>Although ultimately approved, a number of ICT transactions have undergone CFIUS review in the past few years, including: the NTT Communications purchase of Verio; the transaction between IBM and Lenovo, one of the leading IT companies in China; and the sale of Global Crossing to Hutchinson."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets ? From here [ ictregulationtoolkit.org ] : " The U.S. Department of Treasury 's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ( CFIUS ) reviews the national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies. CFIUS is an interagency group composed of major Executive Branch departments , agencies and offices , including the Departments of Defense , State , Treasury , Commerce and Homeland Security , which reviews foreign investment submissions under the authority of the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950 .
This act grants the President authority to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition , merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States...The President can only exercise his authority under the Exon-Florio provision if he finds that : ( a ) credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security , and ( b ) the provisions of law , other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect national security...Although ultimately approved , a number of ICT transactions have undergone CFIUS review in the past few years , including : the NTT Communications purchase of Verio ; the transaction between IBM and Lenovo , one of the leading IT companies in China ; and the sale of Global Crossing to Hutchinson .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't there laws against foreign interests owning critical national assets?From here [ictregulationtoolkit.org]: "The U.S. Department of Treasury's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews the national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies.  CFIUS is an interagency group composed of major Executive Branch departments, agencies and offices, including the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security, which reviews foreign investment submissions under the authority of the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950.
This act grants the President authority to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States...The President can only exercise his authority under the Exon-Florio provision if he finds that: (a) credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and (b) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect national security...Although ultimately approved, a number of ICT transactions have undergone CFIUS review in the past few years, including: the NTT Communications purchase of Verio; the transaction between IBM and Lenovo, one of the leading IT companies in China; and the sale of Global Crossing to Hutchinson.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127204</id>
	<title>Re:wow, a whole million?</title>
	<author>panaceaa</author>
	<datestamp>1258455780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article and he's exactly proposing paying off the top 1000 sites.  Direct quote: "Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $1mm each?"  Sure, then he pontificates... what if the top 100k sites also got a cut?  But he doesn't suggest <b>anything</b> besides paying off sites, the largest getting nearly $1mm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article and he 's exactly proposing paying off the top 1000 sites .
Direct quote : " Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $ 1mm each ?
" Sure , then he pontificates... what if the top 100k sites also got a cut ?
But he does n't suggest anything besides paying off sites , the largest getting nearly $ 1mm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article and he's exactly proposing paying off the top 1000 sites.
Direct quote: "Would the top 1k most visited sites take a cool $1mm each?
"  Sure, then he pontificates... what if the top 100k sites also got a cut?
But he doesn't suggest anything besides paying off sites, the largest getting nearly $1mm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118846</id>
	<title>Re:So, the question is...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258400160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason he makes an offer like this is that he can rest secure in the knowledge that NO ONE will ever take him up on it.  It's a publicity stunt.</p><p>He thinks he's thrown down a gauntlet to Google and presented them with a threat which they must now look at Very Seriously.  Meanwhile, Google board members are suffering from minor asphyxiation because they are laughing so hard.</p><p>I would not be at all surprised to learn that Google just finished a mock castle wall on their campus, with a cardboard cutout of Cuban standing below in full Arthurian regalia.  Google employees would be encouraged to spend their breaks sitting at the top of the castle wall and blowing raspberries and making odd reference to hamsters and elderberries.</p><p>"Now go, or I shall taunt you a second time!"</p><p>In the interests of property damage and humane treatment of animals, their trebuchet will probably be limited to throwing hamburgers rather than whole cows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason he makes an offer like this is that he can rest secure in the knowledge that NO ONE will ever take him up on it .
It 's a publicity stunt.He thinks he 's thrown down a gauntlet to Google and presented them with a threat which they must now look at Very Seriously .
Meanwhile , Google board members are suffering from minor asphyxiation because they are laughing so hard.I would not be at all surprised to learn that Google just finished a mock castle wall on their campus , with a cardboard cutout of Cuban standing below in full Arthurian regalia .
Google employees would be encouraged to spend their breaks sitting at the top of the castle wall and blowing raspberries and making odd reference to hamsters and elderberries .
" Now go , or I shall taunt you a second time !
" In the interests of property damage and humane treatment of animals , their trebuchet will probably be limited to throwing hamburgers rather than whole cows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason he makes an offer like this is that he can rest secure in the knowledge that NO ONE will ever take him up on it.
It's a publicity stunt.He thinks he's thrown down a gauntlet to Google and presented them with a threat which they must now look at Very Seriously.
Meanwhile, Google board members are suffering from minor asphyxiation because they are laughing so hard.I would not be at all surprised to learn that Google just finished a mock castle wall on their campus, with a cardboard cutout of Cuban standing below in full Arthurian regalia.
Google employees would be encouraged to spend their breaks sitting at the top of the castle wall and blowing raspberries and making odd reference to hamsters and elderberries.
"Now go, or I shall taunt you a second time!
"In the interests of property damage and humane treatment of animals, their trebuchet will probably be limited to throwing hamburgers rather than whole cows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456</id>
	<title>Can he even afford it? Do sites even care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sites like CNN would LAUGH at an offer of $1 million. What a total joke.<br>On the other hand, for loser websites ranked 987th, it might be interesting, but would them off Google make any difference? Hell no it won't. Nobody would ever notice, except maybe the webmaster.</p><p>This is doomed to be an EPIC FAIL.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Also, ironicly, giving every site the same amount no matter their worth, you know what that sounds like?<br>*echo effect*<br><b> KHOMMUNI$M !!!!!</b><br>*/echo effect*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sites like CNN would LAUGH at an offer of $ 1 million .
What a total joke.On the other hand , for loser websites ranked 987th , it might be interesting , but would them off Google make any difference ?
Hell no it wo n't .
Nobody would ever notice , except maybe the webmaster.This is doomed to be an EPIC FAIL .
... Also , ironicly , giving every site the same amount no matter their worth , you know what that sounds like ?
* echo effect * KHOMMUNI $ M ! ! ! ! !
* /echo effect *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sites like CNN would LAUGH at an offer of $1 million.
What a total joke.On the other hand, for loser websites ranked 987th, it might be interesting, but would them off Google make any difference?
Hell no it won't.
Nobody would ever notice, except maybe the webmaster.This is doomed to be an EPIC FAIL.
... Also, ironicly, giving every site the same amount no matter their worth, you know what that sounds like?
*echo effect* KHOMMUNI$M !!!!!
*/echo effect*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117614</id>
	<title>oh well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I search with Google.  If a site is not in that index, Oh well....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I search with Google .
If a site is not in that index , Oh well... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I search with Google.
If a site is not in that index, Oh well....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117830</id>
	<title>recursively or non-recursively?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1258397040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, because 10 minutes after they left the Google index, they're not top-1000 sites anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , because 10 minutes after they left the Google index , they 're not top-1000 sites anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, because 10 minutes after they left the Google index, they're not top-1000 sites anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119554</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>donut1005</author>
	<datestamp>1258402260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And good riddance!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And good riddance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And good riddance!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117854</id>
	<title>Mark Cuban, own of the Dallas Mavericks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258397100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the text of this article determined my Google ad on the main page: an upcoming interview with Sarah Palin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the text of this article determined my Google ad on the main page : an upcoming interview with Sarah Palin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the text of this article determined my Google ad on the main page: an upcoming interview with Sarah Palin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30185454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30128130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30128572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_1631232_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30128572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30185454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30125348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30122636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30126034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117908
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30127754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30119292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30128130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30120588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30121950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30118342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_1631232.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30117394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_1631232.30124700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
